Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/1992CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Mayor — Jay C. !Gm 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 218+65 East Copley Drive ease re Dinfrom: srnoking, eating or drinkingip the CouncilChambers MEETING DATE: JANUARY 21, 1992 Robert L. Van Nort City Manager Andrew V. Arczynski City Attorney MEETING TIME: CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 P.M. Lynda Burgess REGULAR SESSION - 6:00 P.M. City Clerk Co#�les ar staff reports or other. wrltt9 .donvM0 ft t on relating: to eec ito ............ errer#'to on _thio agQnda are as file int the ani the C tj/ Cletrc and hre a�ra�laWe far pubkc: ins tion If vo ha�ra quesiioas..' regarding ars agenda 1 rkphase Fantod the t;ity C#erk, ai V1Y 86t! 2400:000 busu ss hours. The City of Diamond Bar uses RECYCLED oaner and encouraom 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. 5:00 P.M. Litigation - Personnel - 2. CALL TO ORDER: CLOSED SESSION Government Code Section 54956.9 Government Code Section 54957.6 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: Next Resolution No. 92-01 Next Ordinance No. 1 (1992) 6:00 p.m. Mayor Kim Councilmen Forbing, Miller, Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Mayor Kim 3. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Councilmembers are for Council discussion. Direction may be given at this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a future meeting. 4. 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. Tease complete a SnAxkar,a t%M.W9 .-A ..,.... a` -A-- is a five minute -ma imum time limit when ouncil. addressing the Cite C 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. 5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE MEETINGS: 5.1.1 HERITAGE PARK COMMUNITY BUILDING MEETING - January 22, 1992 - 7:00 p.m., Community Room, 5.1.2 1061 S. Grand Ave. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - January 23, 1992 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.3 GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - January 23, 1992 - 7:00-9:30 p.m., AQMD Room CC -2, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.4 GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - January 25, 1992 - 8:00-11:00 a.m., AQMD Room CC -2, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.5 PLANNING COMMISSION - January 27, 1992 - 7:00 P.M., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.6 GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - February 1, 1992 - 8:00-11:00 a.m., AQMD Room CC -2, 21865 E. Copley Dr. JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE 2 5.1.7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - February 4, 1992 - 6:00 P.M., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 WARRANT REGISTER - Approve Warrant Register dated January 21, 1992 in the amount of $172,786.51. 5.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 5.3.1 REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 17, 1992 -Approve as submitted. 5.3.2 REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 - Approve as submitted. 5.4 TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of December, 1991 - Receive and file. 5.5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of December 9, 1991 - Receive and file. 5.6 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of December 12, 1991 - Receive and file. 5.7 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of December 12, 1991 - Receive and file. 5.8 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXCHANGE OF PROPOSITION A (LOCAL RETURN TRANSIT FUNDS) FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA GENERAL FUNDS - The City has $400,000 of uncommitted Prop. A Local Return Funds for FY 1991-92 and proposes to exchange said funds with the City of Santa Clarita at the rate of $0.65 on the dollar in general funds. The exchange does not severely impact the City's transportation needs. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 92 -XX authorizing and approving the exchange of Prop. A Funds for City of Santa Clarita General Funds. 5.9 PIERMARINI PROJECT FINAL MAP - Approval of Tract Map No. 47722, located at 1800 Diamond Knoll In., west of Derringer Ln. and north of Ridgeline Rd. in The Country. Recommended Action: (1) Approve Tract Map No. 47722; (2) authorize the Mayor to execute the Subdivision Agreement; (3) authorize the City Engineer to sign the map; and (4) direct the City Clerk to process the map for recordation. 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - PROCLAMATIONS, CBRTIFICATBS, BTC. 6.1 PROCLAMATION - Proclaiming the Month of February, 1992 as "American Heart Association Month"- To be accepted by Marya Basrai, Communications Chairman, Diamond Bar Branch, American Heart Association. JANUARY 21, 1992 7. 8. NEW BUSINESS: PAGE 3 7.1 "NO PARKING" SIGN ON COLIMA RD. - The Department of Public Works was directed to investigate the possibility of installing "No Parking" signs, with a two-hour limit, on Colima Rd. between Gona Ct. and the west end of the shopping center. The Traffic & Transportation Commission considered the matter on December 12, 1991 and recommended denial. Recommended Action: The Traffic & Transportation Commission recommends that the current "No Parking" sign on Colima Rd. between Gona Ct. and the west end of the shopping center remain without change. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:00 P.M. OR AS SOON THEREAPTER AS MATTERS CAN BE HEARD. 8.1 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22102, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO (2) PARCELS LOCATED AT 1575 VALLEY VISTA DRIVE - LOT 13, TRACT 30379 AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - Bryan Stirrat & Associates request approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 for a minor subdivision to create two lots from one 4.39 acre parcel located at 1575 S. Valley Vista Dr. in the Gateway Corporate Center. Recommended Action: Open the Public Hearing, receive testimony and adopt Resolution No. 92 -XX approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102, the Negative Declaration and the application for a minor subdivision to create two (2) parcels. 8.2 EXTENSION OF INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 8A(1991): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR EXTENDING THE TERM OF AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 8 (1991) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 65858 AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - Over the past several months, discussions have taken place between the City Council, City Staff, a Sheriff's Department representative, and members of the community with respect to the fact that admission charge parties are becoming a problem in several neighborhoods within the community. This type of party typically involves younger people, such as fraternities, sororities or other such groups and organizations, as well as young persons whose parents or guardians are absent from their residences. Recommended Action: Open the Public Hearing, receive public testimony and adopt Interim ordinance No. 8A(1991) extending the term of Ordinance No. 8(1991). JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE 4 8.3 ORDINANCE NO. (1992) - 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 - Consideration of an ordinance to prohibit admission -charge parties and other similar commercial activities in residential zones. Recommended Action: Open the Public Hearing, receive public testimony and introduce for first reading by title only Ordinance No. X (1992). 8.4 TENTATIVE TRACTS 47850, 47851 AND 48487 - Applicants D.B. Associates and Dr. Al LaPeter have submitted a request for approval of a three tract residential subdivision for development of 120 lots on 160 acres in SEA No. 15, certification of a Master Environmental Impact Report, and removal of 44 oak trees. Recommended Action: Open the Public Hearing, receive public testimony and approve vesting Tentative Tract Maps 47850, 47851 and 48487 and certification of Master EIR 91-2 via attached Planning Commission Resolutions of Approval. 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 10. ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ) The Diamond Bar City Council will hold a Closed Session at 5:00 p.m. and 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, January 21, 1992. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I, LYNDA BURGESS, declare as follows: I am the City Clerk in the City of Diamond Bar; that a copy of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council, to be held on January 21, 1992 was posted at their proper locations. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 17, 1992 at Diamond Bar, California. /s/ Lynda Burgess LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar DATE: TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT: fa..2JRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO. City Clerk -- /?6 J— I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written/Above. C--- `ZS NOTE: All Signature persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all to address the Council are recognised and su ensure that names in the Minutes.Persons wishing correct spelling of I expect to address Lrie Council Minutes reflect my name and address as w 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. DATE: TO: FROM: ADDRESS: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ESS REGARDING AGENDA ITEM City Clerk ORGANIZATION: 1/4 SUBJECT: expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the I P name and address as ritten,�bo� Council Minutes reflect my S Council. This NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the Cityrsons wishing form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all P root spelling of fo to address the Council are recognized and to ensure cor names in the Minutes. DATE: TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS .r..'� '�•• •• REGARDING AGENDA ITEM City Clerk I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. ? Signature NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the Cityii. This form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all parsons ng 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.15�3_ DATE: [ - I ` C�- I TO: City Clerk I FROM: �A � n ,n, r1.� © R e J ADDRESS: ((Co l -1 S L t. Ago 11-�r4 2 CA Ct (1 ( 0 ORGANIZATION: ✓ W Pr-% 7 -IE- 1 ►J U s r -Q-' Q SUBJECT : ?r S i'-Yv,,¢3 / /1 r Q- 7 I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as w tten ova. 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. VEST TO ADDRE VOLSS THE UNTAREQ Y RITEM NO._-- REGARDING AGENDA r DATE: City Clerk NN FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT: nda item. Please have the on th subject ag above. address as written I expect to address the Council and , Council Minutes reflect my ignature Council. This the City wishing s and nadrg that all persons NOTE: All persons may attend meeor q n ensuring ellinq of form is intended to assist the May to address the Council are recognised and to ensure correct s names in the Minutes. DATE: TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO._Y City Clerk f) f14 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 recognised 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: 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. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO. 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. DATE: TO: City -Clerk -AT4 FROM: tiJ ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: �(JMGPP P� VA' JE, y � j.1j al l T�(-?N JocI L-1 r l-� -� SUBJECT: /. �c 1 r,� r -7c I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address a written above. Signature NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNC:`_.- REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO. - DATE : lY; TO: City Clerk FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name awl address as wri,n.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. DATE: TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE C3�TY COUNC REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO. f a ` IA' / , City Clerk rim, I expect to address the Council on'the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Siqnature 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: _ Z— TO: City Clerk y FROM: y ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT:�� I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address wtten above. Signature NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE C=Y/COUNCIL REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE: TO: City Clerk FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: 1,I) %'� 671 A I - SUBJECT : 1 1�1 "� 4 T( z C -FQ AC ; S I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name anaddres�a�,,wr,,itten above. Signature NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE: /-, I G Z -- TO: TO: City Clerk FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT: L4 I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE: 1.2 .2 " TO: CityR&A Clerk. FROM: yok4 m 'm ADDRESS: mwip D AA mr- AN A RAQ ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. pledsrTiMe the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. 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 recognised and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. 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. PPM °rk-% ep Il o14-. bUstnees %"pori. G � eet4t V -4"1 RSkee( dnf re,ertni 4„ P Cer44nc�,;j a( 0Pa'- roe" on 5-aY4 Ave- kn'4; j 'W 0-r r- 1 .tea; PP 0.o concerhe,� 0job".2, c."s to Sztt�a t 46W't2e4euwM$_ed 5. �.`�P report re M°Prbab of pro jec-- rex - Me&44r, 5:00 P.M. Litigation - Personnel - CALL TO ORDER: CLOSED SESSION Government Code Section 54956.9 Government Code Section 54957.6 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilmembers are for given at this meeting o at a future meeting. Next Resolution No. 92-01 Next Ordinance No. 1 (1992) :05 0 P. M. Mayor Kim Councilmen Forbing Miller, Werner, Mayor Pro Tem PapeiY-, Mayor Kim`'-, Items raised by individual Council discussion. Direction may be r the item may be scheduled for action PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an opport unity for members of the public to directly address the Coun cil 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. Q.t *A.;-4 -k me . CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Pp- r�, �,'c'�� aha _ 5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE MEETINGS: he4r,r`9 P114pened 5.1.1 HERITAGE PARK COMMUNITY BUILDING MEETING - Ltfti; January 22, 1992 - 7:00 p.m., Community Room, 1061 S. Grand Ave. - 5.1.2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - January 23, �kcreQfC P9C 1992 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. M. on ��a3 4�t, 7prn 5.1.3 GENERALCopleyDPLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - January 23, 011 fC Video 1992 - 7:00-9:30 p.m., AQMD Room CC -2, 21865 pr"M40-4101 & F'PPC E. Copley Dr. ra#rons. 5.1.4 GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - January 25, =(0�r Aarnw W,' kdntW 1992 - 8:00-11:00 a.m. , AQMD Room CC -2, 21865 *#-S,g, E. Copley Dr. "am Loren t- oris eh.uid 5.1.5 PLANNING COMMISSION - January 27, 1992 - 7:00 n4C., C*'4'^d re xrncap Trce, p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. r"CL., 5.1.6 GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - February 1, 1992 - 8:00-11:00 a.m., AQMD Room CC -2, 21865 n'l" 7 -w, -,q- 4.n E. Copley Dr. �n be 4,74 L��h�-a re- pu sem. i•�s rne-r�%ewed Vii q,(y(�1 r� ® r c�L�-ZG Ss F(Y _�` es nn - .��-V �o �• 44J Q wa,, Cw. . rc, ad eVetd o nX� a- t? 901-F- C4 -CA rs e . 5.1.7 CITY COUNCIL MUETING - February 4, 1992 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 WARRANT REGISTER - Approve Warrant Register dated January C6ris�' '"d�- 21, 1992 in the amount of $172,786.51. 5.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 1 5.3.1 REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 17, 199P - Approve QQ jr, as submitted. 5.3.2 REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 - Approve ra ( „-w QP J L as submitted. 5.4 TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of December, 1991 - Receive and file. 5.5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of December 9, 1991 - Receive and file. PP, JIG 5.6 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of December 12, 1991 - Receive and file. 5.7 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of December 12, 1991 - Receive and file. Qt04" (4Or'5.8 RESOLUTION NO. 92-91: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF .,4ta9' r" THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AND re APPROVING THE EXCHANGE OF PROPOSITION A (LOCAL RETURN TRANSIT FUNDS) FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA GENERAL 4L Z eyv,cea, FUNDS - The City has $400,000 of uncommitted Prop. A G.W Local Return Funds for FY 1991-92 and proposes to exchange said funds with the City of Santa Clarita at the rate of $0.65 on the dollar in general funds. The - v exchange does not severely impact the City's P9,G+r1� transportation needs. Jk Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 92 -XX authorizing and approving the exchange of Prop. A Funds for City of Santa Clarita General Funds. 5.9 PIERMARINI PROJECT FINAL MAP - Approval of Tract Map No. 47722, located at 1800 Diamond Knoll Ln., west of Derringer Ln. and north of Ridgeline Rd. in The Country. Recommended Action: (1) Approve Tract Map No. 47722; (2) authorize the Mayor to execute the Subdivision Agreement; (3) authorize the City Engineer to sign the map; and (4) direct the City Clerk to process the map for recordation. 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC. Dan &'W_1_ft* 6,�1� PROCLAMATION - Proclaiming the Month of February, 1992 as "American Heart Association Month"- To be accepted by Communications Chairman, Diamond Bar Branch, American Heart Association. 7. NEW BUSINESS: 7.1 "NO PARKING" SIGN ON COLIMA RD. - The Department of Public Works was directed to investigate the possibility of installing "No Parking" signs, with a two-hour limit, 19/x`' _ on Colima Rd. between Gona Ct. and the west end of the 54- shopping center. The Traffic & Transportation Commission considered the matter on December 12, 1991 and hk�l recommended denial. �OYII ��'�tz. —3308 Recommended Action: The Traffic & Transportation �awt<woed �2d, .serLcL Commission recommends that the current "No Parking" sign rn ' plc, 4e ?' 6-7-. on Colima Rd. between Gona Ct. and the west end of the WAD.4F shopping center remain without change. , 12PP `�ki8. 'PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:00 P.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS MATTERS CAN J1c.— tS9 BE HEARD. 8.1 RESOLUTION NO. 9 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL party typically involves younger people, such as OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP fraternities, sororities or other such groups and NO. 22102, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND AN APPLICATION FOR ��� S'iS A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO (2) PARCELS LOCATED AT guardians are absent from their residences. 1575 VALLEY VISTA DRIVE - LOT 13, TRACT 30379 AND MAKING (e Co mm FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - Bryan Stirrat & Associates Recommended Action: Open the Public Hearing, receive request approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 for public testimony and adopt Interim Ordinance No. 8A(1991) a minor subdivision to create two lots from one 4.39 acre extending the term of Ordinance No. 8(1991). parcel located at 1575 S. Valley Vista Dr. in the Gateway ORDINANCE NO!�(1992) - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Corporate Center. C�Lrr'(L� 11 �e�'IC -7: Sty !�one. : ecommended Action: Open the Public Hearing, receive PERTAINING TO ADMISSION CHARGE PARTIES IN RESIDENTIAL testimony and adopt Resolution No. 92 -XX approving ZONES - Consideration of an ordinance to prohibit Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102, the Negative Declaration L`ndA' d the application for a minor subdivision to create two L("4, (2) parcels. Recommended Action: Open the Public Hearing, receive No one, 8.2 EXTENSION OF INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 8A(1991): AN Ctased_ P 6( ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR (' EXTENDING THE TERM OF AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE, GAA.)^dei+ kn Q -dor �l� ORDINANCE NO. 8 (1991) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF P O( CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 65858 AND MAKING FINDINGS IN - kno F SUPPORT THEREOF - Over the past several months, P�, discussions have taken place between the City Council, J k..- Cit Staff a Sheriff I s Department representative, and I members of the community with respect to the fact that admission charge parties are becoming a problem in we.nQ�0(. several neighborhoods within the community. This type of t'�o ane party typically involves younger people, such as fraternities, sororities or other such groups and _ n organizations, as well as young persons whose parents or 41W guardians are absent from their residences. P P - 6 a))) r, Recommended Action: Open the Public Hearing, receive Pj0) J k public testimony and adopt Interim Ordinance No. 8A(1991) extending the term of Ordinance No. 8(1991). '3 8.3 ORDINANCE NO!�(1992) - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Gutted P }� OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 22.76 TO !�one. THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED, C.&ez{ PERTAINING TO ADMISSION CHARGE PARTIES IN RESIDENTIAL A.UQ&?Q-t ZONES - Consideration of an ordinance to prohibit Pio admission -charge parties and other similar commercial ,_(;;v 1ractivities eJFM, in residential zones. top� Recommended Action: Open the Public Hearing, receive public testimony and introduce for first reading by title onlyOrdinance No. X (1992). �r' U UV �1 -��� 4 TENTATIVE TRACT 47850, 47851 AN,.(,�848��7 Applicants D.B. �� • Associates and Dr. a e er have -submitted a request for approval of a three tract residential subdivision for development of 120 lots on 160 acres in SEA No. 15, a_ t.._dr . certification of a Master Environmental Impact Report, i 3 ls��a '"end removal of 44 oak trees. Recommended Action: Open the Public Hearing, receive k'e-)- 16; , public testimony and approve vesting Tentative Tract Maps ,�SQjG� �AssoC, 47850, 47851 and 48487 and certification of Master EIR 91-2 via attached Planning Commission Resolutions of Approval. 1 _ ' 9, ANNOUNCEMENTS �y�3 l� 10. ADJOURNMENT 9(L�� L.,' — �� �e �: • ss -6(j6 -&d fid, =- .�.c ,e. -4o -Z� ire ►'T� 1'YU.55.c o r1 -- �A.r�.c�.Q FZ4,• ` 'ew/di35 A--- CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. T_ L TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council MEETING DATE: January 21, 1992 REPORT DATE: January 16, 1992 FROM: Robert L. VanNort City Manager TITLE: Extension of Interim Ordinance No. 8(1991) Pertaining to admission charge parties in residential zones. SUMMARY: Over the past several months, there has been discussion by the City Council, City Staff, Sheriffs Department representatives, and members of the community with respect to the fact that admission charge parties are becoming a problem in several neighborhoods within the community. This type of party typically involves 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 an ordinance, entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR EXTENDING THE TERM OF AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 8(1991) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 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 X Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? 4/5 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ 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: SHERIFF REVIEWED BY: Robert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger James DeStefan City Manager Assistant City Manager Community De elopment Director CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: January 21, 1992 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Extension of Interim Ordinance No. 8(1991) pertaining to admission charge parties in residential zones. ISSUE STATEMENT: Over the past several months, there has been discussion of the City Council, City Staff, Sheriff's Department representatives, and members of the community with respect to the fact that admission charge parties are becoming a problem in several neighborhoods within the community. This type of party typically involves 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 an ordinance, entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR EXTENDING THE TERM OF AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 8(1991) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. 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 parties are becoming a problem in several neighborhoods within the community. 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 and require as a form of admission, the payment of some tangible benefit to the party host such as, bringing alcoholic beverages, food, payment of a fee. The enforcement of this kind of activity through the Zoning Ordinance provides an effective enforcement tool to the Sheriff's Department in either stopping the party in advance of its being held, or to stop the party while it is in progress. The ideal situation would be to dissuade individuals from allowing a 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 Ordinance is to prevent and/or diffuse flyer parties in residential zones in the City of Diamond Bar. On December 17, 1991, the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 8(1991) prohibiting admission charge parties in residential zones. The City Council adopted the interim ordinance in order to prepare and review a permanent Ordinance. The Planning Commission reviewed a proposed Zoning Code Amendment pertaining to admission charge parties in residential zones on January 13, 1992. The Interim Ordinance will expire on January 31, 1992, unless extended. The extension of the Interim Ordinance is proposed to remain in place until the effective date of a nermanent ordinannp_ PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: This project has been advertised within the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on January 8, 1992. PREPARED BY: L --(D James DeS efano ATTACHMENTS: Report on Actions No. 8(1991) JDS\mco Taken Following Adoption of Ordinance Ordinance No. 8 (1991) C: \WP51\AGENDA\ORD8 (91).AGD CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEMORANDUM DATE: January 16, 1992 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Dir 4i&�_� SUBJECT: Report on Actions Taken Following Adoption of Ordinance No. 8(1991). Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Section 65858 (d) and at the express direction of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, the following constitutes a written report of the City Council concerning those measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of Ordinance No. 8(1991). BACKGROUND: 1. On December 17, 1991, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 8 (1991) entitled "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, Adopting an Interim Zoning Ordinance Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 (b) and Making Findings in Support Thereof." Said Ordinance No. 8 (1991) adopted interim zoning regulations, effective for no longer than forty-five (45) days pertaining to Admission Charge Parties in Residential Zones. Pursuant to the requirements of said Section 65858, Ordinance No. 8 (1991) was adopted by the City Council upon its finding that continued use of admission charge parties in residential zones within the City would result in an immediate threat to public health, safety or welfare. 2. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 (b), ten (10) days prior to the expiration of any interim ordinance, adopted pursuant to the terms of said section, the City Council shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of such interim zoning ordinance. 3. On December 17, 1991, at a meeting of the City Council of the city of Diamond Bar, the City Council was presented with an oral and written staff report concerning the adoption of said Ordinance No. 8 (1991). At said meeting and following said staff report, the City Council authorized and directed staff to prepare a written report concerning the actions taken following the adoption of Ordinance No. 8 (1991). ACTIONS TAKEN: Following the adoption of Ordinance No. 8 (1991), the following actions have been taken relative to the interim zoning regulations: The City Council adopted an Interim Zoning Ordinance on December 17, 1991. Following the adoption of Ordinance No. 8 ()1991) the City Staff has continued to develop the General Plan and formulate specific amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission on January 13, 1991, considered the merits of a City initiated request to add a new Chapter 22.76 to the Los Angeles County Code pertaining to admission charge parties in residential zones. The Commission discussed the merits of the proposed ordinance and have forwarded a 2-2 vote to the City Council for consideration. JDS\mco C:1 W P51 \WORK\ORD-8(91. MEM ORDINANCE NO. 8A (1991) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR EXTENDING THE TERM OF AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 8 (1991) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 65858 AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California and, on that date, the City Council adopted, by reference, the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City, including Title 22 thereof pertaining to Planning and Zoning Regulations for the City of Diamond Bar. (Hereinafter said Title 22 shall be referred to as "the Zoning Ordinance.") (ii) On December 17, 1991, pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 65858(a), this City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 8 (1991) adopting interim zoning regulations pertaining to commercial parties in all residential zones. (iii) Pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 65858(d) this City Council issued its written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of Ordinance No. 8 (1991) at least ten (10) days prior to the expiration of Ordinance No. 8 (1991). 1 (iv) A duly noticed public hearing as required by California Government Code Section 65858(a) was conducted and concluded prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does ordain as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. Section Z. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the adoption of this Ordinance is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Section 3. The City Council finds and determines that the development of proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are continuing; however, such development of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance cannot be completed prior to the expiration of Ordinance No. 8 (1991). Section 4. The City Council hereby specifically finds that there have occurred in the recent past and will continue to occur in the future commercial parties in residential zones, the occurrence of which would contradict the ultimate goals and 2 objectives of the General Plan and would not be subject to adequate local control under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance unless Ordinance No. 8 (1991) is extended and, further, that the occurrence of any such uses under the current provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in an immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare of persons and property within the City of Diamond Bar. Section 5. Ordinance No. 8 (1991) of the City of Diamond Bar, as heretofore enacted under the authority of California Government Code Section 65858(a), hereby is extended and shall be of no further force and effect as of the 17th day of December, 1991, the City Council has extended said Ordinance in the manner provided in said Section 65858(a). Section 6. This ordinance hereby is declared to be an urgency measure pursuant to the terms of California Government Code Section 65858(a) and this Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in three (3) public places within the City of Diamond Bar pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. 89-6. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 21st day of January, 1992. Mayor 3 I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 21st day of January, 1992, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 21st day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk City of Diamond Bar LUGUJORD8A91 4 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. 3 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council MEETING DATE: January 21, 1992 REPORT DATE: January 16, 1992 FROM: Robert L. VanNort, City Manager TITLE: ZCA 92-1, A City initiated request to add a new Chapter 22.76 to the Los Angeles County Code pertaining to admission charge parties in residential zones. SUMMARY: Consideration of an ordinance to prohibit admission charge parties and other similar commercial activities in residential zones. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council introduce for first reading by title only, with further reading of the ordinance to be waived an 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. 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 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? X Yes _ No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes _ No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: SHERIFF REVIEWED BY: Robert L. Van Nort Terrence L. a ger Mmes DeStefano City Manager Assistant Cit anager Community Development Director C: WP51\AGENDA\ZCA92-1.COV CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council MEETING DATE: January 21, 1992 REPORT DATE: January 16, 1992 FROM: Robert L. VanNort, City Manager TITLE: ZCA 92-1, A City initiated request to add a new Chapter 22.76 to the Los Angeles County Code pertaining to admission charge parties in residential zones. SUMMARY: Consideration of an ordinance to prohibit admission charge parties and other similar commercial activities in residential zones. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council introduce for first reading by title only, with further reading of the ordinance to be waived an 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. 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 by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 415 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: �4t A Robert L. Van Nort City Manager C: WP51\AGENDA%ZCA92-1.00V r '7 Terrence L. Ber�ger Assistant City Manager X Yes No MAJORITY X Yes _ No X Yes No X Yes _ No SHERIFF 1: James DeStefano Community Development Director MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. January 21, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City Manager ZCA 92-1, A City initiated request to add a new Chapter 22.76 to the Los Angeles County Code pertaining to admission charge parties in residential zones. ISSUE STATEMENT: Consideration of an ordinance to prohibit admission -charge parties and other similar commercial activities in residential zones. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance, entitled, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 22.76 TO THE LOST 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 parties are becoming a problem in several neighborhoods within the community. This type of party typically involves young people, fraternities, sororities, and other such groups and organizations, as well as, young people whose parents or guardians are absent from their residence. This type of admission charge party can and does 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 and require as a form of admission, the payment of some tangible benefit to the party host such as, bringing alcoholic beverages, food, payment of a fee. The enforcement of this kind of activity through the Zoning Ordinance provides an effective enforcement tool to the Sheriff's Department in either stopping the party in advance of its being held, or to stop the party while it is in progress. The ideal situation would be to dissuade individuals from allowing a 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. The purpose of the Ordinance is to prevent and/or diffuse flyer parties in residential zones in the City of Diamond Bar. On December 17, 1991, the City Council adopted an Interim Ordinance pertaining to admission charge parties in residential zones. The Interim Ordinance will remain in place for a minimum of 45 days and is likely to be extended in order to permit the adoption of Zoning Code Amendment No. 92-1. The Planning Commission reviewed ZCA 92-1 on January 13, 1992. The Commission did not recommend approval or denial of the proposed ordinance. The commission, based upon a 2-2 vote, forwarded no recommendations to the Council. See attached draft minutes from Planning Commission Meeting of January 13, 1992. Attached to this report is a copy of the Ordinance Amendment as prepared by the City Attorney's office and reviewed by the Sheriff's Department. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The Amendment to the Zoning Code will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore is not subject to the requirements of CEQA pursuant to the provisions of Section 15061(b)(3) of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: This project has been advertised within the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on January 8, 1992. PREPARED BY: ames DeSte ano ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance Highlander article Draft minutes of Planning Commission meeting of January 13, 1992. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ZCA 92-1 CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding a City initiated request to add a new Chapter 22.76 to the Los Angeles County Code pertaining to admission charge parties in residential zones. 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. These parties are advertized by means of flyers, occur when a parent or guardian is not home, include alcoholic beverages, and charge an admission fee of either food, alcoholic beverages, or payment of a fee. The purposes of the Ordinance is to prevent and/or diffuse flyer parties in residential zones in the City of Diamond Bar. On December 17, 1991, the City Council adopted an Interim Ordinance pertaining to admission charge parties in residential zones. The Interim Ordinance will remain in place for a minimum of 45 days and is likely to be extended in order to permit the adoption of Zoning Code Amendment No. 92-1. Staff recommended that the Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending approval of ZCA 92-1 which amends the existing County Code by adding Chapter 22.76 pertaining to admission charge parties in residential zones. C/Flamenbaum requested that the item be tabled to the next meeting to allow the Commission sufficient time to review the ordinance. He requested that the Commission receive the agendas in a more timely manner. The Public Hearing was declared open. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Lte. Mike Muravez, from the Walnut Sheriff Station, stated that the purpose of this Ordinance was to eliminate a problem wherein there are parties conducted in residential areas, charging admission, and being advertized via "flyers", bringing in a large volume of persons and traffic into the residential area. The parties cause some peripheral problems that usually drains the manpower, and disrupts the peace and tranquility of such residential areas. Lte. Muravez, in response to a series of inquiries from the Commission, made the following comments: within a 6 month period, there have been about 10 to 12 parties conducted; the manpower needed varied from about 2 officers to as many as 25; for enforcement purposes, the Ordinance does not infringe upon normal activity in a residential zone, but provides that people participating in a commercial venture in a residential zone are subject to enforcement; the Ordinance makes the activity illegal and enforcement action can be taken when such parties began; civil remedies can be used for long term knowledge that such activities are going on, or if the persons persisted in having these activities, you would then seek civil remedies to restrain them from any future activities; the Ordinance is perceived as a technique to prevent a dangerous action before it occurs; and most of the time the parties are given purely for commercial reason. C/Harmony, having misgivings with the language of the ordinance, stated that it opens itself for interpretations that are not specifically related to "flyer" parties, and preventing a clear and present dangerous situation. He noted that the definition of an "admission charge", a tangible benefit monetary or otherwise, and the definition of "party", 3 or more persons meeting together for social recreational or amusement purposes, would include a lot of categories that are obvious exceptions, such "Tupperware Parties", "Wine Tasting Parties", functions occurring at Churches, and so forth. The Sheriff Department already has the authority to go after situations that present a clear and present danger, and to seek injunctions against repeated actions. Lte. Muravez, in response to Chair/Grothe, explained that once this Ordinance was passed, any party brought to our attention, the Sheriff Department would contact those persons, tell them about the law, and check early on to make sure the law was being obeyed. This action has a deterred effect for those that wanted to have a commercial venture. DCA/Curley, in response to C/Harmony's concern, stated that his office believes that the current structure of the Ordinance is both constitutionally firm, and able to be reasonably interpreted. There is no way to construct a manageable Ordinance to define virtually every aspect that could happen. Normal common sense would come into the enforcement of this. However, it the Commission wants to see further refinement, we will be as responsive as you may want us to be in the areas you point out. C/Schey inquired how the City's ordinances address commercial ventures in residential zones in general. DCA/Curley stated that, generally, what's not permitted in a zoning ordinance is prohibited. The question arises when an activity is done that is not expressly prohibited. C/Schey, concurring with C/Harmony, stated that he has no problem with someone having a party, even if they charge admission, as long as it is not unruly. He stated that he does not see the purpose of the Ordinance. C/Flamenbaum concurred with C/Harmony in terms of the ambiguity that is found in this Ordinance. Acknowledging the need for some regulation for "flyer" parties, he suggested that the Ordinance needs to contain a definition of a "flyer" party, how it ties together with the admission charge, and perhaps exclude, by name and type, organizations that are excluded. Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, and seconded by C/Harmony to table the matter for two weeks, with direction to staff to amend accordingly. C/Schey stated that he is leery of ordinances that are drafted to address a problem, and necessitate clarifying all the aspects of that problem that you don't want to regulate. C/Harmony withdrew his second to C/Flamenbaum's motion. Chair/Grothe stated that he concurs that the Sheriff Department should be given the opportunity to break up some of these functions, and prior to them happening, using good judgement. He suggested that a clause could be included, that the Ordinance expires after a time and gets reviewed. C/Schey indicated that he is not convinced that it is a legitimate for the Sheriff Department to take action prior to a problem erupting. Chair/Grothe seconded C/Flamenbaum's motion to table the matter, with direction to staff to amend accordingly. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum and Chair/Grothe. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Schey and Harmony. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride. The Motion FAILED for lack of a majority. DCA/Curley advised that if the Commission desires no further action, the lack of approval is a denial. That denial will be the recommendation. Upon discussion, the Commission concurred to take no further action, and that the lack of approval is a denial. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar that a public hearing will be conducted by the City Council on Tuesday, January 21, 1992, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Auditorium of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, located 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, for the purpose of considering Ordinance No. X (1992), a City initiated request to add a new Chapter 22.76 to the Los Angeles Code, as heretofore adopted by the City of Diamond Bar, pertaining to admission charge parties in residential zones. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, and the administrative regulations promulgated thereunder, the City has determined that the project (Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment) is exempt from CEQA pursuant to (California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3)). ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and provide their comments and testimony on the matter specified above. APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 100 Diamond Bar, California 91765 FURTHER INFORMATION may be obtained from the City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100, Diamond Bar, California, or by calling (714) 860-2489. DATED: January 8, 1992 Js/ Lynda Burgess LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar CITY OF DIAMOND BAR �� MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ZCA 92-1 CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding a City initiated request to add anew Chapter 22.76 to the Los Angeles County Code pertaining to admission charge parties in residential zones. 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. These parties are advertized by means of flyers, occur when a parent or guardian is not home, include alcoholic beverages, and charge an admission fee of either food, alcoholic beverages, or payment of a fee. The purposes of the Ordinance is to prevent and/or diffuse flyer parties in residential zones in the City of Diamond Bar. On December 17, 1991, the City Council adopted an Interim Ordinance pertaining to admission charge parties in residential zones. The Interim ordinance will remain in place for a minimum of 45 days and is likely to be extended in order to permit the adoption of Zoning Code Amendment No. 92-1. Staff recommended that the Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending approval of ZCA 92-1 which amends the existing County Code by adding Chapter 22.76 pertaining to admission charge parties in residential zones. C/Flamenbaum requested that the item be tabled to the next meeting to allow the Commission sufficient time to review the ordinance. He requested that the Commission receive the agendas in a more timely manner. c Hearin was declared open. a� The Publi g p �� The Public Hearing was declared closed. Lte. Mike Muravez, from the Walnut Sheriff Station, stated that the purpose of this Ordinance was to eliminate a problem wherein there are parties conducted in residential areas, charging admission, and being advertized via "flyers", bringing in a large volume of persons and traffic into the residential area. The parties cause some peripheral problems that usually drains the manpower, and disrupts the peace and tranquility of such residential areas. Lte. Muravez, in response to a series of inquiries from the Commission, made the following comments: within a 6 month period, there have been about 10 to 12 parties conducted; the manpower needed varied from about 2 officers to as many as 25; for enforcement purposes, the Ordinance does not infringe upon normal activity in a residential zone, but provides that people I � J participating in a commercial venture in a residential zone are subject to enforcement; the Ordinance makes the activity illegal and enforcement action can be taken when such parties began; civil remedies can be used for long term knowledge that such activities are going on, or if the persons persisted in having these activities, you would then seek civil remedies to restrain them from any future activities; the Ordinance is perceived as a technique to prevent a dangerous action before it occurs; and most of the time the parties are given purely for commercial reason. C/Harmony, having misgivings with the language of the ordinance, stated that it opens itself for interpretations that are not specifically related to "flyer" parties, and preventing a clear and present dangerous situation. He noted that the definition of an "admission charge", a tangible benefit monetary or otherwise, and the definition of "party", 3 or more persons meeting together for social recreational or amusement purposes, would include a lot of categories that are obvious exceptions, such "Tupperware Parties", "Wine Tasting Parties", functions occurring at Churches, and so forth. The Sheriff Department already has the authority to go after situations that present a clear and present danger, and to seek injunctions against repeated actions. Lte. Muravez, in response to Chair/Grothe, explained that once this Ordinance was passed, any party brought to our attention, the Sheriff Department would contact those persons, tell them about the law, and check early on to make sure the law was being obeyed. This action has a deterred effect for those that wanted to have a lt�xg commercial venture. DCA/Curley, in response to C/Harmony's concern, stated that his. office believes that the current structure of the Ordinance is both constitutionally firm, and able to be reasonably interpreted. There is no way to construct a manageable Ordinance to define virtually every aspect that could happen. Normal common sense would come into the enforcement of this. However, it the Commission wants to see further refinement, we will be as responsive as you may want us to be in the areas you point out. C/Schey inquired how the City's ordinances address commercial ventures in residential zones in general. DCA/Curley stated that, generally, what's not permitted in a zoning ordinance is prohibited. The question arises when an activity is done that is not expressly prohibited. C/Schey, concurring with C/Harmony, stated that he has no problem with someone having a party, even if they charge admission, as long as it is not unruly. He stated that he does not see the purpose of the Ordinance. C/Flamenbaum concurred with C/Harmony in terms of the ambiguity that is found in this Ordinance. Acknowledging the need for some regulation for "flyer" parties, he suggested that the Ordinance needs to contain a definition of a "flyer" party, how it ties together with the admission charge, and perhaps exclude, by name and type, organizations that are excluded. Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, and seconded by C/Harmony to table the matter for two weeks, with direction to staff to amend accordingly. C/Schey stated that he is leery of ordinances that are drafted to address a problem, and necessitate clarifying all the aspects of that problem that you don't want to regulate. C/Harmony withdrew his second to C/Flamenbaum's motion. Chair/Grothe stated that he concurs that the Sheriff Department should be given the opportunity to break up some of these functions, and prior to them happening, using good judgement. He suggested that a clause could be included that the Ordinance expires after a time and gets reviewed. C/Schey indicated that he is not convinced that it is a legitimate for the Sheriff Department to take action prior to a problem erupting. Chair/Grothe seconded C/Flamenbaum's motion to table the matter, with direction to staff to amend accordingly. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum and Chair/Grothe. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Schey and Harmony. Oft 5�\ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride. IDW The Motion FAILED for lack of a majority. DCA/Curley advised that if the Commission desires no further action, the lack of approval is a denial. That denial will be the recommendation. Upon discussion, the Commission concurred to take no further action, and that the lack of approval is a denial. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M DATE: January 2, 1992 TO: Mayor Kim and City Council FROM: Tommye Nie \ Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: City Council Minutes of December 17, 1951 Attached, for your information, are the Minutes from the December 17, 1991 meeting. Due to the City Clerk being out of the office, the Minutes were unable to be edited and placed for approval on the January 7, 1992 agenda. The Minutes will be on the January 21, 1992 agenda for your review and final approval. cc: City Manager Attachment MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL [)" R AFT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DECEMBER 17, 1991 1. CLOSED SESSION: Litigation - Section 54956.9 Personnel - Section 54957.6 No reportable actions taken. 2. CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: M/Kim called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers, AQMD Auditorium,.21865 E. Copley Dr. The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Kim. Mayor Kim, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen Werner, Miller and Forbing. Also present were Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager; Terrence L. Belanger, Assistant City Manager; William P. Curley III, Deputy City Attorney; James DeStefano, Director of Community Development; Sid Mousavi, City Engineer and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 3. SWEARING-IN OF MAYOR City Clerk Lynda Burgess PRO TEM -ELECT administered the oath of office to PHYLLIS E. PAPEN: Mayor Pro Tem -Elect Phyllis Papen. 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: None offered. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The following persons who reside at Heritage Park Senior Apartments, 23750 Highland Valley Rd., expressed appreciation to the Council for the Holiday Shuttle Program: Francisca J. Vela Sally L. Varvaro Carol Spriggs 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Werner moved, C/Miller seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Miller, Werner, MPT/Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN - None DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 2 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. 6.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of December 3, 1991 - Approved as submitted. 6.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Approved Warrant Register dated December 17, 1991 in the amount of $352,683.18. 6.4 TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of November 1991 - Received and filed. 6.5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6.5.1 REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1991 - Received and filed. 6.5.2 REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 1991 - Received and filed. 6.6 NOTICE OF COMPLETION - TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT GRAND AVE. AND ROLLING KNOLL DR. - Accepted work performed by Hovey Electric, Inc. and authorized City Clerk to file Notice of Completion. 6.7 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 91-74: 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. 6.8 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 91-75: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY COORDINATED PARATRANSIT NETWORK. 6.9 CROSSING GUARD SERVICES AT LEMON AVE. & COLIMA RD. - Approved provision to crossing guard services. 6.10 CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - 6.10.1 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FILED BY SHELLY SCHOENBERGER November 27, 1991 - Denied. 6.10.2 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FILED BY AL RUMPILLA November 7, 1991 - Denied. DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 3 6.11 CONSENT TO GRANT SECURITY INTEREST TO JONES INTERCABLE - Authorized Mayor to execute a letter of consent granting a security interest in the franchise owned by Jones Intercable providing them with the ability to enter into financial arrangements with various lending institutions. 6.12 REDESIGNATION OF ENFORCEMENT AGENCY - Authorized the Mayor to execute a Letter of Affirmation redesignating L.A. County Department of Health Services as the City's Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) with respect to enforce- ment, inspection and permitting of solid waste facilities in the City, due to recent changes in State law. 7. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC., 7.1 CITY TILE - Presented City Tile to Sgt. Rod Morris, the Walnut/San Dimas Sheriff's Station "Reserve Coordinator of the Year" for 1991 as designated by the California Reserve Peace Officers Association. 7.2 CITY TILE - Due to her inability to attend the meeting, M/Kim requested staff to mail the City Tile to Grace Lin in appreciation for her service on the Planning Commission. 8. NEW BUSINESS: 8.1 CONSIDERATION OF MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS - CM/Van Nort stated that the Council had adopted Resolution No. 90-40 establishing the 1991-92 Fiscal Budget, and that based on the fact that the budget is a "living document, " it is necessary to monitor and evaluate its implementa- tion during the course of the year. Following discussion, M/Kim requested that staff come back to Council in 90 days to report on the impact of the street sweeping cutback from weekly to bi-weekly. Martha Bruske, 600 Great Bend Dr., concerned about the reduction of the Sheriff's activities, particularly a Sheriff's unit at Diamond Bar Blvd. and Goldrush and asked what other reductions have been made? Ms. Bruske further stated that she has called City Hall many times, and has yet to receive a response to her concerns and suggested that possible reductions at City Hall be in order. CM/Van Nort stated that the Sheriff's Department will be operating with one-man cars in lieu of two-man cars, which means that there will still be the same number of cars. CM/Van Nort went on to state that the City has been reassured that there is a traffic problem at that intersection with speeders. However, he will have the Sheriff's Department prepare a report as to why they feel DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 4 that intersection is important to enforce. Further, CM/Van Nort asked for specifics so that he can investi- gate her allegations and respond. C/Werner moved, C/Forbing seconded to approve the Mid -Year Budget adjustments as presented. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, Werner, Forbing, MPT/Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 8.2 ORDINANCE NO. 8 (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. DCA/Curley stated that the purpose of this urgency ordinance is to respond to and prohibit "flyer parties," which are parties that charge admission and are advertised by flyers or other postings inviting people to attend, which sometimes causes a raucous. This issue has been discussed by staff and Sheriff's representatives. Lt. Michael E. Muravez, of Walnut Sheriff's station stated that they endorse the ordinance which would prohibit parties at private residences that advertise. It has been the Sheriff's experience that such parties are very disruptive to the normal activities that go on in residential districts and attracts people from a wide ranging area depending on how flyers are distributed. M/Kim asked about the incident that occurred in the community about two weeks ago that ended in the death of an individual. Lt. Muravez stated that during a party, such as the one described in the ordinance, an incident occurred on Bregante, where some individuals who did not want to pay the fee and were therefore refused admission, later returned and allegedly fired a fatal shot at the individual who had had a prior argument with them. C/Papen requested that the City Attorney discuss the exemptions that are in the proposed ordinance, specifically where parties can be advertised and admission charged. DCA/Curley, stated that "admission charge" means a tangible benefit monetary or otherwise which is expressly or impliedly required as a condition of admittance to a party. It would not include donations for political, community service, charitable or religious purposes. DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 5 C/Forbing moved, C/Miller seconded to adopt Ordinance No. 8 (1991) by title only and waive further reading. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Forbing, Miller, MPT/Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None RECESS: M/Kim recessed the meeting at 6:45 p.m. RECONVENED: M/Kim reconvened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: 9.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RE: SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT - Asst. to CM/Butzlaff stated that tonight's public hearing is a continuation from the November 19 meeting on the preliminary draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element. At that time staff recommended that Council continue the public hearing process to allow the technical sub -committee and staff to provide additional analysis on the element. Staff has completed the analysis for Council review. The funding component 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 Waste Management Board has indicated that the City's funding component must reflect adequate financial resources for implementation of its integrated waste management program or face the possibility of having its SRRE denied or refused. Asst. to CM/Butzlaff went on to discuss the funding of the program stating that the City's estimated cost for implementation in the short term planning period 91-95 is estimated to be $210,750. The annual average cost for SRRE implementation is $201,000 per year. Funding sources available to the City are through the permit system, contract negotiation and franchising. The permit system has been in effect for one year, but staff has found that it is virtually unenforceable and the revenues generated have not achieved the $85,000 anticipated. Asst. to CM/Butzlaff went on to state that it is staff's recommendation that the City: (1) Continue the public hearing to allow for additional public testimony and at the conclusion, close the public hearing and direct staff to forward all written comments and testimony to the consultant for integration into the City's final SRRE draft; (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 in the City; (3) Submit the legally prescribed notice of discontinuance to DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 6 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 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. The proposal would be completed within sixty days and brought back for approval by the Council and then submitted to the haulers for their RFPs. Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs Dr., spoke in opposition to a single franchise and dividing the City in half and warding 2 franchises. Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., also spoke in opposition to awarding an exclusive franchise. Martha Bruske, resident stated that she didn't want to hear the Council talk about splitting the City in half. She further stated that approximately 5 trucks come down her street to pick-up refuse, making it very noisy and would much prefer only one. With no further testimony being given, M/Kim closed the public hearing. C/Werner stated that he favored a franchise on a non-exclusive basis that would allow some freedom of choice, but still regulate each of the haulers in terms of time of day, quality of equipment and other require- ments that may be needed. MPT/Papen stated that the consultant has been given many suggestions and comments over the last few months and asked when the final draft SRRE would be received by Council. Asst. to CM/Butzlaff stated that the comments received by Council, public testimony and interested governmental agencies will be compiled and given to the consultant who will rewrite the document and provide a final draft SRRE which will again have to go through the public hearing process and ultimately be approved by resolution. The Resolution will then be forwarded on to the County of Los Angeles to be incorporated into their countywide integrated waste management plan. MPT/Papen further stated that she is concerned over the half million dollar plus expenditure for composting program and if it is to be included in the SRRE as a facility within the community that it be part of the General Plan discussion. DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 7 Asst. to CM/Butzlaff stated that a requirement of the California Waste Management Board is that the City must show its intent or plan to provide for the collection and ultimate recovery of composting materials. As a result, the consultant has indicated to staff that discussion of that issue must be left open. The amount indicated is the City's share to participate in a multi -jurisdictional approach for a composting center somewhere not within the city limits. Asst. to CM/Butzlaff further stated that through the L.A. County Sanitation District, the City will be offering to single family residences, for the next two Mondays, pick-up with the regular refuse, of uncontaminated Christmas trees. Uncontaminated means unf locked, free of tinsel, decorations, nails, etc. Further, any multi -family resident can take their tree to either the Spadra or Puente Hills landfills for recycling free of charge. M/Kim asked why the monthly permit fees have declined? Asst. to CM/Butzlaff stated that permit fees are tied to residential accounts and at this time, staff is unable to explain the decrease. MPT/Papen stated that she has spoken with the City Attorney and the FPPC and that both opinions have been received in writing stating that there is no conflict of interest with this issue and therefore she can vote. MPT/Papen moved, C/Werner seconded to direct staff to forward all written comments and public testimony to the consultant for integration into the final SRRE draft for return to the Council for approval. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Miller, Werner, MPT/Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None MPT/Papen moved, C/Miller seconded to declare the City's intention to award an exclusive franchise to one or more haulers to provide refuse collection disposal, recycling services for residential and commercial premises. C/Werner asked staff whether a non-exclusive franchise with either a quarterly or end of the year surcharge to cover the costs incurred for the SRRE program has been looked into as a viable option? Asst.CM/Belanger stated that it is an option. DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 8 With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, Forbing, MPT/Papen NOES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, M/Kim ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None C/Forbing moved, C/Miller seconded to submit legally prescribed notices to all permitted haulers doing business of the City's intention to award a franchise. C/Werner asked the City Attorney to advise what legal implications this motion has on the haulers and residents doing business with them. DCA/Curley stated that this is giving notice to the existing haulers setting forth a five-year window to phase out. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Forbing, Miller, MPT/Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None M/Kim stated that the next motion should be to ask staff to prepare a new Request for Proposal (RFP) to be brought back for Council approval within sixty days. MPT/Papen suggested that Council direct staff to make a short list of those haulers that submitted RFP's last year, evaluate 2 or 3 companies and from that list, select someone to be the franchisee as was recommended by M/Kim last year. C/Forbing disagreed with MPT/Papen's proposal. Following discussion, MPT/Papen moved, C/Miller seconded to direct staff to meet with the two companies previously named (Western Waste and Community Disposal), review their programs, analyze their abilities to provide services on the long term and report back to Council. Following further discussion, C/Forbing stated that since the motion involves the naming of two trash haulers, he must abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, MPT/Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN - Forbing DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 9 C/Werner moved, C/Miller seconded to have staff prepare a modified Request for Proposal, which could be used by staff in their discussions with the two firms, that would also make a shorter path in the event it is decided at a later date to go out for proposal by a larger group of companies. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Forbing, Miller, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - MPT/Papen ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Forbing stated that on the Valley end of Grand Avenue, they will be opening up the road, and all are welcome to partici- pate in the opening. C/Miller congratulated MPT/Papen on her becoming a grandmother. C/Werner requested that staff look into the development of a video transmission ordinance or permit ordinance. He further wished all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. MPT/Papen asked staff to go back and review the political sign ordinance and consider prohibition of campaign contributions on a local level. M/Kim stated that it is fine to take a picture of the Council, however, if you wish to use a video camera it would be suggested that you extend the courtesy to give your name and the purpose. At the next meeting, the City Attorney will offer his legal opinion on this issue. 11. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, C/Werner moved, MPT/Papen seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion unanimously carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk 0 t lci ("` (111? VERBATIM EXCERPTS OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.1 SRRE MPT/Papen Made motion that we direct staff to meet with these two companies review their programs, analyze their abilities to provide services on the long term to this community and report back to the Council. M/Kim There is a motion on the floor. Do I hear a second on the motion? C/Miller I second to see what staff comes back with. M/Kim A second is made by C/Miller. I would like to make one comment on this: I would like to ask staff to verify my statement. Under Public Code 40059 it says "City has an option to go ahead and award the contract without a competitive bid process, not only that City has an option either negotiate with one hauler or two haulers. I would like to verify this with the City Attorney, is that true? DCA/Curley Your referencing in the staff report, public Resources Code Section 40059, I am going to assume that it was properly quoted by the staff preparing the memo and they seem to be indicating yes, so if that is the proper language of the code then in fact you do have that option. M/Kim Then what MPT/Papen said is correct, that we have an option to do anything tonight to select two firms asking staff to negotiate with them and come back. DCA/Curley Under the code, basically in light of where the SRRE has matured to as establishing the needs that the City will be requiring as well as having staff fine tune whatever other franchise or contractual elements may be needed to be present in that agreement to meet with the two haulers and see if they can satisfy what is within staff's new proposal. If that is the case, get the response from the two haulers and report to the Council. Certainly, there is no problem with that in the sense they could report back and say neither or both or only one, or whatever the outcome is of their interviews with these designated contacts. M/Kim Any further discussion on this matter, C/Forbing? C/Forbing To follow up on my prior comments, I totally disagree with this motion. Staff has recommended that they put together a package for Council review, which is basically what the motion is and M/Kim C/Werner M/Kim C/Werner M/Kim C/Miller M/Kim ACM/Belanger bring it back in 60 days. I would agree with that part of it that the Council needs to see the package, needs to approve what we are looking for in the way of pickup. At the time that report comes back and is approved by the Council in 60 days, at that time the Council can make a determination of how we want to handle the choice of a hauler or splitting up the community or doing whatever. It seems to me that it is premature to take from the four haulers that we had narrowed it down to before the highest price and the lowest price, throwing out the two in the middle one of whom is picking up 60$ of the trash in town today before we even have the staff report to narrow this down to the highest price and the lowest price and determine which one is going to be our hauler. We haven't even determined whether we are going to award the whole community, part of the community, divide up the commercial or the residential, and we are already talking about only bringing in two haulers for who knows what reason, it makes no sense to me to go against the staff recommendation which is to prepare the report and bring it back in 60 days for the Council to approve. Thank You. Are there any, Mr. Miller would you like to make a comment? Mr. Mayor. Yes Mr. Werner. I would have to agree with C/Forbing, I can't in good conscience draw any conclusions tonight that would allow me to make a decision that would contradict the decisions already made by 60 to 70% of the community, in excluding this one company, I can't imagine how the motion can even be made in good conscience without having Waste Management as part of that process. That's my feelin s on thi motion. g s Mr. Miller? When staff comes back, two contractors, it Council in a position contract to either one correct? after negotiating with these does not necessarily put where we have to issue a of these individuals, am I Mr. Belanger would you answer that question please. That's correct. The staff would be involved in negotiation and final acceptance and agreement to MPT/Papen Yes. Your confusing me, Mr. Kim with your comments. I have brought back your motion from a year ago, that we have staff review these two, review the programs that these two companies can provide and report back to the City Council; and that's my motion. The motion was not to award a franchise, the motion was to review the programs and the service capacities or capabilities of these two companies and bring a report back to the City Council in view of the SRRE and the programs that we have to implement. Gentlemen, I am amazed that this has gotten so political because every City has somebody picking up their garbage and these companies know the services, were not inventing a new wheel. In fact, somebody made the comment that were ahead of most cities. I just came back from a quasi -family reunion and of my seven brothers and sisters, I'm the only one that doesn't have mandatory recycling and here I serve on a City that negotiation is left to the discussion of the City Council. C/Miller So were not tying our hands at this point and time? ACM/Belanger You wouldn't be obligated to sign any agreement that the staff recommended if you chose not to. Yes. C/Werner Call for the question. M/Kim I would like to make a comment no uestio, just sI comments, that, sorry I never got a chance. have to share feeling with Mrs. Papen, its been a long dragging, and its been frustrating experience, just dragging and dragging, and by now we should be ready, however, also I like to mention that those two firms I mentioned, I haven't changed my mind about them, the've done a fine job and I watch them, and the fine reputation in the City, I'm sure other haulers too, and they been very active in the community and everybody is fairly happy with them. I have no problem with them. I understand Mrs. Papen's frustration, dragging, this been long, more than a year. However, staff recommended to put together RFP modified RFP, and come back in sixty days, I feel that we should go ahead and hope that the City staff got a clear message from us that we would like to get some action soon. Just don't want to drag this longer. any With that I would like to incline, maybe we should accept staff recommenda- tion Mrs. Papen. Again, that's, now you can call for the question. Or Mrs. Papen would you like to make another comment. MPT/Papen Yes. Your confusing me, Mr. Kim with your comments. I have brought back your motion from a year ago, that we have staff review these two, review the programs that these two companies can provide and report back to the City Council; and that's my motion. The motion was not to award a franchise, the motion was to review the programs and the service capacities or capabilities of these two companies and bring a report back to the City Council in view of the SRRE and the programs that we have to implement. Gentlemen, I am amazed that this has gotten so political because every City has somebody picking up their garbage and these companies know the services, were not inventing a new wheel. In fact, somebody made the comment that were ahead of most cities. I just came back from a quasi -family reunion and of my seven brothers and sisters, I'm the only one that doesn't have mandatory recycling and here I serve on a City Council and I was the program director for a pilot curbside recycling program. My brother, not only separates aluminum, glass and newspaper, and plastic, they must crush every cardboard box and flatten it and put in underneath their trash can and they must put all their leaves and their grass clippings in City approved trash bags that you buy at the grocery store or else the City will not pick up his trash. C/Werner Mr. Mayor call for the question. There's a motion on the floor. C/Forbing Before you... M/Kim Call for... MPT/Papen I was interrupted, I'm speaking. M/Kim Can I ask... C/Werner There's a motion on the floor. MPT/Papen It's my motion and I think its been changed, and I want to make sure that my motion.... C/Werner No, you just clarified it. M/Kim Mr. Werner, just hold on please. I am the one conducting meeting, any questions, any concerns, please direct me, and I'll C/Forbing Mayor Kim M/Kim Hold a second please. One at a time. Mr. Forbing C/Forbing Since the motion involves the naming of two trash companies, I'm going to have to withdraw from the vote, due to the fact that I have a conflict of interest when it comes to picking specific trash companies for any sort of project. M/Kim Mr. Attorney, is that what the case is? DCA/Curley I'm not personally familiar with all the details, I know the City Attorney has done some review and certainly, Councilmember Forbing would be most aware of his position. So certainly his position as articulated is something that would be fully appropriate. M/Kim Is that clear legal opinion on this case? Thank you. Mr. Miller, were going to go around one more comments and that's it. C/Miller No, I have no more comments. M/Kim Mr. Werner? C/Werner No more comments. M/Kim Mrs. Papen would you like to finish? MPT/Papen I'd like to have the Clerk read the motion. M/Kim Alright. There's a motion, would you read aloud motion please. CC/Burgess The motion as made by MPT/Papen is to direct staff to make a, to shorten the list of approximately 10 previous RFP's and to evaluate the two companies recommended by M/Kim last year. M/Kim Let me ask, just clarification, MPT/Papen Could I clarify my motion please? I'd like to have my motion be as I stated. My motion is that we direct staff to meet with these two companies and review their programs and their service capabilities, in light of our SRRE and report back to the Council. M/Kim Alright, is that clear, we are not talking about awarding anything tonight, simply asking staff to talk to these two hauler and explain the program and come back with a report. Mr. Werner, is that understood, or understood differently? C/Werner I had no question before, I have none now. I was calling for the question. M/Kim Ok, no more questions. There's a motion on the floor, second on the floor, Madam Clerk, roll call please. CC/Burgess C/Forbing, I'm sorry. C/Miller (Aye), C/Werner (No), MPT/Papen (Aye), M/Kim (Aye). M/Kim So proved. C/Werner Mr. Mayor M/Kim Yes, Mr. Werner. C/Werner Would it be appropriate to follow a parallel path, as recommended by staff, in the event, that we come up short in these discussion? I'll make a motion to that effect and that would be, a, have staff prepare a modified Request for Proposal, which of course could be used in their discussions with these two firms, but would also put us on a shorter path in the event that we choose at a future date to go out for proposal to a larger selection, larger group of companies. M/Kim Mrs. Papen, is that agreeable to you? Can I solicit your comments on this? C/Werner Yeah, that was a motion. M/Kim Oh that's a motion? Alright, then I'd like to ask for second? C/Miller I'll go ahead and second it. M/Kim Alright, second motion by Mr. Miller. Discussion, Mrs. Papen. MPT/Papen The staff, I believe already has a list of services are going to be needed and I don't know that it would take that much time, there asking for sixty days to return, so it could be quite a while before we do it. I would like to see this first happen first. It increases the staff's work load, that's for sure at this time. C/Miller I believe this is actually going to be part and parcel of negotiating with two individual firms or if an RFP went out to nine or ten firms, I don't believe there is any additional work required is there? Mean, isn't it the same process? M/Kim Preparing RFP, that takes a little time. C/Miller But, I mean, it would cover the same basic issues that would be covered if we were just dealing with one person, wouldn't it. It would be raising the same issues. ACM/Belanger For the purpose of the discussion with the firms, we would develop a discussion, topics for discussion using the SRRE as our reference point. If we were to continue on, and develop an RFP, or even a bid process, it would utilize the same type of information using the same reference point. It would just be expanded in a more formal, in a formal document. When we sit down and meet with these two firms, we will have an idea of those areas we wish to discuss when we walk into the room, and the SRRE will be the basis for that. C/Werner If I can elaborate on what my objective and purposes are, I'd like to make sure that when we do sit down and negotiate with these two firms, that were negotiating on the same level of service that we would otherwise be seeking from other firms. And, I want to insure that, number one, and secondly, that we don't loose the time period or the time element that you've listed in the staff report for tonight's meeting. I believe, that you will be able to come back at, on an earlier time frame with a report back to us on these two companies in short of the sixty days. But I would like to make sure that within sixty days from tonight that should you run into a road block with those two firms, were in a foot path to go out and solicit RFP's from others. And, I not necessarily suggesting that the full package be prepared, but just so that you are preparing your material for the discussions with these two companies as Mr. Miller has indicated, consistent with the RFP that You might ultimately recommend. M/Kim Any further discussion on this? Alright, no more discussion, there's a motion and second on the floor, Madam Clerk, roll call please. CC/Burgess May I ask for clarification? May C/Forbing vote on this issue? DCA/Curley In that, this basically tracts the initial staff recommendation and doesn't seem to be attributed to any particular hauler, I don't see any disability affecting Councilman Forbing, unless he is aware of facts that I am not. M/Kim Mr. Forbing, you can vote? C/Forbing As far as I'm concerned, Yes. CC/Burgess C/Werner (Yes), C/Forbin (Yes), C/Miller (Yes), MPT/Papen (No), M/Kim (Yes). M/Kim So be it. Does staff understand clearly what motion and second is? All right, Thank You. Thank you for your patience, Item 9 is finally over. I would like to go on to next item. Yes, anyone want to make a comment? Mr. Butzlaff CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 17, 1991 VERBATIM EXCERPT OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.1 SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT M/Kim Mr. Forbing, do you have any questions for staff? C/Forbing Not at this time. M/Kim Mr. Miller? Mr. Werner? C/Werner Thank you Mayor Kim. A question to Mr. Butzlaff. In your recommendation of actions for the City Council, it indicated was that we would declare our intent to award an exclusive franchise to one or more trash haulers and then later in C/Werner on your presentation, you indicated that we would, ah, it be proposed that the City Council serve notice of all of the trash haulers that we would be awarding an exclusive franchise for trash collection. Is that to mean an exclusive franchise to one or more haulers also? Mr. Butzlaff It would be dependent upon the Council's decision, whether to have An exclusive franchise for the entire City or a series of non-exclusive franchises, where the City would be divided into residential franchise, and a commercial franchise. That would dependent upon what the City Council desired. C/Werner But is your recommendation to do only an exclusive. Mr. Butzlaff Staff's recommendation would be based upon an exclusive franchise for the entire City, however, if the City Council wishes to break that into two separate non-exclusive franchises, staff would follow that recommendation. C/Werner I'm trying to understand the staff report, because you have two different references; one, under Item 2 and declaring the City's intent, it says, to award an exclusive franchise to one or more, and under Item 3, when we're notifying the trash haulers, were notifying them that we're to going be awarding an exclusive. Mr. Butzlaff That's correct. That was simply an oversight. It should say franchises. C/Werner Ok, so it ... Mr. Butzlaff It could be either or C/Werner Ok, thank you. C/Papen I have one question, Mr. Butzlaff, and that is, in your discussion here on, under the negotiated contract, you say that the City at its option could negotiate for a waste collection services without submitting the RFP, but is that limited to a non- exclusive franchise or can an exclusive franchise be handled through the same means? Mr. Butzlaff I believe the City Attorney would be better suited to answer the question, but I may respond in saying that Government Code gives the City explicit authority to award, or not award, negotiate through its haulers, a contract, whether that be exclusive or non-exclusive that would be up to the determination of the City Council I believe, Mr. Attorney, you may... M/Kim Mr. Attorney would you like to add to comments please. DCA/Curley Yes, Mr. Butzlaff's analysis is generally correct. Although traditionally when your looking toward an exclusive single provider, because you have to have a full scope of services, you typically do do it through the response process, RFP, RFQ, so that you can be sure you've defined all the needs and various options the City may be seeking. M/Kim Any further questions? I have a couple of clarification. The way I understand we discussing two issues actually. One is permit process. Which means anyone can come in and get the permit and do business. If you do that, it's going to cost City $200,000. a year. As a result, the residential fee may go up from $10.75 up to $13.25. Commercial would be $59. up to $68. Second option is franchising. If you do that then you got two option in franchising. One is exclusive franchising, which is one company does everything, entire City. There is 36 cities doing it in L.A. County, the average monthly residential fee is $9.35. If you do a partial franchise, which is maybe 2 or 3, then there's 25 cities doing it, it's going to cost $11.27. Am I correct so far? Mr. Butzlaff That is correct. M/Kim What you're recommending tonight is exclusive franchise agreement isn't it? Mr. Butzlaff That is correct, Mr. Kim. In addition, word has come down to me and I have yet to verify this, that the State Legislature when they reconvene in January maybe discussing the provision of language in the revised AB2093, which you will remember was the extension bill to AB939 which would provide a six month extension. If the proposed language is, goes into the bill, it would ask or indicate that it would be a city's, at a city's option that a city should consider the issue of franchising or contract negotiation in order to achieve compliance with its AB939 goals. So at this time, although the language is unclear and there is still no verification whether the groups that are supporting this language will move ahead with its intent, there is indication in the State Legislature that there may be some type of provisional language that would ask that cities consider the franchising option as a means of controlling their waste stream and showing the compliance with AB939 goals. M/Kim Thank you. So what your saying tonight, is exclusive franchise is the best method and that's the best way to do. Are you saying that one company does whole city and residential and commercial, everything. Is that what your talking about? Is that your understanding of exclusive franchise, or you talk about 2 or 3? Mr. Butzlaff Under exclusive franchise, it would be awarded to one company doing business in the City. M/Kim All right then, that leads me to another question. Are we asking us tonight, City Council to take an action on that or just simply asking you to prepare an RFP, modified RFP and then you come back to us within 60 sixty day. What is your recommendation tonight? Mr. Butzlaff Under recommendation number 2, would be to declare our intent whether to go exclusive franchise or non-exclusive. M/Kim I understand that. I'm talking about recommendation number 4. Mr. Butzlaff So if the City Council would declare the intent, whether it be exclusive or non-exclusive then that would give staff the necessary mechanism to proceed ahead with the development of RFP. The RFP will be based upon the Council's intent, whether to award an exclusive franchise or a non-exclusive franchise, meaning that the City's broken up into two collection types, residential and commercial. M/Kim So tonight we have to decide whether we declare the City's intention to award an exclusive franchise or multiple or forget the franchise. That's the decision we have to make tonight and direct you, right? Mr. Butzlaff No, to correct you, its exclusive franchise for the entire community, under, with one hauler or non- exclusive franchise which would mean the community would be broken into residential and commercial franchisees, franchises and we would award two franchises, one for commercial collection and one for residential collection. M/Kim All right. I think we all understand clearly what to do tonight Mr. Forbing. C/Forbing Isn't there an additional option, that you could split the community in the middle and have a franchise in the North and a franchise in the South or including commercial, or you could have one for commercial and one in the South, one in the North? Isn't that an option? Mr. Butzlaff That is definitely an option and through contract negotiation that could be achieved. The community could be divided into collection zones. Residential zone and commercial zone or then the City could negotiate with its haulers, current haulers or a list of haulers to negotiate a contract for collection in those zones. M/Kim Anymore questions from the councilmembers? No more questions. Thank you, this time, I would like to open the public hearing. Anyone wish to speak on this item, please come to podium please and identify yourself and please limit to not more than 5 minutes if you can. Al Rumpilla, Red Calkins and Martha Bruske spoke regarding franchising. M/Kim Thank You, are there anymore public comments, anyone wishes to speak? I hear none, therefore public hearing is closed. Alright, let's have some discussion among us. Any comments from Mr. Forbing? C/Forbing Well, the first comment I would like to make is in response to the comments made against franchising. I'm not sure whether they were listening when the Mayor made his comments about the prices. If you with go a permit, which is what we have now, the average cost in communities that do that is $13.25. If you go with a partial franchise $11.27 and if you go with an exclusive franchise is $9.35. And how anybody can want what they call "free enterprise" and pay $4.00 a month more for their trash pick-up is beyond me. M/Kim Thank You. Mr. Miller? C/Miller I've heard the statement about fines and assessments that they don't believe that the State will impose them upon us, but I'm not so sure that they might not. We're going to face an additional short fall. It has to come out of our General Fund, if it doesn't come out a franchise fee. I've heard comments tonight about people being concerned about our decrease in our manning of our Sheriff's cars and other things that were having to do to balance the budget today. If we don't raise these funds in certain areas were going to have to take from the General Fund to do that and I will agree with the lady, and I'm sorry I don't remember your name, but about the noise and the impact of all the trucks on our residential streets and such. If you count the amount of haulers that do service Diamond Bar and the amount of trips made on those streets, it impacts our budget in other ways other than just the fines that might come in the future. Thank you. M/Kim Mr. Werner? C/Werner Thank you Mayor Kim. on paper it seems to add up, as one and one equal two. In this case, as Mr. Butzlaff indicates, the exclusive franchise approach again on paper comes up with the most efficient cost. But in response to your comments Mr. Forbing, I think that all you need to do is look at what's out there in the community today, and if, my numbers may not be accurate, but it's my understanding that 80% of the community is now being serviced by Waste Management and they are not the least expensive trash hauler in town. And, I can't explain that, but people like to have a choice in who they select for trash hauler, it could be a matter of service, it could be other needs that these people have. I think there is something still to be said for the choice that we can offer to local residents in selecting. I'm not supportive of the exclusive franchise approach. If the, a franchise approach is necessary in order to cover the gap in the cost of the SRRE program then I believe that I could be convinced that a franchise is necessary and would go that way. But my preference would be toward a franchise on an non-exclusive basis that would allow some freedom of choice, but still regulate each of the haulers in terms of time of day, quality of equipment, and the other requirements that we need to assure the City and our residents that there will be safe trash hauling, won't be as noisy as 5 or 6 trucks running down each street, and still provide that option of freedom of choice. That concludes my remark. MPT/Papen I'd like to confirm, Mayor Kim, we have closed the public testimony for the final time on the SRRE? M/Kim Yes, public hearing is closed. MPT/Papen Mr. Butzlaff I still have some problems with the composting section of your financial report here. We've given the consultant many suggestions and remarks over the last few months. I'm wondering when the Council is going to see a revised draft of the SRRE and wondering if were going to get that prior to its publication for final adoption? Mr. Butzlaff Most definitely Mayor Pro Tem Papen. The City Council from this point on, the comments that have been generated by Council, by the public and by interested governmental agencies will be compiled, the consultant will rewrite the document as it stands today and the next document you will receive will be a final draft SRRE which will again have to go through a public hearing process and be ultimately approved by resolution of the City Council to be forwarded on to the County of Los Angeles to be incorporated within their countywide integrated waste management plan. MPT/Papen I'm concerned with the half million dollar plus expenditure for composting program, and am very concerned that if this is to be included in the SRRE as a facility within the community then that should be part of our General Plan discussion and I haven't seen the transfer of information between the SRRE and the General Plan. I'm, as we talked earlier, as the consultant mentioned, this is a decentralized plant that would not be within the City limits, and yet I don't see anything specified as to this actually coming about. I'm concerned that were going to come with this half million dollar expenditure or possibly more and we not know where its going to be or what the plans are for its implementation. Mr. Butzlaff Your correct Mayor Pro Tem Papen. Some of the specificity of the document is not yet available just because there really is not a site yet to locate a MRF (Material Recovery Facility) for collection of compostables. Unfortunately the State, the California Great Waste Management Board has indicated that the City must still show its intent or a plan to provide for the collection and ultimate recovery of the composting materials. As a result, the consultant has indicated to staff that we must leave discussion of that in the SRRE and leave it open for discussion at a future date. The share that you see there indicated is the City's share to participate in a multi-regional, or multi -jurisdictional approach for a composting center somewhere not within the City limits. Discussion has been given by the Cities of Pomona, and the City of Industry as to may be doing some type of MRF center with the expansion of composting materials, but at this point its only discussion and I don't know of any further action on those plans. MPT/Papen In the composting section, would you refresh my mind are we planning to participate in the County Sanitation District's green waste landfill cover? Mr. Butzlaff Thank you for bringing that to my attention. There is two things that I should indicate tonight. The first is the City of Diamond Bar, through the County Sanitation District's is pleased to announce that the following two Mondays after Christmas, single family residential units will have the opportunity to put out their uncontaminated christmas trees at curbside with the regular refuse for pick up. Those christmas trees will then be transported by the three primary residential haulers to the County Sanitation District landfill sites where they will be turned into mulch and other composting materials. This is part of the Sanitation District's efforts to continue with the greenwaste recovery program and their pilot study over at Spadra and Puente Hills. MPT/Papen Would you explain what an uncontaminated christmas tree is? Mr. Butzlaff Certainly. Uncontaminated christmas tree should be free of flocking, tinsel, any decorations, stands, nails, any foreign object that may harm or otherwise interfere with the recycling process. These trees can be set out at curb, like I said on the following two Mondays after Christmas which is December 30 and January 6, I believe. CM/Van Nort What about fire retardant? Mr. Butzlaff At this point fire retardant does not have any impact on the recycling process or on the compost, on the mulching process, so they are acceptable. And I should further add that any resident that lives in Diamond Bar who lives in a multi -family unit can take their christmas trees directly to the landfill sites and those landfill sites are Puente Hills and Spadra and the information and the phone numbers are available from City staff and you can call City Hall directly at 860-2489 for information on how to take your christmas tree to those recyclable, those composting centers. M/Kim I do have, excuse me, I do have one question. Your permit fees, monthly permit fees, I notice from August continually getting smaller and smaller amount. I can understand commercial because business slowing down, but residential declining 5% average is that because recycling people start recycling, is that the reason the permit fees has been declining or what can you tell me what the reasons are? Mr. Butzlaff The permit fees aren't tied to residential waste generation. The permit fees are tied to residential accounts. In looking at the analysis of residential collection fees for October, ah, your correct the amounts have decreased and unfortunately staff is at a loss to explain that, unless its a calculation error on staff's part, it can only be explained through the process that may be were not achieving the entire compliance with the City's permit system. As you are aware, this permit system takes a full time enforcement in order for it to be affective and City staff is quite limited in its ability to go out there and make sure, making sure that each of the permittees is reporting actual figures as to the number of accounts they have. Ever since this permit system was initiated back in December of 1990, we have had difficulties in determining the exact number of residential units within the City. It has been quite a difficult time for staff to figure out how many residential units the haulers are indicating versus our known housing counts. M/Kim Thank you Mr. Butzlaff, you may sit down now, I don't think we have any more questions. This time I like to ask councilmembers what your wishes, you'd like to take action tonight. Basically you have to take 3 actions, the way I see it. Whether we declare our intention to award exclusive franchise; and send a notification to discontinuance to those all permitted haulers; With that I would like to take a first step and we third, ask staff to prepare RFP bring it back within 60 days. Yes, Mr. Miller? C/Miller There have been things said as if this Council has nothing better to do than legislate the community and I firmly believe that legislation improperly applied is incorrect there should be no reason to legislate unless there is reason to legislate. The Legislature through AB 9393 has not given an alternative from my prospective other than to comply with their mandate. There might be certain cities that are behind, that's there fault and their doing if so. But I don't see that we have an alternative but to make some sort of decision for the betterment of our community. We were elected to make these decisions. We were elected to review what is best for this community and I hate to hear things said as if the Council wants to do things purely for the sake of doing them. If we did not have to comply with the State mandate I would just as soon us leave it like it is, but we don't have an alternative in my position. Thank You. M/Kim Thank You Mr. Miller. What's the Councils' wish? MPT/Papen Mayor Kim? M/Kim Yes, Mrs. Papen. MPT/Papen Thank you. I would like to say that throughout the past two years we have been discussing this issue the question has arisen as to whether or not I might have a conflict of interest and not be able to vote on this issue. I want the public to be aware tonight that I raised this issue myself a year ago April and have and went to the City Attorney and asked the questions that some of you have asked. I do have on file a letter from the City Attorney stating that there is no financial interest on my part or my spouse or direct, or a family member, dependent child and there is no conflict of interest. I further went, I asked the City Attorney to go to the Fair Political Practice Commission and as of last August I have a letter on file from them saying that they have reviewed my situation and that there is no conflict of interest and I am free to vote on this issue. And I want to make that perfectly clear that I have been cleared by both the FPPC and the City Attorney as to my voting on this issue. With that I would like to take a first step and we have closed the public testimony and I'd like to make a motion that we direct staff to forward all written comments and public testimony to the consultant for integration into the final draft source Reduction Recycling Element to be returned to the Council for approval. M/Kim Alright. C/Werner I'll second, is that a motion? M/Kim Obviously you'd like to take it one by one instead of all of them, that would be fine. Recommended action, Item No. 1. C/Werner Mr. Mayor, I'll second that. M/Kim There's a motion and second on the floor. Any discussion on this particular item? No discussion, roll call please. CC/Burgess Councilman Forbing (Aye), Councilman Miller (Aye), Councilman Werner (Aye), Mayor Pro Tem Papen (Aye), Mayor Kim (Aye). K/Kim Alright, second item is will notify all the franchisee, I'm sorry we declare the City's intention to award an exclusive franchise to one or more haulers to provide refuse collection, disposing and recycling services for residential and commercial premises, the second action item. MPT/Papen So moved. M/Kim There's a motion on the floor. Are there any second. C/Miller Second. M/Kim Discussion. C/Werner Mr. Mayor. M/Kim Yes. Mr. Werner. C/Werner On the issue of whether we go to an exclusive franchise, either to one or more trash haulers, compared to the alternative of an non-exclusive franchise, I'd like to request staff response whether a non-exclusive franchise with a quarterly or end of the year surcharge to cover the costs incurred for the SRRE program has been looked into as a viable option? M/Kim Mr. Van Nort would you answer that question raised by Mr. Werner please? CM/Van Nort Mr. Belanger? ACM/Belanger Yes the. I want to make sure I have the question correct. The question is whether there is an ability to have the permitted haulers assess a surcharge, some specified amount of money in order to cover the costs of the SRRE and essentially leave the present system in place and change the fee structure if you will. Again that's certainly up to the discretion of the City Council. We have a system similar to that now, except its on a monthly basis with much lower fee. That would be an expansion of what currently exists. C/Werner Ok so I guess the answer would be that it is a viable option. ACM/Belanger It is certainly an option, yes. C/Werner And I also surmise from the staff presentation that it's not just a matter of coming up short in the funding to provide the education and the monitoring programs but also there is some difficulty in reconciling the numbers in terms of the quantities of trash being collected and the number of households that are being collected by each hauler. Wouldn't you anticipate Mr. Belanger that even under an exclusive franchise there will be difficulty in reconciling those numbers? ACM/Belanger There could be that possibility. The advantage of a contract with rights and duties accruing to both parties is that there is a detriment to the hauler if it is determined that the figures are not being provided accurately. Either in terms of the revenues that are being provided or the amount of trash that is being collected or not collected. In essence the standards that are set are set by contract with rights and duties accruing to both parties and its enforceable by the City. The alternative, the ultimate alternative enforcement that the City has is to rescind the contract and go to another hauler if we don't feel as though were getting compliance and accurate data from the franchise hauler. The difficulty were having now is that this is on an honor system and its very, very difficult to chase down eight different haulers and get accurate data from them. And, an exclusive franchise, largely because we don't have any kind of contractual obligation flowing either way, an exclusive franchise does provide that, and it's been proven in other communities that its a of much superior way to get an enforcement standards in a wide range of areas, equipment, fees, service standards things of that nature. C/Werner Ok, so if I understand you correctly your suggesting that under the current system which is non-exclusive franchise it's simply a p procedure, well the terminology I guess is that is it there is, it's a non-exclusive franchise, not? ACM/Belanger We have no franchise. We don't have an agreement. C/Werner Oh I'm sorry, its a permit. ACM/Belanger It's a permit. It's non-exclusive permit. And the term "non- just a point of clarification, exclusive franchise" is an oxymoron. You may have a series of franchises, in essence more than one, not citywide. You could have several based on some, on an area served or the type of trash collected. Each of those would be exclusive to the type of refuse and the area being served. If we had a non-exclusive franchise, again it would be an oxymoron. C/Werner Ok, I appreciate that clarification. And if I understand it correctly under the current non- exclusive permit procedure there's not much in the way of staff leverage to impose the requirements or to gain the information necessary to do the monthly fair to and quarterly reporting. Would it then be draw conclusion that on an exclusive franchise from multiple contractors that the City would be able through the franchise process, impose those requirements and as you indicated earlier in your comments a moment ago, with the threat of terminating that franchise, the trash hauler would then basically have the leverage necessary to submit the information required. ACM/Belanger Ah, I think I know what you said. C/Werner Can you restate it. ACM/Belanger Yes. C/Werner Would a franchise to multiple trash haulers be a compared to an middle ground from staff's position exclusive franchise that would satisfy your needs to get the information necessary for monitoring? ACM/Belanger When you say a franchise to multiple, are you saying some kind of joint venture between more than one hauler? C/Werner Well, in the staff report it indicates that one of the options is to grant, award an exclusive franchise to one or more haulers. I, am not suggesting it in any particular form. ACM/Belanger Ok. I misunderstood the way you are presenting it. If you have a series of exclusive contracts either, generally on the basis of either area or type of trash being collected. Again the key is you have a franchise agreement that allows you a greater degree of enforcement as a result of having that relationship with the hauler. And that hauler is a part of the process of either bidding or negotiation is agreeing to a certain set of responsibilities for which he has a privilege of an exclusive area. Essentially doesn't have to compete in that particular area. And, so it should provide us with the same kind of leverage in getting the information we need as if we had the entire City under one franchise. C/Werner Ok, thank you. Thank you Mr. Mayor. M/Kim Any further questions? I have one question here. Your talking about several terminology we use tonight. Exclusive franchise to one company, exclusive franchise to one or more haulers, non- exclusive franchise; partial franchise multiple franchise. Your memo says, exclusive franchise to one or more hauler, does that mean multiple franchise? I understand we need a franchise, some kind of franchise to implement this AB 939, I understand that. But what do you have in your mind when you say exclusive franchise to one or more haulers, it could be 5 it could be 10, why would you use the work exclusive then? ACM/Belanger Because they could be, it could be conceivably be exclusive. You could take, rather than use North and South, you could take areas of Diamond Bar that, say three or four of them, and say, and those in areas were going to put out bid packages in all those areas for the exclusive pick up of residential trash. The successful awardee would have exclusive right to pick up residential trash in that area. No others would could come in and pick up that trash. You could have several contracts of that kind and you have an analysis in your staff report that indicates that those cities that have something other than complete exclusivity residential/ commercial have a different type of rate, average rage structure. What it is essentially saying is that there are multiple franchises in that city. The franchises provides the exclusivity for the pick-up of either residential or commercial trash in a particular area and, but it doesn't change the nature of the relationship you have with the hauler, that is a franchise, an exclusive franchise. Exclusive franchise is simple, you have a contract that's the franchise. Exclusivity means that for the purpose of the area being served they are the only person that can do it. M/Kim Thank you. I'm partial agreement with Mr. Werner. I do have, show certain concern, but this exclusive franchise to one or more doesn't mean that were talking about exclusive, one company, that's not the message were going to send tonight. One or more, means could be ...two, could be three, could be four. ACM/Belanger Staff's recommendation is a single exclusive franchise. That would be the optimum operational alternative from the staff's prospective in meeting the responsibilities of the, under AB 939 and its any successor legislation as well as the administration of a contract by the staff if that kind of franchise were granted. M/Kim I would like to ask our fellow councilmembers, is that what we understand, we are declaring tonight, it is the City's intention to award one exclusive franchise, is that the way we understand it tonight? Before we take a vote on this. MPT/Papen That wasn't the motion. M/Kim The motion is the way it is written, one or more, alright. MPT/Papen Yes. M/Kim Is that understood? (All agreed). C/Miller Mayor Kim? Am I understanding you correct, the best option would be a single franchise? If we want to go to two or three it is up to Council? ACM/Belanger Absolutely. C/Miller But your recommendation it would be the best option would be to go to one individual. Ok. M/Kim Thank you. Very clear now. Madam Clerk there's a M/Kim Are there any second. C/Miller motion and second on the floor? On this item No. 2? would you tell us who made a motion and second? CC/Burgess The motion was made by MPT/Papen, seconded by second C/Miller. M/Kim Thank you. Roll Call. C/Miller (Aye), C/Werner M/Kim, just (No), C/Forbing (Aye), MPT/Papen (Aye), (No) . M/Kim Item 3. Submit legally prescribed notices to all the permitted haulers, doing business, present of the time. Are there any motions on the floor on that, M/Kim any questions on that Item No. 3. Just in case you if its didn't hear me right, were going to notify all the haulers saying that they will be discontinuing business with us. C/Forbing That's just a follow-up to Item 2, and that's per law, that we have to do that, so I'd make the motion. M/Kim Are there any second. C/Miller Second. notice that gives notice to the existing haulers, M/Kim Motion and second on the floor. Discussion? C/Werner Mayor Kim, just one question from the City us Attorney's office. If you could just share with and members of the audience what legal implications M/Kim this motion if its approved would have on the trash haulers in town today and on the residents in their receipt of services from each of these trash haulers? DCA/Curley Well, generally this is an administrative level notice that gives notice to the existing haulers, basically a 5 year window is now open that there not dropped immediately there is a transition out period. so its something that gives them notice for their opportunity to start winding down their operation and proceeding to re -orient their business. But it does not at all result in an immediate cessation or termination of their service. M/Kim Would you repeat that again... DCA/Curley What it does not mean is an immediate cessation in happen is a notice to service. What will provides the haulers that the 5 year window period is beginning that allows them an opportunity to wrap up their business and re -orient themselves, but it does not mean that, there will be a prompt cessation of whoever is providing service to you. Its an administrative notice provision basically. M/Kim 5 years to phase out. DCA/Curley That's my understanding. M/Kim 5 years to get out of town. All right, there's a motion and second on the floor. Madam Clerk, roll call please. CC/Burgess C/ Werner (Yes), C/Forbing, (Yes), C/Miller (Yes), MPT/Papen (Yes), M/Kim, (Yes). M/Kim Final item, number 4, asking staff to prepare new RFP, bring it back to us within 60 days. MPT/Papen Mr. Kim, if I might, I'd like to present for Council consideration, an alternative to preparing a modified Request for Proposal and going back out for RFP, ah, we did that almost two years ago and we had two haulers providing trash service in our community and we had some bidding going on for services and that. When we put out the RFP, we got ten proposals and had to review ten projects. When we decided to do the permit process, we increased to 8 the number of haulers who are operating in town. over the last year since we first issued the permits, we've really gone through a price war in this community and alit of advertising has been going out by all the companies and it seems to me that if we put out another RFP were going to have a repeat of what we had a year and a half ago, and that is everyone is going to be claiming their the best program and you don't understand and this type of thing. What I learned is what I suspected as we went through the RFP process, this past year has given me an opportunity to look at the companies and evaluate their abilities to provide service to the community. I thought some of those bids were low -balled and it proved true when companies who came and bid $6 or $7 to provide residential service to our community and their contract really wouldn't go into effect for five years when all these other companies were forced out. When they actually started offering services to citizens, their price was no where under $11 around it was around $11 was the starting rate for any company. Several of the companies, you know, tried to get subscribers for 3 or 4 months and nobody would pick them as a hauler to do business, so I think some of those have been eliminated just by what I see is consumer wishes. I certainly don't want to go through another open RFP process and have another 10 or 15 companies come and deluge us with the volumes of video tapes and customized notebooks, maps and whatever, balloons that claim that they are the best company. What I'd like to do_ isY icy we have staff interview those two For the clarification, a year and a half ago, we ascer ali if t r did come through this process and we, I had a gr -ams t we have need of, And I think that we should at pick up where we were a year ago and make that short list and bringthose companies into CityHall an see if we can come up with, you know the evaluation of two or three of the cc from that short list select someone to be M/Kim Thank you that is modified motion, or suggestions. For the clarification, a year and a half ago, we did come through this process and we, I had a pleasure to review all the proposals and sit on some interview process. At that time, recommended two firms, I felt that at that time_ those two f irms are es qu-�aI f ied. Western_-- T�ABJtom aAd—Community Disposal Company. Is that what your referring to? MPT/Papen That's what I'm referring to. M/Kim Thank you, Mrs. Papen, that's the one we did a year and half ago. Are there any more discussions on this? C/Forbing Yes. I totally disagree with that, and I think there's, there's some misunderstanding of what staff's is talking about with RFP. I think we've been through this long enough that staff can write up a city requirement for, for collection based on what the City wants to have. When the Council approves that and it's exactly what we feel is in the best interest of the community, that can be sent out to qualified haulers and they can come back with a price and we can go with a company that has the best price for what we want. By saying that your going to narrow it down to two, it's saying that all of the cities that are using the other haulers that feel that they are qualified, those cities are wrong in what they've chosen. I'm not sure that before we even write our proposal you can narrow it down to two companies. Doesn't make any sense. Particularly after the Mayor doesn't even list the company that's collecting the most trash in the community today. MPT/Papen Mr. Forbing we can do whatever we want. I mean this Council's discretion as to how we proceed from here, and I have made a very serious proposal, I have given this a lot of thought and I am serious in what I suggest, is that let's short, you know we have been working on this for 2 years. We have 2 1/2 years, we have other issues in this community that need our attention. We have probably had 15 public hearings on the issue and I have file drawer that is full of only RFP materials and a second file drawer full on the other solid waste issues. I i we need to move forward on this aril i maT�e a motion that we direct staff to meet with these two companies, review their programs, analyze their abilities to provide services on the long term to this community and report back to the Council. M/Kim There's a motion on the floor. Do I hear a second on the motion? C/Miller I'll second that. to see what staff comes to Council with. M/Kim Second is made by Mr. Miller. Discussion. M/Kim A second is made by C/Miller. I would like to make one comment on this: I would like to ask staff to verify my statement. Under Public Code 40059 it says "City has an option to go ahead and award the contract without a competitive bid process, not only that City has an option either negotiate with one hauler or two haulers. I would like to verify this with the City Attorney, is that true? DCA/Curley You're referencing in the staff report, public Resources Code Section 40059, I am going to assume that it was properly quoted by the staff preparing the memo and they seem to be indicating yes, so if that is the proper language of the code then in fact you do have that option. M/Kim Then what MPT/Papen said is correct, that we have an option to do anything tonight to select two firms asking staff to negotiate with them and come back. DCA/Curley Under the code, basically in light of where the SRRE has matured to as establishing the needs that the City will be requiring as well as having staff fine tune whatever other franchise or contractual elements may be needed to be present in that agreement to meet with the two haulers and see if they can satisfy what is within staff's new proposal. If that is the case, get the response from the two haulers and report to the Council. Certainly, there is no problem with that in the sense they could report back and say neither or both or only one, or whatever the outcome is of their interviews with these designated contacts. M/Kim Any further discussion on this matter, C/Forbing? C/Forbing To follow up on my prior comments, I totally disagree with this motion. Staff has recommended that they put together a package for Council review, which is basically what the motion is and bring it back in 60 days. I would agree with that part of it that the Council needs to see the package, needs to approve what we are looking for in the way of pickup. At the time that report comes back and is approved by the Council in 60 days, at that time the Council can make a determination of how we want to handle the choice of a hauler or splitting up the community or doing whatever. It seems to me that it is premature to take from the four haulers that we had narrowed it down to before the highest price and the lowest price, throwing out the two in the middle one of whom is picking up 60% of the trash in town today before we even have the staff report to narrow this down to the highest price and the lowest price and determine which one is going to be our hauler. We haven't even determined whether we are going to award the whole community, part of the community, divide up the commercial or the residential, and we are already talking about only bringing in two haulers for who knows what reason, it makes no sense to me to go against the staff recommendation which is to prepare the report and bring it back in 60 days for the Council to approve. M/Kim Thank You. Are there any, Mr. Miller would you like to make a comment? C/Werner Mr. Mayor. M/Kim Yes Mr. Werner. C/Werner I would have to agree with C/Forbing, I can't in good conscience draw any conclusions tonight that would allow me to make a decision that would contradict the decisions already made by 60 to 70% of the community, in excluding this one company, I can't imagine how the motion can even be made in good conscience without having Waste Management as part of that process. That's my feelings on this motion. M/Kim Mr. Miller? C/Miller When staff comes back, after negotiating with these two contractors, it does not necessarily put Council in a position where we have to issue a contract to either one of these individuals, am I correct? M/Kim Mr. Belanger would you answer that question please. ACM/Belanger That's correct. The staff would be involved in negotiation and final acceptance and agreement to that negotiation is left to the discussion of the City Council. C/Miller So were not tying our hands at this point and time? ACM/Belanger You wouldn't be obligated to sign any agreement that the staff recommended if you chose not to. Yes. C/Werner Call for the question. M/Kim I would like to make a comment no ns comments, that, sorry I never got a chance. I have to share feeling with Mrs. Papen, its been a long dragging, and its been frustrating experience, just dragging and dragging, and by now we should be ready, however, also I like to mention that those two firms I mentioned, I haven't changed my mind about them, they've done a fine job and I watch them, and the fine reputation in the City, I'm sure other haulers too, and they been very active in the community and everybody is fairly happy with them. I have no problem with them. I understand Mrs. Papen's frustration, dragging, this been long, more than a year. However, staff recommended to put together RFP modified RFP, and come back in sixty days, I feel that we should go ahead and hope that the City staff got a clear message from us that we would like to get some action soon. Just don't want to drag this any longer. With that I would like to incline, maybe we should accept staff recommenda- tion Mrs. Papen. Again, that's, now you can call for the question. Or Mrs. Papen would you like to make another comment. MPT/Papen Yes. Your confusing me, Mr. Kim with your comments. I have brought back your motion from a year ago, that we have staff review these two, review the programs that these two companies can provide and report back to the City Council; and that's my motion. The motion was not to award a franchise, the motion was to review the programs and the service capacities or capabilities of these two companies and bring a report back to the City Council in view of the SRRE and the programs that we have to implement. Gentlemen, I am amazed that this has gotten so political because every City has somebody picking up their garbage and these companies know the services, were not inventing a new wheel. In fact, somebody made the comment that were ahead of most cities. I just came back from a quasi -family reunion and of my seven brothers and sisters, I'm the only one that doesn't have mandatory recycling and here I serve on a City Council and I was the program director for a pilot curbside recycling program. My brother, not only separates aluminum, glass and newspaper, and plastic, they must crush every cardboard box and flatten it and put in underneath their trash can and they must put all their leaves and their grass clippings in City approved trash bags that you buy at the grocery store or else the City will not pick up his trash. C/Werner Mr. Mayor call for the question. There's a motion on the floor. C/Forbing Before you... M/Kim Call for... MPT/Papen I was interrupted, I'm speaking. M/Kim Can I ask... C/Werner There's a motion on the floor. MPT/Papen It's my motion and I think its been changed, and I want to make sure that my motion.... C/Werner No, you just clarified it. M/Kim Mr. Werner, just hold on please. I am the one conducting meeting, any questions, any concerns, please direct me, and I'll C/Forbing Mayor Kim M/Kim Hold a second please. One at a time. Mr. Forbing C/Forbing Since the motion involves the naming of two trash companies, I'm going to have to withdraw from the vote, due to the fact that I have a conflict of interest when it comes to picking specific trash companies for any sort of project. M/Kim Mr. Attorney, is that what the case is? DCA/Curley I'm not personally familiar with all the details, I know the City Attorney has done some review and certainly, Councilmember Forbing would be most aware of his position. So certainly his position as articulated is something that would be fully appropriate. M/Kim Is that clear legal opinion on this case? Thank You. Mr. Miller, were going to go around one more comments and that's it. C/Miller No, I have no more comments. M/Kim Mr. Werner? C/Werner No more comments. M/Kim Mrs. Papen would you like to finish? MPT/Papen I'd like to have the Clerk read the motion. M/Kim Alright. There's a motion, would you read aloud motion please. CC/Burgess The motion as made by MPT/Papen is to direct staff to make a, to shorten the list of approximately to previous RFP's and to evaluate the two companies recommended by M/Kim last year. M/Kim Let me ask, just clarification, MPT/Papen Could I clarify my motion please? I'd like to have my motion be as I stated. My motion is that we direct staff to meet with these two companies and review their programs and their service capabilities, in light of our SRRE and report back to the Council. M/Kim Alrig s at clear, we are not talking about awarding anything tonight, simply asking staff to talk to these two hauler and explain the program and come back with a report. Mr. Werner, is that understood, or understood differently? C/Werner I had no question before, I have none now. I was calling for the question. M/Kim Ok, no more questions. There's a motion on the floor, second on the floor, Madam Clerk, roll call please. CC/Burgess C/Forbing, I'm sorry. C/Miller (Aye), C/Werner (No), MPT/Papen (Aye), M/Kim (Aye). M/Kim So proved. C/Werner Mr. Mayor M/Kim Yes, Mr. Werner. C/Werner Would it be appropriate to follow a parallel path, as recommended by staff, in the event, that we come up short in these discussion? I'll make a motion to that effect and that would be, a, have staff prepare a modified Request for Proposal, which of course could be used in their discussions with these two firms, but would also put us on a shorter path in the event that we choose at a future date to go out for proposal to a larger selection, larger group of companies. M/Kim Mrs. Papen, is that agreeable to you? Can I solicit your comments on this? C/Werner Yeah, that was a motion. M/Kim Oh that's a motion? Alright, then I'd like to ask for second? C/Miller I'll go ahead and second it. M/Kim Alright, second motion by Mr. Miller. Discussion, Mrs. Papen. MPT/Papen The staff, I believe already has a list of services are going to be needed and I don't know that it would take that much time, there asking for sixty days to return, so it could be quite a while before we do it. I would like to see this first happen first. It increases the staff's work load, that's for sure at this time. C/Miller I believe this is actually ing tbe part nd oindivid parcel of negotiating with two al firms orif an RFP went out to nine or ten firms, I don't believe there is any additional work required is there? Mean, isn't it the same process? M/Kim Preparing RFP, that takes a little time. C/Miller But, I mean, it would cover the same basic issues that would be covered if we were just dealing with one person, wouldn't it. It would be raising the same issues. ACM/Belanger For the purpose of the discussion with the firms, we would develop a discussion, topics for discussion using the SRRE as our reference point. If we were to continue on, and develop an RFP, or even a bid process, it would utilize the same type of information using the same reference point. It would just be expanded in a more formal, in a formal document. When we sit down and meet with these two firms, we will have an idea of those areas we wish to discuss when we walk into the room, and the SRRE will be the basis for that. C/Werner If I can elaborate on what my objective and purposes are, I'd like to make sure that when we do sit down and negotiate with these two firms, that were negotiating on the same level of service that we would otherwise be seeking from other firms. And, I want to insure that, number one, and secondly, that we don't loose the time period or the time element that you've listed in the staff report for tonight's meeting. I believe, that you will be able to come back at, on an earlier time frame with a report back to us on these two companies in short of the sixty days. But I would like to make sure that within sixty days from tonight that should you run into a road block with those two firms, were in a foot path to go out and solicit RFP's from others. And, I not necessarily suggesting that the full package be prepared, but just so that you are preparing your material for the discussions with these two companies as Mr. Miller has indicated, consistent with the RFP that You might ultimately recommend. M/Kim Any further discussion on this? Alright, no more discussion, there's a motion and second on the floor, Madam Clerk, roll call please. CC/Burgess May I ask for clarification? May C/Forbing vote on this issue? DCA/Curley In that, this basically tracts the initial staff recommendation and doesn't seem to be attributed to any particular hauler, I don't see any disability affecting Councilman Forbing, unless he is aware of facts that I am not. M/Kim Mr. Forbing, you can vote? C/Forbing As far as I'm concerned, Yes. CC/Burgess C/Werner (Yes), C/Forbing (Yes), C/Miller (Yes), MPT/Papen (No), M/Kim (Yes). M/Kim So be it. Does staff understand clearly what motion and second is? All right, Thank You. Thank you for your patience, Item 9 is finally over. I would like to go on to next item. Yes, anyone want to make a comment? MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DECEMBER 17, 1991 1. CLOSED SESSION - 4:30 P.M. Litigation - Section 54956.9 Personnel - Section 54957.6 No reportable actions taken. 2. CALL TO ORDER: M/Kim called the meeting to order at 6:05 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/Kim. ROLL CALL: Mayor Kim, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen Werner, Miller and Forbing. Also present were Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager; Terrence L. Belanger, Assistant City Manager; William P. Curley III, Deputy City Attorney; James DeStefano, Director of Community Development; Sid Mousavi, City Engineer and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 3. SWEARING-IN OF MAYOR PRO TEM -ELECT PHYLLIS E. PAPEN - City Clerk Lynda Burgess administered the Oath of Office to Mayor Pro Tem -Elect Phyllis Papen. 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: None offered. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The following persons, residing at Heritage Park Senior Apartments, 23750 Highland Valley Rd., expressed appreciation to the Council for the Holiday Shuttle Program: Francisca J. Vela, Sally L. Varvaro, Carol Spriggs 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Werner moved, C/Miller seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Miller, Werner, MPT/Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 6.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 6.1.1 PLANNING COMMISSION - December 23, 1991 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 6.1.2 CHRISTMAS/NEW YEARS HOLIDAYS - December 24 - 25, 1991 & January 1, 1992 - City Offices will be closed. DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 2 6.1.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - January 7, 1991 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 6.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of December 3, 1991 - Approved as submitted. 6.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Warrant Register dated December 17, 1991 in the amount of $352,683.18 - Approved as submitted. 6.4 TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of November 1991 - Received and filed. 6.5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6.5.1 REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1991 - Received and filed. 6.5.2 REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 1991 - Received and filed. 6.6 NOTICE OF COMPLETION - TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT GRAND AVE. AND ROLLING KNOLL DR.- Accepted work performed by Hovey Electric, Inc. and authorized City Clerk to file Notice of Completion. 6.7 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 91-74: 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. 6.8 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 91-75: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY COORDINATED PARATRANSIT NETWORK. 6.9 CROSSING GUARD SERVICES AT LEMON AVE. & COLIMA RD. Approved provision of crossing guard services. 6.10 CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - 6.10.1 Claim filed by Shelly Schoenberger November 27, 1991 - Denied. 6.10.2 Claim filed by Al Rump illa November 7, 1991 - Denied. 6.11 CONSENT TO GRANT SECURITY INTEREST TO JONES INTERCABLE - Authorized Mayor to execute a letter of consent granting security interest in the franchise owned by Jones Intercable to provide them with the ability to enter into financial arrangements with various lending institutions. DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 3 6.12 REDESIGNATION OF ENFORCEMENT AGENCY - Authorized the Mayor to execute a Letter of Affirmation redesignating L.A. County Department of Health Services as the City's Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) with respect to enforce- ment, inspection and permitting of solid waste facilities in the City, due to recent changes in State law. 7. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC. 7.1 CITY TILE - Presented City Tile to Sgt. Rod Morris, Walnut/San Dimas Sheriff's Station "Reserve Coordinator of the Year" for 1991 as designated by the California Reserve Peace Officers Assn. 7.2 CITY TILE - Due to her inability to attend the meeting, M/Kim requested staff to mail the City Tile to Grace Lin in appreciation for her service on the Planning Commission. 8. NEW BUSINESS: 8.1 CONSIDERATION OF MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS - CM/Van Nort stated that Resolution No. 90-40 established the 1991-92 Fiscal Budget, and that, based on the fact that the budget is a "living document," it is necessary to monitor and evaluate its implementation during the course of the year. Following discussion, M/Kim requested that staff prepare a report on the impact of the street sweeping cutback from weekly to bi-weekly to be presented in 90 days. Martha Bruske, 600 Great Bend Dr., was concerned about the reduction of the Sheriff's activities, and the stationing of a sheriff's unit at Diamond Bar Blvd. and Goldrush. She asked what other reductions had been made and indicated that she had called City Hall many times but did not get a response to her concerns. She suggested that reductions at City Hall may be in order. CM/Van Nort stated that the Sheriff's Department will operate with one-man cars in lieu of two-man cars, resulting in the same number of patrol cars as currently exists. In addition, the intersection of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Goldrush Dr. has been a traffic problem in the past with a large number of speeders. He stated that he would request the Sheriff's Department to prepare a report as to why enforcement at that intersection is so important. He then requested that Ms. Bruske provide specifics so that he could investigate her allegations and respond. C/Werner moved, C/Forbing seconded to approve the Mid -Year Budget adjustments as presented. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 4 AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, Werner, Forbing, MPT/ Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 8.2 ORDINANCE NO. 8 (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 - DCA/Curley indicated that the purpose of the Ordinance was to prohibit "flyer parties," defined as those for which an admission fee is charged and which are advertised by flyers or other posting inviting people to attend. Lt. Michael Muravez, Walnut Sheriff's Station, reported that his Department endorsed the Ordinance due to their experience that such parties are disruptive to normal residential activities and attract persons from a wide area, depending on how the flyers are distributed. In response to M/Kim's question, Lt. Muravez stated that during a flyer party approximately two weeks before, an incident occurred involving individuals who did not want to pay the admission fee, returned later and fatally shot a person involved in an earlier argument. At the request of MPT/Papen, DCA/Curley stated that "admission charge" means a tangible benefit, either monetary or otherwise, which is expressly or impliedly required as a condition of admittance to a party. It would not include donations for political, community service, charitable or religious purposes. C/Forbing moved, C/Miller seconded to adopt Ordinance No. 8 (1991) by title only and waive further reading. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Forbing, Miller, MPT/ Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None RECESS: M/Kim recessed the meeting at 6:45 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Kim reconvened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. 9. PUBLIC HEARING - 9.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RE: SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT - Asst. to CM/Butzlaff recommended that the Council: (1) again continue the public hearing to allow for additional public testimony and at the conclusion, close the hearing and direct staff to forward all written comments and testimony to the consultant for DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 5 integration into the City's final SRRE draft; (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 in the City; (3) submit the legally prescribed notice 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 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. The proposal would be completed within sixty days and brought back for approval by the Council and then submitted to the haulers for their RFPs. Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs Dr., spoke in opposition to a single franchise and dividing the City in half and awarding 2 franchises. Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., also spoke in opposition to awarding an exclusive franchise. Martha Bruske stated that she didn't want to hear the Council talk about splitting the City in half. She further stated that approximately 5 separate haulers pick up trash on her street which creates quite a lot of noise and indicated that she would prefer only one hauler. With no further testimony offered, M/Kim closed the Public Hearing. MPT/Papen reported that in written opinions furnished by both the City Attorney and the Fair Political Practices Commission have indicated that she did not have a conflict of interest regarding this issue and that she may vote on all motions. MPT/Papen moved, C/Werner seconded to direct staff to forward all written comments and public testimony to the consultant for integration into the final SRRE draft for return to the Council for approval. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Miller, Werner, MPT/ Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None MPT/Papen moved, C/Miller seconded to declare the City's intention to award an exclusive franchise to one or more haulers to provide refuse collection disposal, recycling DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 6 services for residential and commercial premises. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, Forbing, MPT/Papen NOES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, M/Kim ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None C/Forbing moved, C/Miller seconded to submit 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. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Forbing, Miller, MPT/ Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None Following discussion, MPT/Papen moved, C/Miller seconded to direct staff to meet with the two companies previously named (Western Waste and Community Disposal), review their programs, analyze their abilities to provide services on the long term and report back to Council. Following further discussion, C/Forbing stated that since the motion involves the naming of two trash haulers, he must abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, MPT/Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - Werner ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN - Forbing C/Werner moved, C/Miller seconded to direct staff to prepare a modified Request for Proposal, which could be used by staff in their discussions with the two firms, that would also make a shorter path in the event it is decided at a later date to go out for proposal by a larger group of companies. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Forbing, Miller, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - MPT/Papen ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Forbing announced that the remainder of Grand Avenue, through Industry, would be opening on December 18th and invited all persons to participate. C/Miller congratulated MPT/Papen on becoming a grandmother. DECEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 7 C/Werner requested that staff look into the development of a video transmission ordinance or permit. He further wished all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. MPT/Papen asked staff to review the political sign ordinance and requested Council to consider limiting campaign contribu- tions locally. 11. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Kim adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor Pro Tem Papeen and Councilmember Forbing FROM: Linda G. MagnusomV, Senior Accountant SUBJECT: Voucher Register, January 21, 1992 DATE: January 15, 1992 Attached is the Voucher Register dated January 21, 1992. 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 115 Int. Waste Mgt Fund 138 LLAD #38 Fund 139 LLAD #39 Fund 141 LLAD #41 Fund 225 Grand Ave. Const Fd 250 CIP Fund TOTAL ALL FUNDS APPROVED BY: Linda G. Mag u on Senior Accountant i RoberCt L. VaLn Nort City Manager dated January 21, 1992 have been for payment. Payments are hereby in these amounts: $155,594.75 1,114.98 348.59 390.00 8,461.07 5,583.50 1,293.62 $172,786.51 : / C, L., 0 Ph—yllid E. Papen Mayor Pro Tem 1 John A. Forbing Councilmember *ff Cit of Dia0and Har fff !TUN TIME: 12:152t/t702 VOUCHER RE6ISf(R P;r;_ 1 DOE THRLI.............01121192 V::NDL)R NAME VENDOR ID. f * PRE -PAID f f ACCOUNT PRDJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.IINE/NO. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ENTRY/DUE INVOfCE DESCRIPIION AMOUNT DATE C8Ei:k ARA/Lary Rafreshaent SVLS ARA f801-4090-2325 3 24121A 01114 81/21 218034 Meeting Supplies 49.2 *001-4090-2130 2 20121A 01/14 01/21 218352 Equip Rental 67,09 IOTA[ DOE VENDUR--------> 136.25 Allans True Value AlleosTrue feel -4319-1282 13 29121A 10/11AS 01/14 01/21 02006 Mist Operating Supplies 9.49 *081-4310-1290 11 20121A 06/1185 01/14 01/21 22916 Misc Operating Supplies 14.96 feel -4310-1249 12 28121A 09/1165 e1/14 01121 02920 Mist Operating Supplies 7.S8 TDfAL DUE VENDOR --------> 31.13 Aaariran Pub Irks Assoc IFVA *081-4510-2320 1 20121A 01/14 01/21 Eic!r Publications 19.ea TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 1933 A*arican Storage LTD Arariturag *eal.-4090-2148 3 22121A 01/14 01121 Fab Rental -2 Units 153.02 TOfAL DUE VENDOR --------> 153.02 Auction Express Title Svc AuctionExp f901-4832-4000 1 281218 01/15 01/21 DMV Svcs -Title Modificatn 25.00 TOT4L DUE VENDOR --------> V5.02 Boyce, Jeanne 141 *081-3478 1 20121A 01114 81/21 1647 Rerreatina Refund 27.80 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 27.02 (GA Development Inr., CGA *250-4310••6415 62492 2 23121A 01/1207 01/15 01/21 1297 Captl Iaprv-Petersen 1.2`43.62 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 11293.62 Cal Rec Buili1Er5 6 Cons. CalRec 001-4322-2210 1 22121C 01115 01/1.5 9316 Bridge Maint-Reaga;i Park 2,976.80 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 2.976.00 Cox`5 Steal ClPaninq Cox5team *981-455-5529 2 20121D 01/15 81/21 Graffiti Reeoval 92.09 100L DUE VENDOR --------> 90.90 +++ City of Diamond Bar t+t RL -N TIME: 12:15 21/17192 V 0 U C 4 t R R E 6 I S f E R DOE THRJ .............@1/21/91 W-NDOR NAME VENDOR iD. * t PREPAID t t ACCLgINT PR11MI-N7 BATCH PDA INF1Ne. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ENTRY/DUE INVOICE Dr CR1PIION AKWNT DALE CHKK D0 Associates DKS 1421-451. 5?71 3 28121A 01/15 01/21 14517 Prof. Svcs -Mountain Laurl 1,75/.5@ TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 1,757.52 Davannort. Maurpen Dav-2o!wrt.M +134-3@15 1 28121A 61115 01/21 RaiNb Taxes -1956,69,92 45.e2 1139-2015 1 20121.4 01/t5 21/21 Reiab Taxe5-1956,89,9 392.00 IOTA( DUE VENDOR --------) 435,.68 David Evans i Assne. DaviHEvas;s +001-2320-•lell 5 23111A 041115 01121 052L70 Prof. Sits-EIR Med Plaza 975.95 MAL DUE VcNDOR--------> 975.96 Dent rf Trarspurtation DentTrani +821-4551.-5527 i 28121.4 01/15 01/21 12@162 Sianl/lights Nnv 91 445.71 TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------- '+45.71 Ewing Irrioation Products :_wing +401-431.@ 122@ 16 20121C 02/1234 01/15 01/21 390798 Irrigation Supplies 261.76 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> ?81.76 FXxon EXXAI,S +021-4432-2.31@ 7 201.214 01/15 01/21 4259824 Fael-CCar Office 13.20 MI -4:310 -MO 6 20121A 01/15 01/21 42;9931 Fual-Parks 6 Maint 17.12 +081-4032-231@ 6 22121A 01/15 el/21 4956164 Fuel-CMyr Office 16.00 +001-409@-231@ 2 20121A 01/15 @1/21 4956276 Fnel-Gen Govt 13.04 +08I-431.0-2310 6 2@121A 01/15 01/21 6316228 Fuel-Prk d Maint 31..52 +001-4310-231@ 7 ?2121.4 @1/15 81/21 6::5411'5 Fuel -Parks 6 Maint '}2.06 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------'> 122.92 Exxon Fxxons (021-4210-2720 3 2212IA 01/15 01121 42543 Car Maint-Play 37.96 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 37.96 Fussier, Lnri 142 +401-3472 3 20121A 01/14 01/21 2146 Recreation Refund 67.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------) 87.02 0 *** %ity of D i a a a n d Bar f*f RUN TIMW: 12:15 41/11/92 V 0 U C H E R R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 DUE THRU.............01/21/91 VENDOR NAME VENDOR 1D. } P1f.PAiD f f ACCOUNT PRO;t.TX-N9 BATCH P9.1INE/N0. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DF"CR1P1I0N AMOUNT DAIE C401K ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Flaotiee LISA Flagtiee +01-431.0.1288 22 221218 Plant Call Flaatrall *021-4090-21.38 3 201?IR STE California GTE {021-4090-2125 2 221218 GTE California GTE *021-4313•-2125 2 281218 GTE California STE *bel -4090-2125 1 221218 6allardo, Alir.a 142 *001-3474 1 20121A sardnar Crsaunicatians GardiwCoe *115-4515-2110 3 281218 001-4099-2350 1 7.8121E Grothe, lack Grntiarj *0e1 -471e-2332 1 20121B f081-14218-23:35 1 22121B High.laoder Publications Highlander *081-4210-2115 3 281218 MI -4210-2115 2 201218 *021-4214-2115 1 281218 @1(15 01/21 1461 Flags -Correction 141.16 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------- 141..16 81115 01/21 Mobile Coes Soce 131..52 MAL DpE VENDOR --------) 1:6.50 01/15 01/21 Ear..r Pre,: Phone -Dec 91 40.21 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------} 42.21 01115 01/21 Heritage Phn Svc -Dec 91. 41.49 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------7 41.49 01./15 01/21 Dec Phone Svcs 1,572.0E MAL DILE VENDOR --------) 1,5/2.08 01/14 01121 2125 hcreatior, Refund 40.00 TOM DUE VENDOR -------- 40.08 01/17 01/71 927 fleas Tree Recycl.inu Flyer 1,114.95 01/15 41/7.1 931 Minter Nswslettar 12.,999.08 TOM DUE VENDOR --------) 14,103.96 01/15 61/21 hieb Mtg Expenses 30.08 81/15 01/21 Mileagp Reieb 19.13 10TA1 WE VENDOR --------j 49.70 01!15 01/21 Pub Hry-PC Mtg 67.56 01115 01/21 1255601128 Pub Org-Gen Plan 19.152 01/15 01/21 T93601107 Pub Hrg-Gen Plan 24.7E TOML DUE VENDOR -------- 11136 �+ CitY 0f Diaeond Bar ++� RUN TIME: 12:15 01111/42 V O U C H E R R E 6 I S T E R DOE THRO.............01/21/92 VENDOR NAME VE-40OR 1D. ArCOUNT PtiI►1-I,T1-N9 BATCH PO.L INE19, ENTRY/DUE INVOfCE DE CRIPIIUN AMDONT DALE CNE CK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hovey Electric Inc. Havev 1225-4510 6412 05192 1 281.21.1, Myatt Re:ancY hat0t?vn +033-4010-2338 4 281.21E !CMA Ri4tir.nent Trust -457 ICMA +@a1 -4@3a @ane ,2 281218 1001-'+030-0040 2 20121B +081-4040 @040 2 281218 1@81-4850-0048 2. 78121E +031-421@-0040 2 28121B 3@01-4310-0040 2 201218 +031-45161090 2 281218 Inland Valley Dly Bullets IVDB +021-4210-2115 4 24121C +001-4210-2115 5 ?8121C +001-4040 21,15 3 281218 Int'l h4in�?zs kquioseot InAusEquip +081-4090-220 5 281210 06/1148 1001 4890 -[?00 6 ?012tC 37/1.146 +001-4090-2280 7 281.210 01/1148 Kens Hardware Kens +083-4310 1280 17 281210. of/1277 L.A.Connty Public York I.ACPubVk +001-455!;-5587 3 28121C 101 -4555 -SW 2 2012.IC 01/15 01/21 R:a81 Trfc Sig Grand/RlgK.nol. 5,5F,3.58 10111 DUE V£NDOR--------- 5.5 3.50 01115 01/15 COCA Conf. Jan 14-16 45.54 01/21/92 0888213'15 10111- PREPAID 0130T ----) 45.54 TOTAL. DUE VENDOR --------; 0.00 01115 01/21 Jan Def Coat-Crigr 403.08 01115 81/2t Jan Def Ci:ap-Payr 1,1/7,18 01115 01121 Jan Def Cnnp-CClk 583.44 01115 01/21 •an Def Crap -tin 400.41 01115 01/21 Jan Def Coap-Ping 517.24 01115 01/21 'an Def Crap -P d M 635.71 01!15 01/21 Jan Def Coate-Eagr 1.?E7.46 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 4,917.06 01/15 01121 dt28463. Pub Hrt,-PC Mtg_ 95.75 81/15 61/21 dc21at5 Pub :4ry -GPAC 63.00 01/15 01121 dc2203 Pub Hrg•-TPP! 2210? 54.00 TOTAL :DUE VENDOR --------; 213./5 61115 01/21 6418 Inv Correction 6.09- 01/15 01/21 8419 Inv Currs:tion 197.43 01/15 01/21 6615 Jan -Svc 6 Copies 358.5., TOf1L DUE VENDOR -------- 49.9 01/15 01/21 54091 Mist Equip for Parks it.63 TOW .DUE VENDOR --------} 11.63 01./15 01./21 92080015?8 Maint Signls/HW Lightinu 10.69 01/15 81121 M92000025/9 Maint-Trffc Sig/Lights 3,268.85 Ti1TA1 DILE VENDOR --------y 3,279.74 T01AL DUE VENDOR --------) 470.26 Pariposa Hortirultural tat City of D i 4 a o n d Bar tat RUN 11ME: 12:15 81/17/9? V 0 U C H E R R E G I -S T E R PAGE 5 Dec Maint 01iE THRU .............11/21/92 2 70121C 81115 VENDOR NAME VENDOR I11. DBC Paint Heritage Prk 663.00 + t PRa PAID + + ACCOUNT PROD.Q ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -NO BATCH PO.I.INE/40. 11_-.N1RY/.D1JE 2882 INVOICE 0"' CHIPTICN AMOUNT DATE: CHkfK 1..A.County-Diit. Attorney LCCDistAtt 2 ?8121C 01115 01/21 2682 Dec }tel-40?9-40?1 2 21I21C 01/15 01/21 2 281210 Legal Svcs -Nov 91 6t.95 2682 Dec Maint Reagan Prk 995.08 TOfAL UOE VENDOR --------> ht.ls LA C?pular Tolpohooe I.ACeilular 2882 DPc Maint Starshine Prk 415.60 001-4038.2125 2 201210 01/15 01/21 2882 Dec Cellular Svc-CMar 54.71 it3l-4440-2125 1 7WI C 81115 91/21 91/15 D. -n Cell Svc-f®?r Prep 61.63 D?C Maint Sycasare Cyn 1,526.80 IOTAL WE VENDOR --------> 116.34 Lragtje of Ca. Cities L»aqua t8a1-4010 2325 6 20121E 01/15 01/21 Mtq-Mayor Kis Jan 9 29.08 01/21/92 etaO0132S? IOfAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----> 20.00 10TAt DUE VENDOR --------> 0.08 Mak, Betty 143 t0al-3474 2 20121A 01/14 61/21 1351 Recreation Refund 35.80 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------} 35.09 Mariposa Hurtirultural Parinosa }021-432E-2210 4 2h?lC 01/15 01/21 2886 Maint-Sussitridoe Pik 40.24 +011-4328-2218 3 ?9121C 81/15 91/2.1 2667 Maint-Sussitridne Pik 117.75 +091-4319-2210 4 20121C 01/15 01/21 288E Maint-Petersen Prk 15.24' tall -4319-22t0 3 ?9121C 01/15 01/21 2889 Maint-P*tersen Park 55.67 *021-431.9-22t0 2 281210 01/15 01/21 2890 Maint-Petersen Prk 14.10 1e81-4313-2210 2 20121C 91/15 01/2i 2891 Maint-Heritage Prk 19.82 +021-4322221.8 3 28121C 01/15 01/21 2892 Maint-Reagan Prk 39.72 1101-42,22-2210 2 21121C 81/15 91121 2.893 Maint-RPagan Prk 23.27 *081-43:11-2210 1 281210 8i/15 01/21 2894 Maint-Svcasre Cyn Pik 131.25 1001-4316-2719 1 20121C 91/15 01/21 28115 Paint. -Maple Hill Prk 24.05 +021-4311-2210 1 28121C 01/15 01121 2596 Paint -Paul Grow Prk 14.10 T01AL DUE VENDOR --------) 470.26 Pariposa Hortirultural Mdriposa +081-4311-5381 2 28121C 61115 01/21 2182 Dec Maint Paul Grow Prk 995.03 1091-4313-5300 2 70121C 81115 01/21 2862 DBC Paint Heritage Prk 663.00 *001-4316 5380 2 281?IC 01/15 01/21 2882 Dec Maint Maple. Hill Prk 629.08 2811-4319-5300 2 ?8121C 01115 01/21 2682 Dec Paint Petersen Prk 1,244.06 1001-4322 5181 2 281210 01./15 01/21 2682 Dec Maint Reagan Prk 995.08 tt81-4325-53t8 2 29121C 01/15 81/21 2882 DPc Maint Starshine Prk 415.60 *001-4326-5141 2 291210 01/15 01/21 2882 Dec Maint Sassitrdge Prk 1,492.00 1891-4331-5320 2 2012.1C 91/15 01/21 2542 D?C Maint Sycasare Cyn 1,526.80 10TAL DVE VENDOR --------> 6,161.08 141 City o4 DiaA01}d bar ��+ RUN TIME: 12:15 01117/91 V O U C H E R R E G I S T E R DI)E T4RU.............01/2102 VENDOR NAME VEIDOR Iu. ACCOUNT PRII3.TX-NO BATCH ?D.LINE/NO. !:VTRY/DUE IVVD(LE DcscRIPTIGN AMOUNT DAIE t:4tCK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maripa:=•a Horticultural Narin{lsa 69.68 +021-4319-120a 16 231210 01!15 01/21 26!13 Supplies -Parks 1001••4319-2210 5 70121C 01/!5 81121 2884 Maint-Patzrsen Prk 17•9 +031-4331-2210 2 28121C 01/15 01/21 2685 Maint-Sycawnre 665.08 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------; 152.18 Markran Arczynski Hanson Markaankc 1 28121-. 01/15 01./21 Legal Svcs -Dec 41 1,669.58 +@@1-4828-4078 iek--4070-402.1 3 20121C 81/15 01/21 51ree Legal Sv:s-Dae 41 1,8'10.90 191A1 DLIE VENDOR --------> 6,168.40 My?rs, EliraiGath *681-4710 4008 My:a.rsE 3 28121E 01!15 01./21 Ping Coca Svc -11./2(-11/27 720.08 01/21/92 @83001310', 1@81-4310-4000 2 28121E at/15 01/t5 Prk E, Roc Cc* i4tq 11114 126m 81/21/92 2$@081:',1)3 +601-4553 4000 2 28121E 01/15 01/15 T 6 T Svcs -10110,11/13 431.08 01/21/92 0283813153 10FAL I'MAID AMOUNT ----? 1,216.08 TOTAL DUE VEND(IR Pae Tel Paging "31-4411-213t PacTelPag 1 28i21D 01/15 01/21 Jan Beeper Svc-LutEr 14.01 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------5 14.01 Par mtt:rr Building Svcs Pacesetter 281218 01/ 15 @1/21 Bldg Inspec Svcs -Dec 10,791.21 +881-4220-5781 1001-4220 57.01 1 2 28121D 81/1.5 01/21 Plan Chk fees -Der- 3,391.23 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------% 141162.54 Pagan, Phyllis +001-4016-2338 Papel to 2017.1E 01/15 01/15 Per Diea-CCC:A Cnnf 136.00 01/21/91 0b30ai3256 TOTAL PREPAID AMOU4T ----) 13b.8a TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------1 @.00 Payroll Transfar PayrollTr 2 281218 01/15 01/21 Payrr�ii Trans -PPI 34,508.08 01121!91 0002008801 +081-1028 TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----> 39,.00.80 TUTRL DUE VEND(IR--------) 0.04 Planning Network PianningNv 5,@69.09 *001-4210-4228 1 28121E 01/15 01/21 90541 ben Plan Svcs 1@01-42.10-4270 2 20121E 01/15 01121 906/;6 ban Plan Phase i ?1,7.16.09 +601-4210••4228 3 28121E 01/15 01121 98661 San Plan Prase 2 72',•08 ]DIAL OUE VENDOR -------- 33,812.00 f#f City of Diamond Bar ### RCN TIME: 12:15 81/17/92 V O U C H E R R E 6 I S T E R PAGE 7 DUE THRU.............01/21/92 KNDOR NAME VENDOR 13. # # PREPAID # # ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH P0.1IKE/N0. ENTRY/DUE INVOfCt DFSCRIPIION AMOUNT DATE CHECK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pomona Valley Humane Sac. P'VHS #@a1-4431-5403 1 28121D Postage By Picone Pust3yPhon *481-4091-2178 1 281213 Program for Success Program 001-434-530 2 28121C Propps, Virginia 139 001-3472 2 20121A Public Ecol htireaent PERS t401-1238 1 28121E #@@1-2116-1988 3 28121E f401-2118••1@48 4 2817.1E Ranco Graphics Reprr,6raph 081-4090••2110 3 281210 01/15 01/21 Jan Animal Control Svc 4,137.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 4,137.06 41115 01/21 Pastage Replenishavnt 584.88 01121 69748 10f4L DUE VENDOR --------> 5@8.08 @1115 @1/21 4859 Recreation System Support 368.08 81/21 71113 TOTAL DUE VCNDOR--------> 3/18.18 61/14 81/21 2274 hcreatina Refund 41.68 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 41.88 81/15 01121 Employer Contrib 3,106.87- 81/21/92 888881364 01/15 01/15 Retire Coatrib-PP 1 3,186.87 81/15/92 e@18613,254 61/15 81/15 Employee Contrib 2,729.53 81115/92 0888813254 01/15 100L PREPAID AMOUNT ----> 2,729.53 TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------> 8.48 81/15 81/21 Stationary Supplies 73.52 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 13.,b2 Hoesch i_i"s Inc. RaeschLine +481-4358-5311 2 21121D @111283 81115 01121 69748 Laughlin Excursion 522.29 #8@1-4358-5318 4 28121D @2/1263 81115 81/21 71113 taayhlin Excursion 37.88 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 568.68 San Gabriel Valley pity 4KNA +401-4439•-2325 2 28121E 81/15 01/15 Jan 15th Mtq-Cdgr 17.88 61/21192 8888013757 TOfAL PREPAID ;MOUNT ----> 17.0 TDTA1 DUE VENDOR --------> 0.06 San Gabriel Vly Tribune 56VTribune t411-4716-2115 7 28121D 01/15 01/21 10672 Pub Hry-WC 58.48 1881-421@-2115 6 281213 81115 01/21 sgvtl46S6 Pub 4rq-PC Nty 88.58 +@81-4448-2115 5 28121D 01/15 81/21 sgvt18771 Pub Hrg-Ord 8(1951) 58.68 1181-4048-2115 4 26121D 81115 81121 syvt18775 Pab Hrg-Tract 47859,51,87 73.60 +681-4441••2115 6 28121D 01/15 11/21 sgvtl@781 Pub Hrg-Resid Zone Chrges 46.92 ttt City of Dia;eand Bar +tt RUN TIME: 12:15 +'sl/17/92 V 0 11 C H E R R F G I S T F R PACE 8 OWE THYIJ .............21121/y2 YWOR NINE VENDOR II). t t Pi±�PAIl1 f t ACCO►;NT PRO,7. TX -MO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DATCH MLINE/Nil. :-�YTRY/01JE INVOILE OESCRIPTICM ;MOUNT DATE CHi!CK San Pahrial Vlv Trihure :;6Vfrih.ne irLNT1N1JED) 10TAI WE VENDOR --------3 318:18 Security Par Matl Bank 3"':urityPa +621-4032-23.82 1 7'z'121D 61/15 01./21 K!!-CMor I LA County 41.31 f081-4630-1:132 2 22121D 01/15 81121 Mtq-1,M+Tr S Vater DISI x31.62 TOTAi DOE VENDOR --------i 2x2.91 Se*:urity Pac Matl Bank Srcuritypa +W-419-2325 7 20121E 61/17 01/21 MEeting-hardetla 151.56 M1-400-2320 d 2212.1E 61/15 01/7.1 Mty 12/71-Papen,Dc-Stefano 29.54 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 164.10 Siecke, 2arren C. Suck w +621-4551-5721 4 22121D 01/15 01/21 2669-9 Engr Svcs 85.68 TOTAL Olt£ VENDOR --------) 55.62 Sir Speedy SiTSceady +621-4090-2110 4 22121D 01115 01/21 7187 Additional Tax Owed 14.92 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------; 14.42 Southern Ca Bas Co SoraSas +621-4313-2126 2 22121E 01./15 01/21 Gas Svcs-Heritave Prk 136.41 TOTAL ME VENDOR --------) 136.41 Southern Ca. Cdison Surakdison +021-4555-2128 2 201210 01115 01121 Dec Elvt:-Trf Control 943.7/ WAL DUE VENDOR --------i 943./7 solitil"Arn Ca. Edison Socat:dison +621-4555-2126 3 2OJ21D 01/15 61/21 Trffr Coritrol-Cnino H1% 210.71 1OFAL DUE VENDOR --------> 292.71 Solifliorn ra. Edison Sutra. son +136-4538-2126 2 201210 01115 01/21 Dec Electric Dist 938 323.511 MAL DUE VENDOR --------> 303.59 TOTAL DOE VENDOR --------) 39.92 fff City of Diamond Bar fff RUN TIMF: 12:15 at/17/92 V 0 U C H E R R E 6 I S T E R P^6E 9 DUE THRU,,,,,,,,,,,,,01/21/92 VENDOR NAME VENDOR (D. PR[PA1D 1 1 ACCOUNT PRDJ.Tf-N9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BATCH P0.IINEIN9. ENTRY/DUE IPIVOfCE DE.,I:RIPiION AMOUNT DALE CHECK S-aatiiern Ca. Edison SoCaEdi5un 1141-4541-2126 2 22121D 01/]5 01/21 Dec Elect Dist 941 22.51 IF AL DUE VENDOR --------) 23.51 Soutitiern Ca. Edison SoCaEdison *031 k31.3 2126 1 20121D 01/15 01/21 Dec El.ec: Heritage Prk 315.98 1001-4:322-212.6 1 20121D 01/15 01/21 Dec tlPc-RJagan Prk 574.38 IIITAI DUE VENDOR --------- 850.36 State Camper}cation Ins Fd StateCcrp 1001-2110-1011. 2 22121D 01/15 01/21 Yrk Coag Prem -4th Qtr 11781.40 1001-2110-]011 3 2.0121D 01/15 01/21 Yrk Crap Prrm-14th Qtr 2,425.38 *031-4090-0083 1 22121D 01/15 01/21 tlrk Coen Prem -.4th qtr 150.32 TOTAL OUE VENDOR --------> 4,357.12 Tavil, Grace 138 *001-3472 1 23121A 01/14 01/21 2242 Recreation Refund 35.03 TDIAL DUE VENDOR --------) 35.00 Total Business Machines Tot&sMach *081-4030-1233 7 22121E 01/12.87 01/15 01/21 Digital lira Stamp 399.76 1001••4210-1200 5 20121E 02/1267 01/15 01/21 Digital Time Stamp 399.26 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 798.52 Tribune Tribune *03] 4090-2328 2 2a121F 01/15 01/21 Subscription Jan -March 15.08 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 15.08 United Reprographics, Ioc UnitedRepr *021 4510-1228 3 20121E 01115 01/21 087127 Drafting Supplies 117.99 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 117.99 Unanal u1lor.al *081-4216-2310 3 22]21F. 01/15 01/21 034322 Fuel -Ping 19.49 1001-4030-2310 9 20121E 01115 01/21 824491 Fuel-Cagr Office 13.63 *631-4030-2310 8 22121E 01/15 01/21 834286 Fuel-Cridr Off 6.60 TOTAL DOE VENDOR --------) 39.92 t� City 0i Dia a and Bar f RUN TIME: 12:15 8111119'1 V O U C H E R R E 6 I S T E R FU.4D SUM IiARY REPORT DUE THRO.............81/21/91 DISBURSE 6/L 63E 4II-L POST 83E HAS PI)srED FUTURE IRANSACr BS FUND 101 AL DWIM PRY hVEN'JE EXPENSE RtVENU EMNU RtVENJE EY PE IN, SE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8616aneral Fund 158C.T.P. Fuad IMLLA6 136 Fund 139LLAD 839 Fuod 1151st Waste Mlgst Fu Mrirand Av Const Fu 141LLAD 141 Fund 10191. ALL FONDS 15;,594.75 47,412.24 1,M.62 346.54 393.03 1,114.96 5,563.52 6,461.07 211,5.8S 107,917.46 45.00 123.5'; 390.00 1,1.14.9E 5,563.:2 6,451.07 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 172,766.51 41,412.79 783.02 12;,674.21 * * City at Dia a and Aar *** RU4TIMF: 12:1581/17/~2 VOUCHER RE6ISTER PAS+' 12 MIL THRLI.............01121/91 VENDOR NAME VENDOR 10, * PREPAID s AfMINT PRUJ.T%-NO BATCH PO.IINF/NO. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DEf.CRINION AMDUNT DATE CHEEK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yalnut Vlv Water Dist WVILaterDis MI -4322 2126 2 28121E 01/15 61/21 Dec W.iLer Usage•-Ri-apan Pk 586.35 1001-4325-2126 1 20121E 81/15 81/21 Dec Tatar-Starshine Pik 3/3.05 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 961.40 �dlnut V1v 4+ater Dist WVIlatarllis *141-4541-2126 3 28121E 01/15 01/21 DFL Vater Usage Dist 41 6,440.56 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 6,448.56 Whole Enchilada Wholecnchl *.01-4890-2399 1 20121F 01/l5 01121 327251 Chamber Mixer Supplies 580.08 Note: This cost was reimbl PSo. Ca. Ga,% jpmpany UR ----- - TOTAL. PREPAID ----------- 43,72..01 TO IAL DUE ------------ — -) 129,048.44 TOTAL REPOR1------------= 1771766.51 1. 2. MINOTES OF THE CITY COIINCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JANUARY 7, 1992 CLOSED SESSION: 4:30 p.m. Litigation - Section 54956.9 Personnel - Section 54957.6 Property Acquisition - Section 54956.8 CA/Arczynski reported that the Council discussed potential acquisition of property owned by the Walnut Valley Water District, generally north of Pathfinder and west of Brea Canyon Rd. as well as personnel matters. No reportable actions were taken. CALL TO ORDER: M/Kim called the meeting to order at 6:02 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/Kim. ROLL CALL: Mayor Kim, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen Forbing, Miller and Werner. Also present were Robert L. Van Nort, 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. 3. COUNCIL COMMENTS: C/Forbing stated that an article published on Page 43 in the December issue of the Windmill addressed methods by which the public could improve their mail service and requested that residents mail the tear -out section indicating their desire for a full-service post office in D.B. rather than a sub- station as currently exists. MPT/Papen reported that in October 1991, the Council authorized $5,000 of Prop A funds to join the San Gabriel Valley Transportation Coalition to review the 30 -year L.A. County Transportation Commission financial plan, which was presented on December 19th. One of the recommendations would benefit the City by proposing that LACTC advance the timing of construction of the HOV lane on the 60 fwy. to begin immed- iately upon completion of the 57 fwy. car pool lane. She further reported that at their last meeting, LACTC approved a fully automated system for the "Green Line" which uses a different type of car from the type used for the "Blue Line" and the two are not interchangeable. She felt that this should not be permitted to happen. A number of agencies will meet with LACTC on January 22th to request them to reopen the issue of whether or not fully automated cars should be used on the Green Line. In addition, the Green Line is over budget by approximately $100 million and if they do go ahead with the JANUARY 7, 1992 PAGE 2 project, the 60 fwy. HOV lane will be pushed back. She requested support to present a letter signed by the Mayor at the January 22 meeting supporting that the Green and Blue Lines utilize the same type of vehicles. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs Dr., representing the D. B. Gadfly Assn., stated that since the November election, the doors of City Hall have started to be closed to the residents. He further stated that since the Council passed a Resolution regarding Council Conduct, he has attempted to contact the City Manager but has not received any response. In addition, he felt the City should not be closing sections of audience seating to the public. He then announced M/Kim's hot line phone number of 861-4784. CM/Van Nort responded by saying that if Mr. Rumpilla would give specifics regarding his concerns about lack of response to the public by staff, he would investigate the matter. Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr., stated that since the Chamber of Commerce wants everyone to shop Diamond Bar, they should hold their retreat in the City. CM/Van Nort stated that the Chamber of Commerce would need to respond to Mr. Dursa's concern regarding the location of their retreat. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bentwood Dr., thanked M/Kim for installing a "hot line" and felt honored that M/Kim would call him back to discuss his concerns. He further asked if there would be an answer regarding the ability to tape the Council meetings by residents. In regard to Mr. Rumpilla's concern regarding closure of sections of audience seating, CM/Van Nort stated that, in cooperation with the AQMD, the City is trying to keep the audience to the left of the room. In addition, he announced that any staff member would be happy to open the seating areas to handicapped persons needing to be closer to the Council. In regard to Mr. Maxwell's question regarding individuals taping City Council meetings, CA/Arczynski stated that as long as there are no disruptions of the meeting and the tape is not used for any commercial enterprise, it does not violate any code the Council has adopted. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Forbing moved, C/Werner seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - C/Forbing, C/Miller, C/Werner, MPT/ Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None JANUARY 7, 1992 6. PAGE 3 5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE MEETINGS: 5.1.1 Parks & Recreation Commission - January 9, 1992 - 7:00 p.m., City Hall, 21660 E. Copley Dr., #100 5.1.2 Traffic & Transportation Commission - January 9, 1992 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.3 Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce Retreat - January 9-10, 1992 - 3:00 p.m., Castle Creek Inn, Escondido 5.1.4 Planning Commission - January 13, 1992 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.5 City Council Meeting - January 21, 1992 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 WARRANT REGISTER - Warrant Register dated January 7, 1992 in the amount of $499,673.02 - Approved as submitted. 5.3 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of November 14, 1991 - Received and filed. 5.4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of November 14, 1991 - Received and filed. 5.5 SURETY BOND EXONERATION - Approved and accepted work completed, exonerated Surety Bond No. 47-1113886 posted for grading located at 23600 Falcon View Dr., Tract No. 30577 and instructed the City Clerk to release the grading bond. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 COMPLAINT/OBSERVATION PROGRAM - CM/Van Nort stated that this matter was in response to a request by the City Council for review of a program previously discussed in the League of California Cities magazine. AA/Fritzal reported that the objective of the complaint/ observation program is for a timely reduction or elimina- tion of hazards and problems, which in turn would elimin- ate possible injuries. The program would utilize various public and private agencies whose employees travel within the City on a daily basis to assist the City in reporting problems. There are fourteen such agencies undertaking activities throughout the City including sheriff and fire personnel, utility companies, school districts and postal workers. The City would provide each agency with forms that could be easily checked off at the location indicat- ing the nature of the problem which would be turned in to the City daily. Urgent matters would be reported to the City or the Sheriff. The program would be non- competitive and completely voluntary. If Council directs staff to go forward with this program, a organizational meeting will be set up with those agencies. JANUARY 7, 1992 PAGE 4 Following discussion, C/Forbing moved, MPT/Papen seconded to implement the complaint/ observation program. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, Werner, Forbing, MPT/Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 7. PUBLIC HEARING: 7.1 TENTATIVE TRACTS 47850, 47851 AND 48487 - CA/Arczynski stated that this matter requires a public hearing but the legal advertisement and notice for the hearing contained the wrong date for the hearing to be held at this time. Upon discovery of the error, staff re -advertised and noticed the hearing for January 21, 1992. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Miller reported that during a meeting with the Chamber, he discovered that the Retreat was being funded through participation of the business community, not by the Chamber itself. The businesses who participated desire to work with the City to determine methods to encourage improvement to local business. The need to meet out of town was emphasized to get business persons away from their businesses so that they may focus on the issues without interruption. C/Werner announced that his "hot line" phone number is 860-1757. MPT/Papen also announced that the public could reach her at 860-0444. She then stated that recommendations were made by the City's reclaimed water consultant, Boyle Engineering, that the City consider adopting Ordinances requiring that landscap- ing, greenbelts, residential common areas, commercial areas, medians and public facilities be irrigated with reclaimed water in the future. They also recommended that the City look into requiring that future industrial highrise structures be constructed with a separate piping system so that reclaimed water could be utilized for flushing toilets. AB325 was adopted a year ago requiring cities to adopt a Water Efficient Landscaping ordinance and the Department of Water Resources has proposed a model ordinance that will become mandatory December 1, 1993 unless a city adopts its own. She requested that staff review the model ordinance for adoption by the City Council in the near future. 9. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned JANUARY 7, 1992 PAGE 5 at 6:35 p.m. to Thursday, January 9, 1992 during the Chamber of Commerce Retreat. ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council MEETING DATE: January 21, 1992 ry\ REPORT DATE: January 16, 1992 FROM: Linda G. Magnuson /Senior Accountant TITLE: Treasurer's Report - December 31, 1991 SUMMARY: Submitted for Council's review and approval is the Treasurer's Statement for the month of December 1991. RECOMMENDATION: Review and approve. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Resolution(s) Ordinances(s) _ Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: Public Hearing Notification Bid Spec. (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? 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: K�V� Wr,L JSY: 1 Av, /F a Robert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger Linda G. M son City Manager Assistant City Manager Senior Accou ant F:\NP51\AGENDA\COVER.FRM CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: January 21, 1992 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Treasurer's Statement - December 31, 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 December, 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 December 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 December 31, 1991 GENERAL FUND $4,994,622.48 $1,022,986.85 $793,043.45 $5,224,565.88 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND 66,007.46 8,153.10 24,087.35 50,073.21 GAS TAX FUND 2,018,392.17 86,817.40 700.48 2,104,509.09 TRANSIT TX (PROP A) FD 622,867.68 39,260.00 4,643.23 657,484.45 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FD 0.00 FEDERAL AID URBAN FUND 0.00 INTEGRATED WASTE MGT FD 7,577.50 7,079.65 4,361.24 10,295.91 OTS FUND 0.00 57,584.34 (57,584.34) AIR QUALITY IMPRVMNT FD 3,552.00 5,478.07 9,030.07 STATE PARK GRANT FUND 0.00 LANDSCAPE DIST #38 FD (15,205.19) 98,450.26 35,471.86 47,773.21 LANDSCAPE DIST#39 FD 166,707.65 41,832.23 19,284.84 189,255.04 LANDSCAPE DIST#41 FD 42,837.07 51,276.22 2,286.76 91,826.53 GRAND AV CONST FUND 537,864.51 23,647.40 514,217.11 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE FD 342,407.37 342,407.37 CAP IMPROVEMENT PRJ FD 44,144.60 4,169.95 39,974.65 SB 821 FUND 19,446.55 19,446.55 SELF INSURANCE FUND 243,968.24 243,968.24 TOTALS $9,095,190.09 $1,361,333.78 $969,280.90 $0.00 $9,487,242.97 SUMMARY OF CASH: DEMAND DEPOSITS: GENERAL ACCOUNT $45,565.46 PAYROLL ACCOUNT 158.26 PETTY CASH ACCOUNT 500.00 TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS $46,223.72 INVESTMENTS: TIME CERTIFICATES $0.00 COMMERCIAL PAPER 0.00 L.A.I. F. 9,441,019.25 TOTAL INVESTMENTS 9,441,019.25 TOTAL CASH $9,487,242.97 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. in the South Coast Air 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 Mr. Blum. ROLL CALL: Commissioner Harmony, Commissioner Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Grothe. Commissioner Schey arrived at 7:45 p.m. Also present were Community Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Bill Curley, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MATTERS FROM Dan Buffington, residing at 2605 Indian Creek, THE AUDIENCE: welcomed Commissioner Bruce Flamenbaum to the Planning Commission. The Commission also welcomed Commissioner Flamenbaum. MINUTES: C/Harmony requested that the minutes be amended on page it to delete paragraph 6 & 7; and page 13 to Oct. 28, 1991 add to paragraph 6, "...and inquired as to what action to take to ensure the protection of the heritage oaks on the western boundaries.". VC/MacBride requested that the minutes be amended on page 7, third paragraph, to read "...a 25% maximum grade." Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Harmony. and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of October 28, 1991, as amended. C/Flamenbaum abstained. Nov. 25, 1991 C/Harmony requested that the minutes be amended on page 8, last paragraph, to indicate the "present" staff. December 9, 1991 Page 2 VC/MacBride requested that the minutes be amended on page 7, third paragraph, to clarify irrevocable offer "to dedicate". Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Harmony and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of November 25, 1991, as amended. C/Flamenbaum abstained. CONTINUED CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding PUBLIC HEARING: the application for Tentative Parcel Map NO. 22102, to subdivide an existing 4.39 acre parcel, TT Parcel Map located at 1575 S. Valley Vista Drive in the #22102 Gateway Corporate Center, into (2) parcels. The site currently contains a two story office building. The Planning Commission had approved the tentative parcel map, with conditions, on September 10, 1990. However, in reviewing the conditions, staff found inconsistencies and, along with the applicant, wish to resolve them. At this hearing, staff and the applicant wish to present the same map with a list of new conditions. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 91 -XX recommending approval to the City Council for Tentative Parcel Map NO. 22102, with Findings of Fact, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and listed conditions. C/Flamenbaum, noting that there is about 100 feet of sidewalk missing from the indicated parcel, inquired if it would be appropriate to amend condition #17 to specify that the curb, gutter, sidewalk, or pavement must be repaired, and installed where needed. CD/DeStefano stated that, should the Commission desire, it would be appropriate to add a new condition to indicate that the applicant shall install a sidewalk. However, since the sidewalk is required to be installed when the development takes place, it would be appropriate to add the condition when the project comes in for Planning Commission review. Chair/Grothe stated that, to his understanding of the unilateral contract with the Gateway Corporate Center, parcels meeting their guidelines do not December 9, 1991 Page 3 have to come before the Planning Commission for approval. CD/DeStefano indicated that, to his recollection, the City Council accepted the unilateral contract, with a clause within the Resolution of the Council stating that the projects had to go through the City's review process. Chair/Grothe suggested that staff determine if there is such a clause, and if not, a provision should be added that the remainder parcel shall come under the Development Review of the City. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Charles Blum, president of Specialty Equipment Market Association, representing the applicant, stated that they desire to subdivide the parcel with the objective of selling that parcel of land in the future. He indicated that they have no qualms with staff's Exhibit "B" as part of the Resolution, or to an additional condition of completing a sidewalk. CD/DeStefano stated that condition #3 should be deleted because Gateway Corporate Center is already a participant in Lighting and Landscaping District #38. The Public Hearing was declared closed. DCA/Curley recommended the following changes to the Resolution: correct all recited dates of November 25, 1991, as the hearing date, to December 9, 1991; add the wording "Recommends that the City Council find...", to finding #2 of the Resolution; add the wording "Recommendation that the City Council find..." to finding #3 of the Resolution; delete findings 5.(h),(i),and (j) of the Resolution; delete finding #6 of the Resolution; and add to (b), of The Planning Commission Secretary shall:, wording "...transmit to the City Clerk for agendizing on the Council's agenda...". December 9, 1991 Page 4 CD/DeStefano stated that, if the Commission so agrees, it would be appropriate to add a condition #24 stating that the future development of the remainder parcel shall be subject to the City's Development Review process, to be in accordance to the City Council's Development Review Resolution #5-1990. C/Harmony indicated that, as a general policy, he has a predilection against approving plans for lot split purposes without a development plan accompanying it. However, since the application was previously approved, and the Gateway Corporate Center has a very heavy emphasis on architectural review, he is inclined to approve the Resolution. Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Resolution as recommended by staff, with the amendments recommended by the City Attorney, and with the addition of condition #24. CUP 90-70 AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the request to permit a nightclub, with live entertainment, within the previously approved restaurant located in the Gateway Corporate Center at 21671 E. Gateway Center Drive. The Commission had previously granted a continuance to the December 91 1991 hearing so that .additional comments could be received from responding agencies, and research of other jurisdictions could be completed. At the time of this report, the requested information has not been acquired, nor has the applicant specified who will be the restauranteur. Staff recommended that the Commission direct staff to table the project, complete the review of other cities, and bring the project back to the Commission at the conclusion of the research, and re -notice of the requested action. DCA/Curley recommended that the Commission may prefer continuing the matter to a date certain, as opposed to tabling the matter, with direction to the applicant that the requested information must be submitted to staff, in a timely manner to allow December 9, 1991 Page 5 for processing, or the project would be denied without prejudice. C/Schey arrived at the meeting at 7:45 p.m.. Motion was made by C/Harmony, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED to continue the matter to the January 13th meeting, with notice to the applicant that unless there's further information forthcoming, the Commission will entertain denial. C/Schey abstained. Development AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the Review 91-3 request for approval of a Goodyear Auto Service Center building to be located in the Country Hills Towne Center. The applicant has not been able to provide the information needed in order to conduct the public hearing. As a result, staff recommended that the Commission continue the hearing to the January 13th meeting. In response to C/Schey's inquiry, AP/Searcy stated that, basically, all the essential components of the application needs be provided, such as the elevation which would delineate the square footage of the structure, the height of the structure, and the materials board. The information was submitted with the application originally, however, they have been revised by the applicant and never resubmitted. C/Harmony indicated to staff that he would be interested in seeing how the service bays face the shopping center, and it's appearance to the rest of the center looking on the project. Chair/Grothe concurred with the request. The Public Hearing was declared open. The Public Hearing was declared closed. C/Schey, concerned with the number of continuances requested, suggested that the applicant be given a deadline for getting the information to staff. CD/DeStefano suggested that, rather than set a specific deadline, staff will work with the applicant to make sure the materials arrive on December 9, 1991 Page 6 time, and convey the concerns of the Planning Commission towards resolving this case. C/Flamenbaum inquired if the Commission could create a policy indicating that, barring good reason, one continuance is all an applicant can request. DCA/Curley responded that, if desired, the Commission could establish a generic policy giving general direction to staff to convey to the applicants that the Commission frowns on extensive continuances. However, the establishment of a definite policy is problematic given the circumstances that can result in development. Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the January 13th meeting, with the understanding that the requested information is to be ready for review substantively before the January 13th date, or the application will be considered for denial. PUBLIC HEARING: PT/Lungu reported that the Commission, at the October 14th meeting, directed staff to have the Zoning Code draft tree preservation ordinance reformatted for Amendment 91-5 the December 9th meeting. Staff recommended that the Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Tree Preservation Ordinance. VC/MacBride, concerned that a situation may arise whereas a developer may choose to pay the fine for destroying a forest of trees rather than hold up development, requested that there be definitive language in the ordinance indicating that there is an enormous penalty for such a situation. The intent of such language would be to influence the developers to think long and hard before cutting down a forest of trees. C/Flamenbaum noted that section 5, of the ordinance, under Tagging, already indicates that the City would have a Civil right to sue for abatement of a nuisance, and damages that result. December 9, 1991 Page 7 C/Harmony, concurring with VC/MacBride, stated that additional language, emphasizing the desires of the Commission, helps establish policy for future administrations and city attorneys to pursue these cases when they happen. DCA/Curley stated that provisions in nuisance abatement type ordinance is already structured, in essence, to say: "The City Attorney's office is hereby directed to institute proceedings." Wording to the effect, " and shall seek to obtain remedial measures, including restitution or tree replacement.", could be added to the provision and could be appropriately placed in Section 5, of the ordinance, to amplify the intent. However, the overall legal impact may not be effective. He reminded the Commission that, procedurally, the Council must first authorize, and direct any and all litigation to proceed. C/Schey suggested, and DCA/Curley concurred, that it may be more appropriate to place a policy statement, in the beginning of the Ordinance, under the Purpose and Intent Section, indicating that it is the intent of the City to preserve these trees, and we will pursue to the greatest extent. VC/MacBride, in reference to the tree guidelines manual, inquired if a statement could be incorporated into the ordinance stating that each applicant, under this section, shall be furnished, by the City, with a copy of the guidelines. DCA/Curley stated that, since the City does not have certified arborists that can examine each individual tree and give instructions as to it's proper care, it is strongly advised that these guidelines are eliminated to avoid future potential liability. C/Schey inquired if it is the City Attorney's recommendation that the City leave the care and feeding of the trees as the responsibility of the owners, or responsible party, to keep them alive. The City would then intervene if the trees should die. DCA/Curley concurred. December 9, 1991 Page 8 Chair/Grothe questioned why a disclaimer could not be placed in the ordinance, stating that the guidelines is just information gathered to help in caring for a tree, and is not the full direction of the City. CD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission may opt to send the guidelines to the City Council, with the understanding of the City Attorney's office's concerns, and including the Commission's comments, but ultimately letting the City Council decide whether or not the guidelines are an appropriate attachment to the ordinance. The Commission concurred. C/Schey, concerned with section 22.56.2080 Definition (J) of the ordinance, stated that, to his recollection, it was the Commission's intent to establish an ordinance that preserves all Oak, Sycamore, Walnut, and Pepper trees, regardless of size. There seems to be an inconsistency. Chair/Grothe stated that he was under the impression that there would be a provision exempting residential homeowners from the preservation provision. CD/DeStefano reminded the Commission that they had developed the criteria for the size of the tree appropriate for preservation, after discussion on the matrix presented by staff, which included information as to what some other cities in the immediate area were doing. The Public Hearing was declared open. Don Schad made the following comments: There are other significant trees based upon size and heritage, other than the four indicated trees, that should be considered for preservation; the height and circumference limit is bearable as stated in the Definition section (J).1, but he suggested adding the word "dominance" after the word "survival" to (J)3., page 3; a relocated tree should be given the same care and consideration as a brand new tree; there is not a specific chart on tree sizes; and pages 1 through 11, of the December 9, 1991 Page 9 ordinance, does not identify dimensional sizes for tree replacement. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Chair/Grothe stated that he was under the impression that the draft tree ordinance referred to a chart of sizes and quantities regarding tree replacement. DCA/Curley suggested that there should be flexibility on tree replacement ratios because site sizes may vary, and the trees may or may not fit as directed. The replacement ratio is currently at the Director's discretion, so that he may analyze the site and either determine the rational replacement ratio, or refer it to the Commission. C/Flamenbaum suggested that section 22.56.2160 Tree Replacement Standards item A, should read, "... on the basis of the Tree Report.". Chair/Grothe stated that he would prefer the ordinance to include specific replacement quantities or sizes so that when the developer pulls a permit he is immediately made aware of the guidelines he must follow. C/Schey stated his concern that, the way the ordinance is written, all tree removal permits would come before the Director and would not come before the Commission unless it is under appeal. CD/DeStefano recommended that, in order to clarify that the Planning Commission should review not only the tree removal, but all other environmental aspects of a project at the time that they are reviewing the specific project, subsection E. should be added to section 22.56.2100 Permit Required, stating that, "The Director, in his/or her discretion, shall refer the decision to the Planning Commission in the event that such application is in conjunction with the discretionary approval over which the Planning Commission has jurisdiction.". December 9, 1991 Page 10 C/Schey, regarding the drafting of the tree report, noted that a situation could arise whereas the impartiality of the arborist could be questioned. He suggested that the arborist be employed by the City to ensure that he/she has the City's, and the tree's, best interest at heart. DCA/Curley concurred that the present structure of the ordinance looks to the applicant to employ the arborist. It could be modified whereas the applicant up fronts the cost, and the City would then employ the arborist who would analyze the situation impartially. C/Harmony noted that there is no provision in the ordinance protecting heritage trees that are significant because of size, age, or historical event, other than the four trees indicated. DCA/Curley suggested that the Commission may consider separating cultural significant attributes, versus the broader environmental significance, and designating those attributes within a separate culturally significant ordinance. CD/DeStefano indicated that, at this point and time, staff needs specific direction from the Commission as to how the Commission wishes staff to proceed on this issue. It is difficult for staff to determine historical events recognized by the City. C/Harmony stated that the historical value can be certified by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council, or the historical committee being formed. He would like heritage trees protected in the ordinance. C/Flamenbaum suggested that the ordinance be approved, with the recommendations and corrections made. If the Commission desires historical items to be preserved, then a separate ordinance should be created. The Commission concurred. C/Harmony stated, for the record, omitting reference to heritage trees, within the tree December 9, 1991 Page 11 ordinance, limits the scope of the ordinance, and is therefore, not a complete ordinance that way. C/Harmony, referring to the civil remedies, section 22.56.2180 Tagging subsection 5., stated that it is not clear what kind of civil remedy the City would receive if the developer destroyed, for example, a 600 year old tree. There should be a clearly stated penalty that the developer will be responsible for replacing the tree, and that a neutral arbitrator will be utilized to appraise the tree, if needed. DCA/Curley recommended that the wording of subsection E not be altered. The provision gives full flexibility to pursue whatever remedy is deemed appropriate by the City Council. It is understood that the City would seek replacement or replacement costs. CD/DeStefano suggested that the Chair may wish to appoint a sub -committee, of the Commission, to work out the specific details and assist staff in bringing the matter back to the full Commission in January of 1992. C/Schey recommended that the subcommittee limit their discussion on the following two issues that remain unresolved: the delineations of the penalties; and the minimum replacement standard. C/Schey and VC/MacBride volunteered to be on the subcommittee. C/Schey recommended that the matter be continued to January 13th, with the subcommittee working with staff to reconcile these matters, and bringing it back to the Commission in final form on that date. The Commission concurred. VC/MacBride requested staff to appropriately revise section 22.56.2090 Exemptions subsection D. so that it is more clearly stated. Chair/Grothe called a recess at 9:35 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 9:44 p.m. C/Flamenbaum suggested that the Commission recommend to the City Council to consider the December 9, 1991 Page 12 establishment of an ordinance taking into account all historical items within the City confines. The Commission concurred. Development CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding Review 91-4 the request, by the applicant, K -Mart, for a tenant improvement with exterior changes. The Commercial Plan Development, CPD zone, that the project is located within, requires a CUP for all development within that zone. The City Attorney's office has advised the staff not to recommend any action of the Commission this evening until such time that the previous approvals on this property have been analyzed, and until such time that an amendment to the original CUP has been advertized, and concurrently process along with the development review. DCA/Curley explained that the concept of the Development Review is to go in tandem with the other entitlements. Looking at the existing CUP Resolution, it speaks to an existing site plan and development in conformance thereof. We must make sure that the conditions listed by staff do not conflict with the details of the pre-existing entitlement of the CUP. C/Harmony requested staff to verify if the K -Mart sign would meet the new sign ordinance. He further requested that staff look into the water flow coming from the Peterson pump station. The Public Hearing was declared open. Mike Tyson, with the K -Mart Corp., stated that, as noted by the Commission, there is no outside exit/entrance from the Little Caesar proposed. Furthermore, the main entry is to be relocated 30 feet to the left, not the approximate 160 feet as indicated by the staff report. K -Mart will be discussing improving the conditions of the parking lot with their landlord. He inquired if the equipment located on the K -Mart building could be situated behind the existing mansard canopy, and if additional canopy space would then still be required. December 9, 1991 Page 13 Steve Ah Mon representing Clemens and Clemens Architects, representing K -Mart, stated that they will present a general plan taking into account the Commission's comments regarding the need to improve the parking lot and the appearance of the whole project. C/Schey stated that it would be helpful to review the mechanism that formed the TTC in order to get a better idea of exactly what conditions and tasks the TTC was formulated. His orientation is to limit the TTC's action more towards long range planning and traffic and transportation policy issues. Chair/Grothe stated that he was under the concurrence that the TTC was responsible for developing engineering standards and guidelines for the traffic and transportation for the City. Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the January 13, 1992 meeting. INFORMATIONAL CD/DeStefano stated that the City Manager's ITEMS: memorandum, regarding the desire by the Traffic and Transportation Commission (TTC) to coordinate, Coordinating the more closely, projects and their review with the Planning & the Planning Commission, suggests that input be Transportation obtained from the two Commissions, as well as from Commission the City Engineer and the Community Development Director, and a response be provided back to the City Manager. The TTC has been working on a policy statement as to when they would wish to see traffic reports and review projects. They have created a series of levels, and any project exceeding that level would require their review. CD/DeStefano recommended the following two actions: Respond to the City Manager's request; and, unless there is specific information that the Commission desires to send to the City Manager tonight, postpone the matter to allow the Commission time to respond, not only to the broad issue, but to respond to the TTC's suggested policy. C/Schey stated that it would be helpful to review the mechanism that formed the TTC in order to get a better idea of exactly what conditions and tasks the TTC was formulated. His orientation is to limit the TTC's action more towards long range planning and traffic and transportation policy issues. Chair/Grothe stated that he was under the concurrence that the TTC was responsible for developing engineering standards and guidelines for the traffic and transportation for the City. December 9, 1991 Page 14 C/Flamenbaum noted that guideline 5 & 6, of the policy written by the TTC, is broad based and should be precisely defined. VC/MacBride stated that the Commission should not respond until they have had a chance to review the mission statement of the TTC. He concurred that he thought the responsibility of the TTC was that of long range planning. C/Harmony indicated that each Commission is appointed by the City Council to give their input. It would be beneficial to have the Commissions and the committees communicating with each other. VC/MacBride, and C/Flamenbaum concurred, that the issue is not communication, but rather the guidelines established determining when the Commissions communicate. C/Schey suggested, and the Commission concurred, to continue the matter to the next meeting to allow the Commission time to review the guidelines drafted by the TTC, and to allow staff time to get the Commission copies of the establishment resolution of the TTC. CD/DeStefano indicated that he will request CE/Mousavi to be prepared to respond to some of the thoughts and concerns of the TTC. Discussion of CD/DeStefano stated that the City Manager's City issues memorandum requests each Commission to develop a White Paper describing issues perceived to be addressed in both short and long term regarding the upcoming budget session. There will be an annual retreat January of 1992, and a joint public meeting with all the Commissions and the City Council to discuss both the short term and long term issues, given due consideration of the City's finances. VC/MacBride, indicating that he will not be able to attend the public meeting, presented a copy of his ideas to staff and the Commission. After discussion, the Commission concurred to respond to the memorandum individually. December 9, 1991 Page 15 ANNOUNCEMENTS: CD/DeStefano reminded the Commission of the Holiday Party on December 18, 1991. Chair/Grothe requested staff to notify the Commission when there is a change in the Planning staff. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:06 p.m. Respectively, /s/ James DeStefano James DeStefano Secretary/Planning Commission Attest: /s/ Jack Grothe Jack Grothe Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: CONSENT CALENDAR: OLD BUSINESS: Chairman Whelan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall, 21660 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Vice Chairman Ruzicka. Commissioners: Plunk, Meyer, Stitt, Vice Chairman Ruzicka and Chairman Whelan. Also present were Administrative Assistant Kellee Fritzal, and Recreation Supervisor Bob Rose. AA/Fritzal announced the Heritage Park Community Center Workshop would be held on Monday, December 16, 1991 at the Diamond Bar Library. C/Meyer requested the Minutes of November 14, 1991 be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Motion was made by VC/Ruzicka, seconded by C/Stitt and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Consent Calendar. C/Meyer requested that the minutes be amended on page 5, to correct the motion to read, "... the recommendation of the sub -committee of the Parks and Recreation Commission...". Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by C/Stitt and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of November 14, 1991, as amended. VC/Ruzicka abstained. General Plan AA/Fritzal informed the Commission that the Review General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) will be meeting in January of 1992. Staff recommended that the Commission continue this matter to the January 9th meeting. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/Ruzicka and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the January 9th meeting. NEW BUSINESS: Larkstone Park AA/Fritzal explained that the Larkstone Park Development Development is a program, developed by Don Schad, to run a water line from South Point Middle School to the undeveloped Larkstone Park site. However, upon research of the land, it was determined that the School District apparently owns the Larkstone Park site and the existing school is on the City's parksite. Staff will have to research and prepare land status report. Staff recommended that the December 12, 1991 Page 2 Commission direct staff to prepare a report on the cost regarding Mr. Schad's proposal. Don Schad stated that he addressed the Diamond Bar Improvement Association (DBIA) to finance the water line and materials needed. The plan is to begin planting in January, and to have the children propagate plants in the park that are relative to Sandstone Canyon. AA/Fritzal, in response to VC/Ruzicka's concern, stated that neighbors surrounding the site will be properly notified before any development begins. Chair/Whelan suggested that the Commission place this proposal on the White Paper to be submitted to the City Council. Chair/Whelan directed staff to determine the time frame, in regards to the land transfer, and to determine what needs to be done to have the site become official City property. DBIA: Redwood AA/Fritzal reported that the DBIA is interested in Tree and Time planting a Redwood Tree, and burying a time Capsule capsule at Heritage Park in early 1992. Heritage Park is in the process of a major building reconstruction, and staff is in the process of applying for a $500,000 grant to upgrade Heritage Park. Therefore, it is recommended that the DBIA's proposal be postponed until such time that staff, and the architect, has had an opportunity to complete a master plan of Heritage Park. VC/Ruzicka indicated that the DBIA plans to donate the cost of the tree and contribute to any costs to the ceremony associated in the planting of that tree, and the time capsule. Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by VC/Ruzicka and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to recommended that it would be more appropriate to plant the tree, and the time capsule, in conjunction with the grand opening of the Heritage Park building. It is to be part of the needs assessments of the park and will be considered by the architect. Memo From The AA/Fritzal stated that, if so desired, staff will City Manager take the Commissioner's recommendations and Regarding A prepare a formal paper for the Commission. White Paper December 12, 1991 Page 3 Chair/Whelan requested the Commission to submit all recommendations to him within the week. He will prepare a draft to go to staff and will submit copies to the Commission. INFORMATION ITEMS: Recreation RS/Rose reported that Chaparral Middle School won Update the Flag Football Tournament, run by the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Athletic Association (SGVMAA). Staff will be working, in the future, with the staff at Chaparral Middle School in securing facilities for our recreation program. There has also been a lot of interest in track meets, however, Diamond Bar must first develop some sort of a qualification system before the SGVMAA will take them. Chair/Whelan stated that the YMCA had previously indicated that they would like to work with Diamond Bar regarding a track meet, and a 10K run. He requested staff to find out if the YMCA would like to joint sponsor a City of Diamond Bar track meet. He also requested information on the costs versus the revenues in regards to the recreation program. RS/Rose indicated that staff will be meeting with the Pomona Unified School District (PUSD) administration in hopes of expanding the recreation program. He further informed the Commission that there are still Rose Parade tickets available. AA/Fritzal reminded the Commission of the Holiday Party. She further reported on the following issues: Staff is meeting with the PUSD on December 19, 1991, in hopes of preparing a Joint Use Policy; City Manager Van Nort is looking for a volunteer, to meet with the Mount Baldy Boy Scouts on ideas regarding programming events in Diamond Bar; staff is still. looking for letters of support from groups or organizations regarding the development of Pantera Park. COMMISSIONER VC/Ruzicka reported that the sports user group met COMMENTS: last night and scheduled the use of the parks and fields. Each group was asked to send in suggestions for the White Paper, and also to send in a letter of support in regard to the bond issue. December 12, 1991 Page 4 C/Plunk made the following comments: There should be discussion with the user groups about fields being reserved but not used; the parks need more picnic tables; the other high school in Diamond Bar should not be excluded from events; and the Diamond Bar Little League would like to donate some equipment to the Heritage Park program. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Stitt, seconded by VC/Ruzicka and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Respectively, /s/ KELLEE FRITZAL Kellee Fritzal Secretary Attest: /s/ PAT WHELAN Pat Whelan Chairman The following residents shared the concerns of Mr. Flamenbaum: Ross Belado, residing at 1103 Bramford Ct.; Dana Cox, residing at 1107 Bramford Ct.; and John Vantages, residing at 1104 Bramford Ct.; Bill Arkin, residing on Bramford Ct.; and Scott LaFawn, residing on Bramford Ct. Chair/Chavers explained that, in response to a citizen's concern last meeting, the Commission requested staff to look at speed humps, and other forms of traffic control devices being used in Southern California, specifically for application in Diamond Bar. It was suggested that an overall traffic study should be implemented in this area. Mr. Flamenbaum stressed the importance of knowing the traffic patterns in the area so as to determine where speed humps, or whatever form of traffic control device, are to be utilized. Chair/Chavers requested the matter to be placed on the January 9, 1992 agenda, and requested staff to provide a background on the kind of study that can be done, the amount of effort needed, and the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Chavers called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Hearing Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. ROLL CALL: Commissioner Ortiz, Vice Chairman Gravdahl, and Chairman Chavers. commissioner Beke arrived at 6:34 p.m. Commissioner Fritz arrived at 6:45 p.m. Also present were City Engineer Sid Mousavi, Administrative Analyst Tseday Aberra, Associate Engineer David Liu, Engineering Technician Ann Garvey, Sergeant Rawlings, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MINUTES: Motion was made by VC/Gravdahl, seconded by Chair/Chavers and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve Nov. 14, 1991 the Minutes of November 14, 1991. COMMISSION C/Ortiz requested that the "No Stopping Between COMMENTS: Posted Signs", at the In -and -Out Burger Restaurant, be reposted. PUBLIC Bruce Flamenbaum, a resident of Diamond Bar, COMMENTS: concerned with the traffic situation, suggested that the Commission consider conducting a full scale traffic study for the entire residential area including the north and south side of Grand Ave., east of Summitridge Drive, and as far north as Golden Springs. The following residents shared the concerns of Mr. Flamenbaum: Ross Belado, residing at 1103 Bramford Ct.; Dana Cox, residing at 1107 Bramford Ct.; and John Vantages, residing at 1104 Bramford Ct.; Bill Arkin, residing on Bramford Ct.; and Scott LaFawn, residing on Bramford Ct. Chair/Chavers explained that, in response to a citizen's concern last meeting, the Commission requested staff to look at speed humps, and other forms of traffic control devices being used in Southern California, specifically for application in Diamond Bar. It was suggested that an overall traffic study should be implemented in this area. Mr. Flamenbaum stressed the importance of knowing the traffic patterns in the area so as to determine where speed humps, or whatever form of traffic control device, are to be utilized. Chair/Chavers requested the matter to be placed on the January 9, 1992 agenda, and requested staff to provide a background on the kind of study that can be done, the amount of effort needed, and the December 12, 1991 Page 2 City's ability and resources to conduct such a study. CONSENT C/Beke requested item D., E., and H. be pulled from CALENDAR: the Consent Calendar. He requested staff to include the recommended action with the items placed on the Consent Calendar. C/Ortiz requested item C. to be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by VC/Gravdahl and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve items A., B., F., and G. of the Consent Calendar. Request for The Manager of Diamond Bar Village, located Traffic Signal: directly across from Maple Hill Road, addressed the Diamond Bar Blvd. Commission regarding the request for traffic signal & Maple Hill installation at the intersection of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Maple Hill Road. He requested consideration of the traffic problems in the area. CE/Mousavi explained that a similar warrant study was recently completed for the intersection of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Kiowa Crest. The traffic patterns, counts, and conditions are very similar. Since the other intersection was not warranted, it is staff's recommendation not to do a warrant study and, at this time, deny the request. Motion was made by C/Fritz, seconded by C/Beke and CARRIED to accept staff's recommendation to deny the request. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Fritz, VC/Gravdahl, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Ortiz. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Traffic Impact Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by VC/Gravdahl Report and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to Guidelines the January 9, 1992 meeting. Request to C/Beke, in reference to the request to install a Install A "No "No Parking" sign with two-hour parking limit on Parking" the north side of Colima Road, between Gona Court Sign with two and the west end of the shopping center, stated hour limits that, since the Sheriff's Department has already indicated that it would be very difficult to enforce a two hour parking limit, he suggested that it be left as "No Parking" at any time. VC/Gravdahl, concerned with trucks parking along that area, suggested that a two hour parking sign be installed for a period of 90 days. December 12, 1991 Page 3 Motion was made by VC/Gravdahl to put up a temporary situation, for 90 days, with parking, to see if it works out for the merchants and the public. The motion failed for lack of a second. Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Ortiz and CARRIED to deny staff's recommendation and maintain the current posting of "No Parking" signs. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Ortiz, Fritz, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Gravdahl. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Estab. of C/Beke indicated that he was under the impression Priority List that category 12, of the Priority List, was to be a list of all the intersections that DKS determined may need studying, in the City of Diamond Bar, within the next 5 or 10 years. Those intersections were to be prioritized. Chair/Chavers stated that he had expected, at least, the criteria by which intersections were to be ranked. C/Fritz noted that the concept of category 12 was essentially to enable staff to explain to citizens why an intersection doesn't meet the criteria for a warrant study. Since it appears to be too difficult to define what is expected of staff, he recommended that the Commission give up the concept. Chair/Chavers suggested that the Commission deal with each warrant study request, to include a recommendation made by staff, as they come before the Commission, The Commission concurred. Motion was made by C/Fritz, seconded by VC/Gravdahl and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to deny staff's recommendation to create the second category. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fritz, Ortiz, Beke, VC/Gravdahl, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Motion was made by VC/Gravdahl, seconded by C/Ortiz and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to table the rest of the items on the agenda and carry them to the January 9th agenda for the purpose of allowing the Commission an opportunity to attend the Tres Hermanos meeting. December 12, 1991 Page 4 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Ortiz, Fritz, VC/Gravdahl, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ITEMS FROM THE C/Beke informed the Commission that the official COMMISSIONERS ribbon cutting on Grand Ave. will be Wednesday December 181 1991. He also gave Chair/Chavers a copy of the County's response to the Tonner and Soquel Canyon report. ITEMS FROM CE/Mousavi stated that construction of the Diamond STAFF Bar High School is to begin next week. They have requested the City to provide temporary on street parking on Pathfinder. If the Commission agrees, the request can be handled administratively. Chair/Chavers requested that the matter be brought before the Commission for discussion on the operations. VC/Gravdahl inquired if it were possible to request that someone in authority attend the school meeting to discuss the concerns of the school bus stop at Summitridge and Longview. C/Beke stated that, if the City must act before the Commission has had a chance to meet, in his opinion, any changes made should be at the school's expense. The Commission concurred. INFORMATION Chair/Chavers indicated that he will be contacting ITEMS: the Commissioners to obtain ideas to put on the White Paper to present to Council. He requested staff to place the matter on the January 9th agenda. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectively, /s/Sid Mousavi Sid Mousavi Secretary/Traffic Commission Attest: /s/ Todd Chavers Todd Chavers Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. 5S TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager MEETING DATE: January 21, 1992 REPORT DATE: January 15, 1992 FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director TITLE: Exchange of Proposition A Funds with the City of Santa Clarita SUMMARY: The City of Diamond bar has $400,000 of uncommitted allocation of Proposition A Local Return Funds for its Fiscal Year 1991-92. The City proposes to exchange said funds with the City of Santa Clarita at the rate of $0.65 on the dollar of general funds. The exchange does not severely impact the City of Diamond Bar's transportation needs. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution and authorize the City Manager to execute necessary document in order to exchange $400,000 of the City's Proposition A Funds for $260,000 of General Fund monies. 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 Robert L. Van Nort City Manager Terrence L. Belanger Assistant City Manager 111-t.140,�- Sid J. Mousavi Public Works Director CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: January 21, 1992 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager SUBJECT: Exchange of Proposition A Funds ISSUE STATEMENT The City of Diamond Bar desires to exchange its $400,000 of Proposition Fund with the City of Santa Clarita at the rate of $0.65 on the dollar of General Funds. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution and authorize the City Manager to execute necessary document in order to exchange $400,000 of the City's Proposition A Funds for $260,000 of General Fund monies. FINANCIAL SUMMARY The City of Diamond Bar's Proposition A funds carry over balance from Fiscal Year 1990-91 to 1991-92 was $353,017. For FY 1991-92, the Proposition A allocation for Diamond Bar is estimated to be $494,206. As a result, total available Proposition A funds for FY 1991-92 is estimated to be $847,223. Within this fiscal year, approximately $400,000 of the Proposition A fund expenditure is allocated to paratransit, State Route 57 study, circulation studies, recreational transit, holiday shuttle, and other transit related projects. Upon appropriation of funds for these programs, it has been determined that the City of Diamond Bar has an uncommitted Proposition A funds totalling in excess of $400,000. BACKGROUND Proposition A, the 1/2 cent sales tax for transit, was approved by voters in 1980. The proceeds of the sales tax are used to finance transit development programs, which are administered by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC). In administering the program, LACTC has elected to distribute these "Local Return" funds directly to cities on a population - share basis. Local Return fund must be spent within three years. Otherwise, it reverts back to LACTC for reallocation. Page Two Proposition A Fund Exchange January 21, 1992 DISCUSSION Local Returns are designed to be spent solely on public transit projects. The City of Diamond Bar currently has in excess of $400,000 in Local Return Funds for FY 1991-92 and has the option of retaining the allocated funds by way of exchanging with another local agency. In cases such as these, the participating local jurisdictions are held mutually responsible for insuring these funds are used for projects allowed by LACTC. Therefore, the City of Diamond Bar has made arrangements to exchange its $400,000 in Proposition A funds with the City of Santa Clarita's $260,000 of General Fund money. PREPARED BY: Sid Jalal Mousavi RESOLUTION NO. 92 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXCHANGE OF PROPOSITION A (LOCAL RETURN TRANSIT FUNDS) FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA GENERAL FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar wishes to transfer $400,000 of its uncommitted Proposition A Local Return transit funds to the City of Santa Clarita for use in regional ridesharing; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita offered to transfer $260,000 of their General Funds to the City of Diamond Bar; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar has determined that the transit needs of the City can be adequately met if this fund trade is approved; and WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar plans to expend these funds to augment the City's capabilities in meeting the general public's needs and other City expenses. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The transfer of $400,000 of Proposition A Local Return Funds in exchange for the transfer of $260,000 of General Funds is authorized and approved. SECTION 2. The City Manager is authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, any required documents to effectuate this exchange of funds. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and send certified copies to the City of Santa Clarita. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on , 1992. 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 day of following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS - , 1992, by the LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. `T 1 �. nVU0j L L. van wort, Uity Manager MEETING DATE: January 21, 1992 REPORT DATE: January 7, 1992 FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director TITLE: Approval of Tract Map No. 47722 located at 1800 Diamond Knoll Lane, west of Derringer Lane and north of Ridgeline Road in the Country. SUMMARY: This project which contains the construction of a 13 lot residential development which will range in size from .5 gross acres to 3.4 gross acres has been submitted to the City of Diamond Bar for a final tract map approval. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council (1) approve the attached Tract Map No. 47722; (2) authorize the Mayor to execute the Subdivision Agreement; (3) authorize the City Engineer to sign the map; and (4) direct the City Clerk to process the map for recordation. 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 Tract Map Subdivision Agreement 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? X Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: AWED BY• r rij11 :rt L.qg , A errence L. Belanger �olZSid J. Mousavi Manager Assistant City Manag City Engineer/Public Works Director CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: January 21, 1992 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager SUBJECT: Tract Map No. 47722 ISSUE STATEMENT Approve Tract Map No. 47722 located at 1800 Diamond Knoll Lane, west of Derringer Lane and north of Ridgeline Road in the Country. This project is a 13 lot single family custom home development on a nineteen acre site. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: (1) approve the attached Final Tract Map No. 47722 and Subdivision Agreement; (2) authorize the Mayor to execute the Subdivision Agreement; (3) authorize the City Engineer to sign the map; and (4) direct the City Clerk to certify and process the map for recordation. FINANCIAL SUMMARY Approval of the map will not have any impact on the City's 1991-92 budget. BACKGROUND Tract Map No. 47722 was originally submitted as a sixteen home development on a nineteen acre site. This project was denied without prejudice by the Planning Commission on October 24, 1990. The map was adjusted to meet several concerns of the City and after a series of public hearings, the revised project which contains the construction of 13 single family custom houses on the same 19 acre site was resubmitted to the City of Diamond Bar in December 1990 and approved by the Planning Commission on January 28, 1991 and the City Council on March 19, 1991. DISCUSSION At the time of preparation of this report the following concerns of the Fire Department were being addressed: 1) Minimum 15' fire lane/driveway and a turnaround within 150' of structure required for Lot 8. 2) Provision of residential sprinkler systems for all residences and habitable spaces throughout Lot 8. 3) Incorporation of boxed eaves and fire retardant roof materials into the design of all buildings. 4) 10' brush clearance required on each side of the fire lane/ driveway. A supplemental report will be provided prior to the City Council meeting to confirm that these concerns have been resolved. According to the utility companies and other agencies which are affected by this project, all conditions for approval of this project have been met. All offsite sewer and storm drain improvements for the Tract have been installed. A grading bond of $153,000 has been taken by the City and will not be released until all slope planting and irrigation is complete. A $10,000 monumentation bond is also being held by the City. Prepared By: Sid Jalal Mousavi SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT Tract No. 47722 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of this twenty first day of January, 1992, by and between Piermarini Homes (hereinafter referred to as "Subdivider") and the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"). A. Recitals. (i) There has been previously approved a Tentative Tract Map for Tract No. 47722 in the City of Diamond Bar. (ii) Subdivider seeks approval of a Final Map covering a portion of the area of Tentative Tract No. 47722 and bearing Final Tract No. 47722. B. Agreement. It is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. In consideration of City's approval of and filing Tentative Subdivision Tract Map No. 47722 and Final Tract No. 47722, Subdivider undertakes and agrees that it will, at Subdivider's sole cost and expense, make all the improvements upon and in connection with said Tract in accordance with plans and specifications therefor on file with City, incorporated herein and made a part hereof, and including all matters required by the Planning commission and City Council of City in connection with the various steps leading to approval of said Tentative Tract No. 47722. Subdivider also undertakes and agrees upon the same consideration to comply with all ordinances and regulations of City, and to do all other and further acts required of it pursuant to this Agreement. Subdivider agrees in connection therewith to pay or cause to be paid all amounts becoming due to contractors, subcontractors, and persons renting equipment or furnishing labor or materials to the foregoing Final Tract with respect to such improvements, or to Subdivider with respect thereto. Subdivider agrees that all such improvements shall be constructed and completed in accordance with City standards as determined by the City Engineer and in accordance with any applicable conditions as hereinabove referred to, and in accordance with the remaining provisions of this Agreement. In case of any dispute, the good faith judgment of the City Engineer shall be final and binding upon the parties. 2. Subdivider undertakes and agrees that all the work of improvement shall be completed within 365 days from the date of this Agreement. 3. Should Subdivider fail to comply with any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement, Subdivider shall be liable to City for the reasonable value of any work or improvements not completed or improperly done or performed. In the event of any such failure, City shall give to Subdivider written notice thereof. Unless the work or improvements covered by said notice, including defective work and improvements, are commenced by Subdivider within fifteen (15) days of the date of said notice and diligently prosecuted to completion, City may at its option: (a) Collect from Subdivider the reasonable value of the work and improvements not so done and performed by Subdivider, to be measured by the anticipated costs and expenses of completing the same; or (b) City may complete said work and improvements not so completed by Subdivider and collect its costs and expenses in completing the same; or (c) City may as to some of such work and improvements proceed under remedy (a) above, and as to the remainder under remedy (b) above. City may change any election prior to trial of any lawsuit, and prior thereto no election of remedies shall be binding upon City. In either event there shall be included in said "costs and expenses"" the reasonable overhead expenses of the City. In addition to the foregoing, Subdivider shall be liable to City for reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs incurred by City in enforcing the obligations of Subdivider under this Agreement. 4. All slope banks over three (3) feet in vertical height within said Tract shall be landscaped with plantings approved by the City Engineer. Sprinklers shall be installed on all slopes over three (3) feet in vertical height along arterial streets and shall be of a type and according to a sprinkler plan approved by the City Engineer, with sprinkler turn -ons at the tops of the slopes, and connected with the remainder of the water systems of the lots of which such slopes are a part. 5. Subdivider shall give bonds with a corporate bonding company, or similar instrument, satisfactory to City in the following amounts and for the following purposes: a. A bond in the amount of $10,000 guaranteeing full performance of all the terms of this Agreement; b. A bond in the amount of $10,000 securing payment to the contractor, his subcontractor and to persons renting equipment or furnishing labor or materials to them with respect to said public improvements; c. A bond in the amount of $10,000 securing the setting of monuments. 6. Acceptance of any work or improvements by City shall not constitute an acknowledgment by City that the same are properly done or performed, except as to any items or matters readily apparent from an inspection thereof. Except as to such matters so readily apparent, Subdivider shall repair any defects which occur in the work of improvements within a one (1) year period thereof following acceptance by City. As a condition precedent to the acceptance of the improvements hereunder as being complete and prior to the release of any bonds required under paragraph 5, hereof, securing the faithful performance of Builder's obligations hereunder, Subdivider shall give a bond with a corporate bonding company, or similar instrument, satisfactory to City in the amount of $ as guarantee and warranty of the work for a one (1) year period following the completion and acceptance thereof against any defective work or labor done, or defective materials furnished. 7. All notices to Subdivider may be sent to 2100 S. Reservoir, Pomona, CA 91766, or at such other address of which City shall actually receive notice in writing specifically calling attention to this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation By Mayor By City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. 7— TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager MEETING DATE: January 21, 1992 REPORT DATE: January 15, 1992 FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director TITLE: Request to install "No Parking" signs with two-hour parking restriction on north side of Colima Road, between Gona Court and west end of shopping center. SUMMARY: The Department of Public Works was directed to investigate the possibility of installing "No Parking" signs, with two-hour limit, on Colima Road, between Gona Court and west end of shopping center. This matter was presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission on December 12, 1991. The Commission denied the recommendation to install such sign at said location. RECOMMENDATION: The Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends that the current "No Parking" sign on Colima Road, between Gona Court and west end of shopping center remain, without change. 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 Map of area 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes X No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes _ No Which Commission? Traffic and Transportation Commission 5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No Report discussed with the following affected departments: N/A REVIEWED Robert L. `Van Nort City Manager Terrence L. Belanger Assistant City Manager Sid J. Mousavi Public Works Director CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: January 21, 1992 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager SUBJECT: Parking on north side of Colima Road, between Gona Court and west end of shopping center ISSUE STATEMENT It has been proposed that the "No Parking" sign be altered to allow two-hour parking on Colima Road, between Gona Court and west end of shopping center. RECOMMENDATION The Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends that the current "No Parking" sign on Colima Road, between Gona Court and west end of shopping center remain, without change. FINANCIAL SUMMARY The installation of signs will have minor financial impact on the City's budget. The funds are available through the City's traffic signs and striping maintenance account. BACKGROUND Currently, parking is not permitted on Colima Road. The need for additional parking in the area, for business or otherwise, may be desired, therefore, the Department of Public Works was directed to investigate the possibility of allowing parking on Colima Road, with two-hour parking limit signs on the northside of Colima Road. DISCUSSION The northside of Colima Road, between State Route 60 on/off/ramps and Lemon Avenue, is currently posted with "No Parking" signs. The investigation of the site, to determine whether or not parking should be allowed within this area, revealed that the "No Parking" signs should remain in place within the area immediately west of the freeway ramps. However, parking with two (2) hours of restriction can be allowed between Gona Court and west end of shopping center, without impacting traffic circulation in the vicinity. On December 12, 1991, the Traffic and Transportation Commission was presented with the above information. After review and discussion of the material presented, the Commission recommended to leave in place current "No Parking" sign. As a result, staff's recommendation to allow parking for two hours was rejected. PREPARED BY: Sid Jalal Mousavi �, hn ,M T «-,1,-91ry'N MF i°'arY ,.-F."'Wlpr "1 �p 6'R i F •yiR ,... P+n as ;• 'd,�v°F��t''; rt °pt f , 01 Ilk f Jj ' ;•,� fid, ,, •" �sr� "• tf n '+ ,» �t�:i•«�,��°r~z...` �� �' � ' � r� � ,,„` '� � !"�v y,�''`ri�r � �� r �r�'rt�X��r• g. x�,„. k G w. a , x w - 1 m # mil i F RA A.4,. •: 4 DrO ,{{ .,., jj7tyil i mJk ow” r _.— ...., r s� .ef✓a_'. i4 y�_9;�'"na'iMCi``14-.,'ekg >��`. � t``+. RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22102 A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO (2) PARCELS LOCATED AT 1575 VALLEY VISTA DRIVE - LOT 13, TRACT 30379 AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. RECITALS. (i) Bryan Stirrat and Associates have filed an application for a Tentative Parcel Map (yreinafter or property located at 1575 Valley Vista Drive, Diamondalifornia, as described in the title of this Resolution. H in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Par 1 p appl'c ik is sometimes referred to as "the Ap ti ' q �(ii) On ril 18, 19 the City of Diamond Bar was established duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California. Thereafter, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its ordinance No. 14 (1990), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contain the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. (iii) Because of its recent incorporation, the City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject Application, as to consistency to the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of California Government Code Section 65360. 1 (iv) The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, on January 21, 1992, conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on said Application. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: I. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based on substantial evidence presented to this Council during the public hearing, and by written and oral , testimony provided at the hearing, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The Application applies to property presently zoned C-M-BE-U/C, located at 1575 S. Valley Vista Drive, City of Diamond Bar, California. (b) Generally, the property to the north of the subject site is zoned CM-BE-U/C; to the south of the subject site is zoned CM-BE-U/C and R-1-10000; to the east of the subject site is zoned C-M-BE-U/C; and west of the subject site is zoned CM- BE-U/C and the Orange Freeway. (c) Because of the recent incorporation, the City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Action was taken on the Application as to consistency with the proposed General Plan pursuant to the terms and provisions of Government 2 -- Code, Section 65360. On such basis there is.a substantial probability that the approval of this project as proposed in said Application will not be a substantial detriment to, nor interfere with the preparation of the future adopted General Plan because the site has been developed in conformance with the Gateway Corporate Center plan. Further, the City of Diamond Bar is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan. Pursuant to such preparation, it appears that there is a reasonable probability that the division of the subject parcel located within the Gateway Corporate Center will be consistent with the land -uses and policies, goals and objectives set forth in the General Plan as presently considered in the Draft General Plan. As a substantial portion of the Gateway Corporate Center has previously been developed with complementary uses, there is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the finally adopted General Plan if this action is ultimately inconsistent with the General Plan. Further, this project conforms to all other applicable requirements, state law, and local ordinances. (d) The Tentative Parcel Map will not have an adverse impact on adjacent or adjoining residential and commercial uses. It will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity and conforms to the applicable standards applicable to the Gateway Corporate Center project. 3 (e) The Tentative Parcel Map will not adversely affect the health or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area. (f) The nature, condition, and size of the site has been considered and determined to satisfy all applicable standards. (g) That the proposed map is consistent with the proposed General Plan and specific plans as specified in Section 65451. (h) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (i) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. (j) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (k) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (1) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (m) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body 4 — may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided , and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 3. The Council further finds that an environmental review has been conducted with respect to the Application in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder. Further, this Council has reviewed and considered such information and has determined, and hereby adopts, the determination that this Application is a Negative Declaration and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and as amended, and guidelines promulgated thereunder, and, that further the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the said Negative Declaration with respect to the application. 4. Based upon the findings recited hereinabove and conditions set forth hereinbelow, this Council, in conformance with the terms and provisions of California Government Code Section 65360, hereby approves TPM No. 22102 and the Negative Declaration, subject to the following conditions: 5 (a) This project shall be developed in — substantial conformance with Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 which has been submitted for this case, dated December 9, 1991. (b) Prior to expiration of the Tentative Parcel Map and prior to filing with the County Recorder, a Final Map shall be processed through the office of the City Engineer. (c) Details or notes shown on the Tentative Map which are inconsistent with the requirements, policies, or ordinances of the City are not approved. (d) The Applicant shall comply with conditions prepared by the Department of Public Works and Engineering Labeled Exhibit "A", attached to this Resolution, dated January 21, 1992. (e) Notwithstanding any previous Subsection of this Resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment thereof shall be made by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other entitlement. (f) It is hereby declared and made a condition of this Tentative Parcel Map that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the Tentative Parcel Map shall be suspended and the privileges granted shall lapse; provided that applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. 5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to: and, (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution 2. - (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Bryan Stirrat and Associates, 1575 S. Valley Vista Drive, Diamond Bar , California 91765. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 21st day of January, 1992. I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 21st day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City -,'Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar 7 CITU or DumomD BAR AGENDA REPORT TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager MEETING DATE: January 21, 1992 REPORT DATE: January 13, 1992 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 AGENDA NO. , SUMMARY: Bryan Stirrat and Associates are requesting approval of a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM No. 22102 for a minor subdivision to create two (2) lots from one (1) 4.39 acre parcel, located at 1575 S.Valley Vista Drive, in the Gateway Corporate Center. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the proposed minor subdivision. 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? X Yes _ No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes _ No Which Commission? Planning Commission 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: Engineering REV EWED Bert L. Van Nort City Manager iL Terrence L. Belanger Assistant City Manage V mes DeSteft Community Delopment Director CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: January 21, 1992 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 ISSUE STATEMENT: Bryan Stirrat and Associates are requesting a Tentative Parcel Map for a minor subdivision to create two (2) lots from one parcel for property located at 1575 S. Valley Vista Drive. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the proposed minor subdivision. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND: The applicant, Bryan Stirrat and Associates are requesting a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM N0. 22102) to create two (2) lots from an existing parcel which is 4.39 acres in the Gateway Corporate Center. The proposed project is zoned Commercial Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion- Unilateral/Contract (CM-BE-U/C). Generally, the following uses surround the site: to the North is CM-BE-U/C zone; to the South is CM-BE-U/C and Single Family Residence (R-1-10,000) zone; to the East is CM-BE-U/C zone; to the West is CM-BE-U/C zone and the Orange (57) Freeway. Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 was first presented to the Planning Commission on July 23, 1990. It was continued to August 13, 1990 and to September 10, 1990. On September 10, 1990, the Planning Commission approved the tentative parcel map with conditions. In reviewing the conditions, staff found inconsistencies and along with the applicant wish to resolve them. Therefore, Tentative Parcel Map NO. 22102 was presented to the Commission in a public hearing on September 23, 1991. It was continued to November 25, 1991. At this hearing, Staff and the applicant presented the same map with a list of new conditions. The Planning Commission, at a noticed public hearing on November 25, 1991, recommended approval of Tentative Parcel Map N0. 22102 to the City Council. DISCUSSION: The subject site is 4.39 acres. It currently contains a two story office building. The site has had extensive grading with improvements such as sidewalks, parkways and sewer structures and has direct access to Valley Vista Drive. The proposed subdivision of the existing parcel (Lot 13) will create two (2) lots. Lot No.1 will be 3.77 acres and Lot No. 2 will be .77 acres. Currently, Lot No. 1 is developed with an office building and is served by one (1) driveway. The site is landscaped with trees, ground cover, and lawn area. Also located on Lot No. 1 is a storm drain and Southern California Edison Co. easements. At this time, there is no development proposed for Lot No. 2. In a letter dated March 9, 1990, the Gateway Corporate Center Architectural Committee approved the Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 minor land division of Lot 13 into two (2) Parcels. This minor land division also meets with City standards. This item has been advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on January 10, 1992. Notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius. The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed Tentative Parcel Map NO 22102 will not have a significant effect on the environment. There will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared according to guidelines of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Commission, at a noticed public hearing on December 9, 1991, recommended approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 to the City Council. PREPARED BY: Ann J.yLunauPlanninq Technician Attachments: Application City Council Draft Resolution Planning Commission Resolution N0. 91-17 Exhibit "A" - Tentative Parcel Map No. 23039, dated November 25, 1991 Exhibit "B" - Engineering Conditions dated January 21, 1991. FINDINGS OF FACT : 1. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 is in substantial compliance with the proposed General Plan pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Government Code Section 65360. 2. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map No.22102 will not adversely affect the health or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map No.22102 will not have and adverse impact on adjacent or adjoining residential and commercial uses. It will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the proposed project. 4. The site for the proposed project is adequately served by Valley Vista Drive and Bridge Gate Drive. RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22102 A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO (2) PARCELS LOCATED AT 1575 VALLEY VISTA DRIVE - LOT 13, TRACT 30379 AND MAILING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. RECITALS. (i) Bryan Stirrat and Associates have filed an application for a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) for property located at 1575 Valley Vista Drive, Diamond Bar, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Parcel Map application is sometimes referred to as "the Application". (ii) On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California. Thereafter, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14 (1990), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contain the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. (iii) Because of its recent incorporation, the City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject Application, as to consistency to the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of California Government Code Section 65360. 1 (iv) The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, on January 21, 1992, conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on said Application. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based on substantial evidence presented to this Council during the public hearing, and by written and oral testimony provided at the hearing, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The Application applies to property presently zoned C-M-BE-U/C, located at 1575 S. Valley Vista Drive, City of Diamond Bar, California. (b) Generally, the property to the north of the subject site is zoned CM-BE-U/C; to the south of the subject site is zoned CM-BE-U/C and R-1-10000; to the east of the subject site is zoned C-M-BE-U/C; and west of the subject site is zoned CM- BE-U/C and the Orange Freeway. (c) Because of the recent incorporation, the City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Action was taken on the Application as to consistency with the proposed General Plan pursuant to the terms and provisions of Government 2 Code, Section 65360. On such basis there is.a substantial probability that the approval of this project as proposed in said Application will not be a substantial detriment to, nor interfere with the preparation of the future adopted General Plan because the site has been developed in conformance with the Gateway Corporate Center plan. Further, the City of Diamond Bar is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan. Pursuant to such preparation, it appears that there is a reasonable probability that the division of the subject parcel located within the Gateway Corporate Center will be consistent with the land -uses and policies, goals and objectives set forth in the General Plan as presently considered in the Draft General Plan. As a substantial portion of the Gateway Corporate Center has previously been developed with complementary uses, there is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the finally adopted General Plan if this action is ultimately inconsistent with the General Plan. Further, this project conforms to all other applicable requirements, state law, and local ordinances. (d) The Tentative Parcel Map will not have an adverse impact on adjacent or adjoining residential and commercial uses. It will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity and conforms to the applicable standards applicable to the Gateway Corporate Center project. 3 (e) The Tentative Parcel Map will not adversely affect the health or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area. (f) The nature, condition, and size of the site has been considered and determined to satisfy all applicable standards. (g) That the proposed map is consistent with the proposed General Plan and specific plans as specified in Section 65451. (h) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (i) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. (j) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (k) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (1) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (m) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body 4 may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided , and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 3. The Council further finds that an environmental review has been conducted with respect to the Application in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder. Further, this Council has reviewed and considered such information and has determined, and hereby adopts, the determination that this Application is a Negative Declaration and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and as amended, and guidelines promulgated thereunder, and, that further the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the said Negative Declaration with respect to the application. 4. Based upon the findings recited hereinabove and conditions set forth hereinbelow, this Council, in conformance with the terms and provisions of California Government Code Section 65360, hereby approves TPM No. 22102 and the Negative Declaration, subject to the following conditions: 5 (a) This project shall be developed in substantial conformance with Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 which has been submitted -for this case, dated December 9, 1991. (b) Prior to expiration of the Tentative Parcel Map and prior to filing with the County Recorder, a Final Map shall be processed through the office of the City Engineer. (c) Details or notes shown on the Tentative Map which are inconsistent with the requirements, policies, or ordinances of the City are not approved. (d) The Applicant shall comply with conditions prepared by the Department of Public Works and Engineering Labeled Exhibit "A", attached to this Resolution, dated January 21, 1992. (e) Notwithstanding any previous Subsection of this Resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment thereof shall be made by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other entitlement. (f) It is hereby declared and made a condition of this Tentative Parcel Map that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the Tentative Parcel Map shall be suspended and the privileges granted shall lapse; provided that applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. 5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to: and, (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution N (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Bryan Stirrat and Associates, 1575 S. Valley Vista Drive, Diamond Bar , California 91765. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 21st day of January, 1992. MAYOR I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 21st day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar 7 Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 has been recommended for approval by the office of the City Engineer subject to the following conditions as amended by Planning Commission on December 9, 1991: SUBDIVISION 1. All easements existing prior to final map approval must be identified. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate in nature, a statement to that effect must be shown on the final map in lieu of its location. 2. A title report/guarantee showing all fee owners and interest holders must be submitted when a final map is submitted for plan check. This account must remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder. An updated title report/ guarantee must be submitted ten (10) working days prior to final map approval. 7 gape T s i+ ��TY.�e—p'a�els—sha-, , be an-�re��ed te�3� "`r' Destriet 3 ; and the- eity wide . 34. New centerline ties set as part of this subdivision must be approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with City Standards. 4--5. New boundary monuments must be set in accordance with the City Standards and subject to approval by.the City Engineer. 5-6. All site grading, landscaping, irrigation, sewer and storm drain improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to final map approval. 64. The detail drawings and notes shown on the submitted plans are conceptual only and the approval of this map does not constitute approval of these notes. 7a. Onsite driveways and multiple access strips must be labeled and delineated as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the final map. Fire lanes shall be designed in accordance with the Los Angeles County Fire Code. FA' � i"• a ( � � I � CITY OF DIAMOND BAS'" s - _-� Z 12 I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M 7 DATE: December 10, 1991 TO: Department of Community Development -i -Pia FROM: Department of Public Works, Engine ri SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22102 DATE FEBRUARY 13, 1990 Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 has been recommended for approval by the office of the City Engineer subject to the following conditions as amended by Planning Commission on December 9, 1991: SUBDIVISION 1. All easements existing prior to final map approval must be identified. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate in nature, a statement to that effect must be shown on the final map in lieu of its location. 2. A title report/guarantee showing all fee owners and interest holders must be submitted when a final map is submitted for plan check. This account must remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder. An updated title report/ guarantee must be submitted ten (10) working days prior to final map approval. 7 gape T s i+ ��TY.�e—p'a�els—sha-, , be an-�re��ed te�3� "`r' Destriet 3 ; and the- eity wide . 34. New centerline ties set as part of this subdivision must be approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with City Standards. 4--5. New boundary monuments must be set in accordance with the City Standards and subject to approval by.the City Engineer. 5-6. All site grading, landscaping, irrigation, sewer and storm drain improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to final map approval. 64. The detail drawings and notes shown on the submitted plans are conceptual only and the approval of this map does not constitute approval of these notes. 7a. Onsite driveways and multiple access strips must be labeled and delineated as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the final map. Fire lanes shall be designed in accordance with the Los Angeles County Fire Code. HYDROLOGY. GRADING. GEOLOGY & SOILS 84. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Ordinance #14-(1990) or as amended and acceptable grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 94rG. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 1oa4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 1144. Grading and drainage plan (241lx3611) with hydrology study and hydraulics calculations must be designed in compliance with recommendations of the soils and engineering geology reports. 124. Grading plan must be signed and stamped by registered Soils Engineer and registered Geologist. 134:4. As a subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: a) Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits. b) Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, prior to issuance of grading permits. Each lot must drain independently. C) On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. d) All slope banks in excess of five (5) feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the d) All slope banks in excess of five (5) feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition, a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. 143. Completion and stabilization of all man-made slopes, removal of all landslide materials and reconstruction of slopes must comply with the Los Angeles County Building Code and Ordinances including those requirements for erosion protection and landscaping. 154 -Fr. Each lot must have separate and independent driveway. 1644. Repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement on Valley Vista Drive abutting the subdivision, according to City standards. 173$. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. 1844. When site is developed, the developer shall construct sidewalk along lot 2 on Valley Vista Drive. SEWER 196. Each building/parcel shall be served by a separate sewer lateral which shall not cross any other lot lines. The sanitary sewer system serving the parcel shall be connected to city sewer system. Said system shall be of the size, grade and depth approved by the City Engineer, County Sanitation District and Los Angeles County Public Works Department, prior to approval of the final map. 2024. The subdivider must obtain connection permit from the City and County Sanitation District. The subdivision must be annexed into the County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District and appropriate easements must be provided and accepted by the County of Los Angeles Public Works Department, prior to approval of the final map. UTILITIES 2124. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the respective utility companies standards. Easements shall be provided as required. SCE, SCG and Jones Intercable stating that adequate facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the City. Such letter must be issued by the utility company at least 30 days prior to final map approval. 24. Future development of the remaining parcel shall be subject to the City's Development Review process and be in compliance with the City's Development Review Resolution #5-1990. RESOLUTION NO. 91-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22102 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT 1575 VALLEY VISTA DRIVE - LOT 13, TRACT 39379 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. A. Recitals 1. Bryan Stirrat and Associates has filed an application for a Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 (TPM) located at 1575 Valley Vista Drive, Diamond Bar, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Parcel Map application is referred to as "Application". 2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal organization of the Sate of California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City, Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 1, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. Because of its recent incorporation, the City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject Application, as to consistency to the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of California Government § 65360. 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on December 9, 1991, conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said Application, continued said public hearing to November 25, 1991 and December 9, 1991. 5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. of substantial detriment to or interference with the finally adopted General Plan if this applications is granted and the same is ultimately inconsistent with the Plan because the unique physical circumstances applicable to the subject site, together with the conditions applied hereto, serve to minimize and deleterious impacts which could otherwise arise. Further, this project's demonstrated compliance with all applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance in addition to the referenced conditions serves to insure this entitlement is harmonious with and beneficial to the community. (h) This grant allows for the minor subdivision of one (1) parcel, Lot 13 with 4.39 acres into two (2) lots. Lot No. 1 with 3.62 acres and Lot No. 2 with .77 acres. 5. Based upon the substantial evidence and conclusion set forth herein above, and conditions set forth below in this Resolution, presented to the Planning Commission on December 9, 1991, public hearing as set forth above, this Commission recommends the approval and imposition of the conditions that follow: (a) The project shall substantially conform to all plans dated December 9, 1991, as submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission labeled Exhibit (b) The Applicant shall comply with conditions prepared by the Department of Public Works and Engineering labeled Exhibit "B" which is attached to this Resolution. (c) This Resolution recommending approval to the City Council shall supersede all previous resolutions. (d) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. (e) The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find and determine that, based upon the initial study, findings set forth, and conditions applied to this application, the proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. 6. This Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 91-27 and Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; 6. This Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City '^ Council approve Resolution No. 91-27 and Negative Declaration n for Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; (b) Forward this Resolution to the City Clerk for placement on the City Council agenda; and (c) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to Bryan Stirrat and Associate, at the address as set forth on the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CjTYiOF DI D BAR. BY: `_ ru - -�— Jack Grot' , Chairman ATTEST LIJames DeSte ano, Secretary I, James Destefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of December, 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:] NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:] GROTHE, HARMONY, MACBRIDE, SCHEY LIN Minutes Planning Commission Meeting December 9, 1991 Tentative Parcel Map #22102 CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding the application for Tentative Parcel Map NO. 22102, to subdivide an existing 4.39 acre parcel, located at 1575 S. Valley Vista Drive in the Gateway Corporate Center, into (2) parcels. The site currently contains a two story office building. The Planning Commission had approved the tentative parcel map, with conditions, on September 10, 1990. However, in reviewing the conditions, staff found inconsistencies and, along with the applicant, wish to resolve them. At this hearing, staff and the applicant wish to present the same map with a list of new conditions. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 91 -XX recommending approval to the City Council for Tentative Parcel Map NO. 22102, with Findings of Fact, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and listed conditions. C/Flamenbaum, noting that there is about 100 feet of sidewalk missing from the indicated parcel, inquired if it would be appropriate to amend condition #17 to specify that the curb, gutter, sidewalk, or pavement must be repaired, and installed where needed. CD/DeStefano stated that, should the Commission desire, it would be appropriate to add a new condition to indicate that the applicant shall install a sidewalk. However, since the sidewalk is required to be installed when the development takes place, it would be appropriate to add the condition when the project comes in for Planning Commission review. Chair/Grothe stated that, to his understanding of the unilateral contract with the Gateway Corporate Center, parcels meeting their guidelines do not have to come before the Planning Commission for approval. CD/DeStefano indicated that, to his recollection, the City Council accepted the unilateral contract, with a clause within the Resolution of the Council stating that the projects had to go through the City's review process. Chair/Grothe suggested that staff determine if there is such a clause, and if not, a provision should be added that the remainder parcel shall come under the Development Review of the City. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Charles Blum, president of Specialty Equipment Market Association, representing the applicant, stated that they desire to subdivide the parcel with the objective of selling that parcel of land in the future. He indicated that they have no qualms with staff's Exhibit "B" as part of the Resolution, or to an additional condition of completing a sidewalk. CD/DeStefano stated that condition #3 should be deleted because Gateway Corporate Center is already a participant in Lighting and Landscaping District #38. The Public Hearing was declared closed. DCA/Curley recommended the following changes to the Resolution: correct all recited dates of November 25, 1991, as the hearing date, to December 9, 1991; add the wording "Recommends that the City Council find...", to finding #2 of the Resolution; add the wording "Recommendation that the City Council find..." to finding #3 of the Resolution; delete findings 5.(h),(i),and (j) of the Resolution; delete finding #6 of the Resolution; and add to (b), of The Planning Commission Secretary shall:, wording "...transmit to the City Clerk for agendizing on the Council's agenda...". CD/DeStefano stated that, if the Commission so agrees, it would be appropriate to add a condition #24 stating that the future development of the remainder parcel shall be subject to the City's Development Review process, to be in accordance to the City Council's Development Review Resolution #5-1990. C/Harmony indicated that, as a general policy, he has a predilection against approving plans for lot split purposes without a development plan accompanying it. However, since the application was previously approved, and the Gateway Corporate Center has a very heavy emphasis on architectural review, he is inclined to approve the Resolution. Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Resolution as recommended by staff, with the amendments recommended by the City Attorney, and with the addition of condition #24. xV AIIEA:1e1'sma.Lai I _`, /v �-�IU) 'TENTATIVE MINOR LAND DIVISION NO. 22102 CT' OF OIAAIONO BAR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFONNIA tEA.L Ow.a �n.�m>a.o.. nucr io.jvsrso.� +r w'r s�.ai.mvw.x arso.. \ L TT 12 oe� TRACY ND. 39679 ME 1D33 PAGE 14 ao —11L 11 9] —�DAIVE' L.w us.. x�s..css r.ra 14 PAGE TENTATIVE MINOR LAND DMS IIIIII��� CITY DIAMOND DIAMOND RAR 1 I.�w _sHEcr-_ € � — Wt 7 ►IIFAa7;100ti. % / III ,�- e.Yl ACID IIII ' SL ND-� P7J. 6s Pte' , _ wti.cr asT. wavc � ema .` ALLeAIAI W IeOECT WE ncpemro TENTATIVE MINOR LAND DMS IIIIII��� CITY DIAMOND DIAMOND RAR 1 I.�w _sHEcr-_ �xn r -M ZZ1oZ DIAMOND BAR BUSINESS ASSOCIATES 515 SOUTH FIGUEPOF STREET - LOS ar:GELES. CALIFORNIA 9M71 - TE-ECOPIER .2-_, 628-12CE - TELEPHONE .21.31 528.Oe2i March 9, 1990 Mr. Robert D. Johnson BRYAN A. STIRRAT & ASSOCIATES 1199 Fairway Drive Walnut, CA 91789 Re: SE11A Lot 13 - Tract No. 39679, Gateway Corporate Center Diamond Bar, CA Dear Mr. Roberts: We received your letter of March b, 1990, requesting approval of a tentative parcel map submission to the City of Diamond Bar, as well as a copy of Sheet 1, tentative minor land division 22102, dated February 28, 1990. Gateway Corporate Center approves the division of Lot 13 into two parcels. Very truly yours, THE AREUITECTURAL COMMIT -EE By 3 . ru'i . op ow, Member / SL . hra cc:8yron Pinckert Ben Reiling Joan Smigel 1715G Project No.:. T R( _7-Z 10 __ _ — (V ) Lead Sec.: CAT Ex.:.---- Lo..s Angeles County Deparnnent of Regional Planning ' ZONING AND SUBDIVISION APPLICATION As required by Chapters 22.16 22.56 & 21.40 of the Los Angeles County Code The Iollowing information is necessary for the review of ALL applications. Failure 1t) tarnish it immation will delay acllon. Attach extra sheets if necessary. Please read instructions carefully. RECORD OWNER(S) APPLICANT APPLICANT'S AGENT (Engineer, Licensed Surveyor, Other and please indicate if engineer is also an .�CIgLT''1 EQWPNIt►J"r agent) Name MALY-et' Pt�5CC1AT[O� Nance ImG 6enEkAT A A'<�dc' Address V57 -6S VALLEY VISTA Address _ Address 119 FAI&JR`I Da- a 1Qp city —tAMWp V Al2- I CA city 5AMIC- city WAV�J�T, CA` Zip X17 (05 Phone (7Jq) 396' OZ89 Zip Phone ( ) Zip X1$9, Phone 714) 594 -SOdB (Attach separate sheet it necessary, including names, addresses, and signalmes of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) CONSENT. I con to the submission o/ the application accornpanyiny this request. Signed J Date -.2 G' yd (All record uwncts) CERTIFICATION. 1 hereby ce ' mlaf ty of per/rrry that rhe inlonnatian herein provided is correct to the best o/ my knowledge. Signed Date 3"27 - %O t! (Applicant or Applicant's Agent) Lo n_ 1515 S•yc'*�tEY VLSTW , DIAMWD W- (Sttcet willies$ of distance 11UIII ne'ate'st Ctuss slleet) between ArT ,_lt�+`i CCN'fi~�_ b(L1�11r dell 1312.\y15Je al�t� Dg�Vt (Street) (Sweet) in Zone CM �� -UC Zoned District (Lance Use, nol pustal tone) f HNM/FS CSI TBG Assessor 8Z93 "50" 15 CT a Planning Area USGS Y6lz610, U40A PJAP Contract City General Plan Category Supervisorial District Local Plan Category (if applicable) Local Plan — Project Size (gross acres) `1�• 3 Project Density Previous Cases Present Use of site Z-"Axu-'l cc-6cB�ILDIt-t, Use applied for Gr OIJL LC5T -M —fW0. QTS v"i of Source t rte. _._ Cnmpany/Dislrsct WAu_�k Vpg4 Wx1w_2IS-UCT Method of Sesvaqu Disposa _ v�lE� �__. Sanitation District 'SPfo D15I12tCT N� Z) . Grading u1 Lots by Applicant? Yes_ NoX Amuunl _ __,. (Show necessity glading design on site Plan of lent. mals.? LEGAL DESCRIPTION (All ownership cumprrsing the pruposud lots/project) If petitiiming lot tone change, attach legal description of exteIiol boundaries of area subject to the change. APPROPRIATE BURDENS OF PROOF MUST ACCOMPANY EACH TYPE OF REQUEST- - Check each request applied for all(] complete appioptiatu sections. PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST CUUIIIYWI(Ie/IUCJI Plan or At ea PIJrI Land Use Map Changu: From To Acaes Flom To Acres Other Counlywide [Gen. DLV., Housing & Spec. MgmLI Map Chdnge: From To Acres Fronl To Arses Identify Text Change(s) to Countywide/Local or Ajua Plan Dusnad: Total Project Units Currently Allowed By: (a) CW Plan (h) Lorin Plan Total Proiect Units Permittud If: (a) CW Plan Amunch:d (h) Local Plan Amended Total Acres Involved: (a) Ib) SERVICES: Existing and Proposed: Gas & Electric Education Fire Access Sheriff F] ZONE CHANGE REQUEST Zone: Finns Acrus To Acres CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, NONCONFORMING REVIEW, AND OTHER PERMITS Purmit Type Ord, No. Project Site: Area devoted to: structures open space Gross Area No, of Lots Residential Project Gross Area Number and types of Units Residential Parking: Type and No, of flours Proposed density Units/Acres Reryuired Provided Total Required Non Residential Project: No, of bhlgs. Nu, of floors Gioss flour area Operating hours No. of employees No. of shifts Maxium number of employees, per spilt Assembly and Dining Uses: (Qcc upas" load for buildings pef Building & Safety) Non Residential Parking: Type Required ^ Provided Total Required: Total Piovided: Additional Information: The following must be comptetecl lot HOUSING PERMITS: Units allowed without bonus: Units Density Bonus Required: W, Units Total Units including bonus: Units }SUBDIVISION REQUEST TOTAL GROSS ACRES +—Y ,p 4- 51 TENTATIVE MAP NUMBER LOTS: Existing Proposed STAGE: T Y` RV'— AM _ RN — RA _ FN —:--WR _ MAP: TRR(FD)— RR(LD)— RV_._._ AO_..._. LL VESTING: (Y) (N) x LOT TYPE;OWN'SHIP (Circle);NO. LOTS;NO. UNITS;AC LOT TYPE OWN'SHIP (Circle) NO, LOTS. NO. UNITS ACRES SF MH I NC CC L DUP I NC CC L MF I NC CC L OS 1 NC CC L R PF I NC CC L ONC CC L 1 I NC CC L STAFF PURPOSES ONLY Sch. Dist(s) UN HS LS SCM Date Cities: LA.__.BH^LC_PM,.._Other COW116U•S: LA_VT._SB_OR_ K_Othei Agencies/Companies: MWP_DWP_CWP_SCE_SCG_PT_GT_ATS_SPT_UPR_MSFIC_SCRC ANG—PNF_ Other CALTRANS: Y—N_Name(s): PCH—TCR—OCR—Other Rome(s): HIGHWAYS MISC.: PROJECT NO.: CASES: PLAN AMENDMENT HOUSING PERMIT OTHER FILED ZONE CHANGE PARKING PERMIT PARCEL MAP FEE No. Brown Line CUP OAK TREE No. Blue Line RECEIPT NO. VARIANCE TRACT No, Brown Line NON CONFORMING REVIEW No, Blue Line Project Applicant (Owner): INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE COUNTY OF IAS AN(MLFS A. C; WERAr. INFORMATION Project Representative: (STAFF USE) PROJBCP NEER (s) gn-coo 1 5 A�-rl V�-IPM4xr MAZXE kZcr-'Ar tor.)R�iAN `�i'12Y�T PQsoc- . S. Other relat=es pe--nit/aoorovals recruired. Nan, a Specify ty-pe ane granting agency. No►�� Name 15 75 S. VA y V 15TA -22-, I n �� -) 17 5 . I � 29 FA►tZwR�l Cxt Address Address phases of this project? /Y/ fN/ If yes explain: t _ UAWO - , eta 2J&') • 714_ 3��.02.89 7t4-��4- 5�a *v haer of floors: - Phone NumQer Phone NLwer 1. Action requested and project description: Mlga- t_> .�VIS(c�.) ZZ tOZ 'p1yL5Lc� OF QN1= Total area, 10. Water ane sewer sacvice: DLestic 2. Street location of project:lrJ7�j -5• �i 11c5iA D(LtV�� �I�tycrx� t�,Crf 1'1la-` 3a, Present use of sit=: 2-S+Oey OF�;CE C tLyrn�G 3b. Previous use of site or structures:. Vp,Gf31'" 3v�;13D1?, how :•;111 ti)ese services be provided? s. Please list all previous cases (if any) related to anis project: N° S. Other relat=es pe--nit/aoorovals recruired. Specify ty-pe ane granting agency. No►�� O. Are VOL' planning future phases of this project? /Y/ fN/ If yes explain: t 7. Project area:o. *v haer of floors: - Z -Covered by structures, �, Gj�} C ;3 _paving: + 9. Present Zoning: Landscapina, open space: L'L Total area, 10. Water ane sewer sacvice: DLestic Public Does ser i exist .-zt site? dater_ /N/ givers If yes, . o purveyors have capacity to meet den --n(3 /N/ /Y/ /N/ of Project and all other approved projects? I° donestic water or public sewers are not 3v�;13D1?, how :•;111 ti)ese services be provided? Residential projects: 11. Nurioer and ty of units: 12. Schools: iq'na.t school district (s) serves the property? Are existing school facilities adequate to meet project needs? /Y/ /N/ If not, what provisions will be made for additional classiochs? Non -Residential projects: 13. Distance to nearest residential use or sensitive use (school, hospital, etc_) 1�.2J MILS 14. Number and .floor area of buildings: 15. NLz-ber of employees and shifts: 16. Maximise enoloyees per shift: 17. Ooeratina hours: 18. Identify any- End products Waste prxucts ?tuns of disposal 19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardouunst3nces such as oil, pesticiaes, the.icals, paints, or radioactive materit als? /Y/ /N Ii yes, explain: 20. Do your operations require any pressurized tanks? /}(/ V /J If yes, exnla_n: 21. Identify any fl?rrkable, reactive or explosive materials to be 1ccat on -smote. 22. will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest highway? /Y/ � If yes, explain: B. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION 1. Environnental Setting -- Project Site a. Existing use r's=ructU,ras ��_ STQ�`1 6f -CF S3U�LS�r�(1>)1'r%Z 0F _--- b_ .oLxgraa y."slopes Ar *_. xlegeT_tion *d. Animals *e. Watercourses �. �ultlral/?zi storm=1 r_sc���c_s �jo��c c. Other . 2. Environmental Setting -- Surroundinc Area ::Xiszim useSi"St`uC�ur25 !'JeS, ���7Slt'_e5) ��Q-QoJ�,jo L �j�%� V.�� �s F(}S(�S o. Tocogr_p1w'slcces LEVEL IJILT��tJG p� f�Nb SLDR= ArCLEAs *c. '•Ie�etetion *e. watercourses �. Cuitlrsli�istorical resources NoNt1 a. Other 3- rE Enere any :major tr=_es on �::e site, incl�ci nc oar tY»s? /Y/ /N/ I° es, type and number: •!. ,.iill •env netur31 Watercourses, S�lr ace :Iona oat --,^s., =tC, Ce c_7anged 'thu 11Cl CrOjEC� :e`/riCCTierit�: A/ N/ Ii Ves, explain: X- Answers 3ra not =F—_uire,_4 if the area Ices not conza-in n. tar i , mdevel:?ee". land. B. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION (cont_) 5. Grading: Will the project If .yes, how many Will it be require grading? /Y/ cuui: yards? balanced on site?/Y/ /r7/ If not balanced, where will dirt be obtainer or deposit=or? 6. Are there any identifiable landslidor o tner major geologic hazards on the property (including uncampacted fill)? /Y/ All If yes, explain: %. Is the property to t?� within a hign fire azar. -..area (hillsides wi_n moderately dense vegetation? /Y/ N DiStZnC2 t0 nearest Lire st=tzon: -Z MILS S. Noise: Existing noise sources at site:. Noise to be generated by project: 9. Fuc -'es: Odors genetated: by project: NOt'� Could toxic fuses he generate --:i? Pio 10. What energy -conserving designs or .gat=vial -.will be used? apt, ,-��t � p5•r- IL41-S -nm5 _ CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the state:ients furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date: (,---tgna tune ) For: 0(�i/1�,' t,✓1'`/i'1 h' Lr� S;. INITIAL STUDY -90-0041 3. b.) When the subject property is developed, there is, substantial probability that the absorption rates will decrease.and surface run-off will increase. r. a.) When the subject property is developed, there -is substantial probability that any sight improvements will include introduction of a structure(s) with reflective glass. There.will also be the introduction of additional lighting for parking facilities. 9. a.) The potential construction of a structure which will house in excess of five employees or shifts of employees will increase consumption of electricity and water resources as well as natural-gas. 12. a.) The creation of jobs on this sight mal;- increase the demand on existing' hcusing in the community it' the employees are relocating to this area. 13. a.) Depenfiir_g on the size and nature of the develoauient, a project ma -Y produce a significant increase ( in e:.cess of 500 trips) in traffic generation but this is unlikely. b.} Development of this site will produce.a demand for perking facilities but this demand will be prod ded on site. 15. a.)-'Defer,toquestion 9.a. b.) The development of any project will increase the de,nard on existing energy sources and will not require the development of new sources of energy or public facilities. City of Diamond Bar initfal Study Form 21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE SUITE 100. Page J DLAMOND BAR, CA -917654177 , 714-860-2439 - FAX 714460-3117 s. � -x+`€`b �r��:,�:ri+'etir.Y�f rih:f}"rs r'�:.-, ra �rE:r.�.•+e��``.�. �,.�fd 1. Background: 1. Name of Applicant: �JT'EGIr? l'TU Q�LtfonnE�lT R sr�o�l 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: (5-15 S, VALL;i► V'S-rA 0 ahlcc lid -i 4•fZ. C4_ 9l"�low , '7 I t4• '?Ci Sn - 02 �e7 4. Date -of Environmental Information Submittal: f���L igg0 D1Tlb Itd s U Ar✓r 1►f 5. Date of Environmental Checklist Submittal: 6. Lead Agency (Agency Requiring Chec:{fist): . C,l-f' FLA4lJ I1 I UEP i 77 Name of Proposal U applicable ( Tract No, R Subdivision):•• 7 _ lz t� 22t4Z -ru�cx�o S. Related Applications (under the authority of this environmental determination): Yes No variance: t� Conditional Use Permit: Zone Change: ✓ General Pian Amendment: t% (Attach Completed Fnvironmantal lnformatfon Form) UL YOsR GARY H. WERNER GARY G. MILLER JOHN A. FORGING ROBERT I- VAN NORT ''^«flcIms�ber Counr+mczber C=dtme=bc Cty M_ cr ' City of Diamond Bar WtW sludy Forex Page 2 11. Environmental Impacts: (Explanations and additional Information to supplement all 'yes" and 'possibly" answers are required to be submitted on attached sheets) Yes No Possibly 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovenng of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? --� f. Changes in deposition, erosion of stream banks or land adjacent to standing water, changes in siltation, deposition or other processes which may modify the channel of constant or intermittently flowing water as well as the areas surrounding permanent or intermittent standing water? g.: Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such s earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? V 2. Air. Will the proposal result In: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. AlteratiT of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any changes in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents or the course or direction 'of water movements? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface run-off? c. Alterations of the purse or flow of flood waters? d. Chances in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to dissolved oxygen and turbidity? " f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, / or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? _!G_ L Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? City of Dlamond Bar in1dal Study Form Page? Yes No Possibly 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result In: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? lZ b. Reduction in the, numbers of any unique rare or endangered species of plants? c. Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat areas or plant communities which are recognized as sensitive? d. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? __1L e. Reduction in acreage of any agdcciftural crop? 5. Animal Life. Wit the proposal result in: a. Chance in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)? _tZ. b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare br endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrierto the normal migration / or movement of resident species? _ �— d. Reduction in size or deterioration in quality of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result In: a. Significant increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels 7. LJght and Glare. Will the proposal result In: a. Significant new light and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of light and glare? 8. Land Use. Wlll the proposal result In: a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use in an area? 9. Natural Resources_ Will the proposal result In: a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10.. Rlsk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? b. Probable interference with an emergency response plan or an emergencf evacuation plan? Cly of Ofamond Scrfnldal Study Form Page 4 Yes No Possibly 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12 -Housing. Will the proposal affect: a. Existing housing, or create a -demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Clrcufatlon. Will the proposal result In: a. •Generation of Substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effec's on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circilation or movement of people and goods. e. Alterations to waterbome, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal: a. Have an effect upon; or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: 1. Fire protection? 2. Police protection? 3. Schools? 4. Parks or other recreational facilities? . ► 3 S. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 6. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result In: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing energy sources or require the deve!opment of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result In: a. A need for neve systems, or Substantial alterations to public utilities? -lZ Cfty ofWamand Bar Wtial Study Form Pays 5 Yes No Possibly 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result In: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure .of people to potential health hazards? t/ 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result In: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view? 1s. Recreation. WI11 the proposal result In: a. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result In: a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? G b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c. A physical change which would affect unique�ethnic cultural values? d. Restrictions on existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. • r t Cfy of Diamond Bar Initial Study Form Page 6 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance? a. Does the proposed project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife, population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate or significantly reduce. a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c. Does the proosed project pose impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III Discussion of Environmental Evaluation: (Atfach Narrative) Yes No Possibly IV. Determination: On the basis of this Initial evaluation: find that theroposed, project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NE&ATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect op the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been incorporated into the proposed project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that the proposed project MAY have a sfanificant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: � Signature: `;�� �i�'4- r Title: &Y' I -JS XA4 11)1 " fc.¢,ri5r�nlG—" For the City of Diamond Bar, California - First American Title Company of Los Angeles F&T9:11`l . GLE NORTH CAVENUE DALE, CEALI NTRAL OR IA 91203 (.918) 242-5800 0 March 23, 1990 BRYAN A. STIRRAT & ASSOCIATES Our No.. 9009814-51 . 1199 Fairway Drive, $100 . Walnut, CA 91789 Your No. P.M. 22102 Robert Johnson Enclosed is a copy of our Preliminary Parcel Map Report together with copies of supporting documents, five year tax history and large scale assessor's map in connection with the above numbered tentative map. Sincerely, Mike Einstein Subdivision Title Officer ns encls. cc: LA COUNTY ENGINEER SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT MARKET ASSOCIATES fr` FI-stA.rnerican Title CoinpanyofLosArjgeles 520.North Central Avenue Glendale, California 91203 (818)..242-5800 PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP REPORT For the benefit of the Subdivider, the Subdivider's Engineer cr Surveyor, the County of Los Angeles, and any City within which the subdivision is located. Order No.: 9009814-51 Parcel Map No.: 22102 Date: March 6, 1990 at 7:30 a. m. A preliminary examination of those public records which, under the recording laws, impart constructive notice of matters affecting the title to the, land covered by the tentative parcel map of Parcel Map No. 22102 prepared by BRYAN A. STIRRAT & A,SSOCIATES and received by First American Title Company of Los Angeles -on March 7, 1990 discloses that the parties whose signatures will be necessary, under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, on the final parcel map of said land, are as set forth below. This report is furnished as an accommodation for the sole purpose of preliminary planning and facilitating compliance with requirements necessary for the issuance of a Parcel Map Guarantee. It is understood that our liability is solely that expressed in such Guarantee, and that no liability separate from or other than our liability under said Guarantee is assumed by 'this report, except that if no Guarantee is issued under this order, the amount paid for this report shall be the maximum liability of the Company. 'SCA N< {4 9 �s �: `Marc h ..22, _ 1999 �srstAmeiican Tide Company of4osAngeles ►�NA The map referred to herein is a subdivision of: Lot 13, of Tract .39679, as per map recorded in Book 1483 Pages 14 through 23 inclusive of Maps,'in the office 4of the county recorder.of said county. 1. The signature of the party named hereinafter will be required as owner of the interest shown, pursuant to the provisions of Section 66436 of the Subdivision trap Act. Nature of Interest: a fee. Owner: SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT MARKET ASSOCIATION. a Californiz corporation. By document recorded: October 28, 1988 as Instrument No. 68-1739376. 2. The signature of the party named hereinafter, owner of -the interest set forth below may be omitted under the provisions of Section 66436 Subsection tai 3C of the Subdivision Map Act. Nature of interest: all oil, 'gas, and other hydrocarbons and minerals now or at any time hereafter situated therein and thereunder, together with the exclusive right to drill for, produce, extract, take and mine therefrom, such oil, gas and other hydrocarbons and minerals, and to store the same upon the surface of said land, or below the surface of said land, together with the right to store upon the surface of said land, oil, gas and other hydrocarbons and minerals which may be produced from other land, with the right of entry thereon for said purposes, acrd I with the right to construct, use, maintain, erect, repair, replace and remove thereon and therefrom all pipe lines, telephone and telegraph lines. I tanks, machinery, buildings and other structures, which may be necessary and requisite to carry on operation on said land, with the further right to erect, maintain, operate and remove a plant with. all necessary appurtenances for the extraction of gasoline from gas, including all right necessary or convenient thereto. Owner: TRANSAMERICA DEVELOPMENT 185. By documents recorded: March 294 1968 as Instrument No. 1776 and re—recorded June 19, 1969 in Book D4407 Page 591, Official -Records.- • }\CAN< FrrstAmeiican Title CompanyofLosAngeles 3. The signature of the party named hereinafter, owner of the i interest set forth below may be omitted under the provisions of i Section 66436 Subsection (a) 3C of the'Subdivision Map Act. Nature of interest: the surface right to said land for a distance of not more than 500 feet in j depth, and nothing therein contained shall in any way be construed to prevent, hinder or delay the free and unlimited right to mine, drill, bore, operate and remove from beneath the surface of said Land or lands, at any' level or levels 500 feet or more below the surface of said land, for the purpose of development or removal of all oil, gas, minerals and other hydrocarbons situated therein or thereunder, or producible therefrom, together with all water necessary in connection producible therefrom together with all water necessary in connection with, its drilling or mining operation thereunder. Owner: THE DIAMOND BAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a corporation. By documents recorded: October 91 1981 as Instrument No. 81-1004553. 4. The signature of the party named hereinafter,-.owner,of the interest set forth below may be omitted under the provisions of Section 66436 Subsection (a) 3C of the Subdivision Map Act. Nature of interest: an aggregate of one—fourth of all oil, gas and • casinghead gas and other hydrocarbon substances and minerals in on, or under the surface of said I premises, it being the intention that each grantor thereby reserves in severalty, a fractional part of said one—fourth corresponding exactly with the respective interests of the grantors set forth following their names in the deed. Owner: UNIVERSITY OF REDLANDS. ET AL. By documents recorded: December 28, 1950 in Book 35179,page 74, Official Records. 5. The signature of the party . named hereinafter, owner of the interest set forth below may be omitted under the provisions of Section 66436 Subsection (a) 3C of the Subdivision Map Act. Nature of interest: all oil, gas and other hydrocarbons and minerals now or at any time hereafter situated in said land or thereunder or producible therefrom, together with the LOAN tl` 1 s 1mrtj %� t Y t First American Tide C,6m�pa 6fLos Ah' geles Owner: By documents recorded free and unlimited right to mine, store, drill and bore beneath the surface of said -land at any lever or levels five hundred (500) 'feet or more_ below the surface of said land, .for the purpose of developing or removal of such substances, provided that the surface opening of such well and all .other surface facilities shall be located on land other than that described herein and shall not penetrate any part or portion of the I above described real property within five hundred (500) feet of the surface thereof, and all of the rights. so to remove such substances are hereby specifically reserved, including the right to drill for, produce and use water from said real property in connection with such operations. TRANSAMERICA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a corpgration, formerly CAPITAL COMPANY, a corporation. ,.tune 30, 1965 in Book D2959 Page 114, Insturment No. 1027. 6. The signature of the party named hereinafter as owner of the interest set forth, . may be omitted under the provisions of Section 66436, Subsection (a) 3A(I—VII) of the Subdivision Map Act, their interest is such that it cannot ripen into a fee title and said signature is not required by the local agency. Nature of Interest: an easement for public utilities. Owner: THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. By document recorded: May 21, 1976 as Instrument No. 3543, in Book D7090 Page 227, Official Records. 7. The signature of the party named hereinafter as owner of the interest set forth, may be omitted under the provisions of Section 66436, Subsection (a) 3A(I—VII) of the Subdivision Map Act, their interest is such that it cannot ripen into a fee title and said signature is not required by the local agency. .; Nature of Interest: an easement for storm drain, and storm drain ingress and egress. Owner: THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. By document recorded: as Tract 39679, in Book 1083 Pages 14 to 23 inclusive of Maps, in the office of the county recorder of said county. 8. The signature of one of the parties named below will be required as trustee or beneficiary under deed of trust. Recorded: July 7, 1989 as Instrument No. 89-1079038. tGAN (y G First-.Am6 can �tle Companyof� osAingeles Trustee: CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation. Beneficiary: City National Bank, a national banking association. 9. The signature of the party named hereinafter as owner of the interest set forth, may be omitted under the provisions of Section 664361 Subsection (a) 3A(I—VII) of the Subdivision Map Act; their interest is such that it cannot ripen into a fee title and said signature is not required by the local agency. Nature of Interest: an easement for electrical and communication systems. Owner: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a corporation. By document recorded: November 22,• 1989 as Instrument No. 89-1888924. 10. It will be a requirement of the Local Agency, in order to file the map named herein, that arrangements be made for bonding/payment of: all taxes, bonds and assessments. I.I. The requirement that the Company be provided with two (2) prints of the Final Map named herein approved by the Local Agency, in order that the Company may issue its'Gaurantee for said Tract when called for by the City and/or County. Map No.: 22102. ' RST,AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY OF LOS ANGELES C (MIKE EINSTEIN, Title Officer) • `i 'TtkrA� FM ZZIOZ DIAMOND BAR BUSINESS ASSOCIATES E+6 SAV TH PIOUE'•OA STREET - LOS ANGELES. CAUPORNIA 90071 .2'3- 6284201! • TELEPHONE -2-.31 ,628.0e24 March 9, 1990 Mr. Robert'D.*Johnson BRYAN A. STIRRAT & ASSOCIATES 1199 Fairway Drive Walnut, CA 91789 Re: SEPIA Lot 13 - Tract No. 39679, Gateway Corporate Center Diamond Bar, CA Dear Mr. Roberts: We received your letter of March 6, 1990, requesting approval of a tentative parcel map sdbmission to the City of Diamond Bar, as well as a copy, of Sheet 1, tentative minor land division 22102, dated February 28, 1990. Gateway Corporate Center approves the division of Lot 13 into two parcels. Very truly yours, THE ARCHITECTURAL i;OMIA T -EE By' 3 ed op ow, IK mber ! -SL . hra t cc:Byron Pinckert . Ben Reiling Joan Smigel 1715G I Project No.:. _. TROP j �Z � � Z----- M Lead See.: .—..__....-- CAT Ex.: ---- ---- Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning ZONING AND SUBDIVISION APPLICATION As rerluirerl by Chapters 22.16 22.56 & 21.40 of the Los Angeles County Corle The following information is necessary fol the review of ALL applications. Failwe to finnish inlorr mion will delay action. Attach extra sheets if necessary. Please read instructions carefully, RECORD OWNER(S) APPLICANT APPLICANT'S AGENT (Engineer, Lirenserl Surveyor, Other and please indicate if engineer is also an agent) r. M o 1 f PC-�APMc�'r B2� w SneIIAT A Aodc Name A �t:f?cSSCC,►ATlO�% Name SPrV4lE � Name Address 157-6-5'VALLE`1 VISTA Address — Address IM FAl"4 'DfZ loo City Dtwwm C;AtL CA City 54MI city WAU&T", CA Zip'91765 Phone (71+39(6.10289 Zip Pltune ( ) Zip 6)t_h Phone ((A j 594-S Oe (Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, ad(fresses, and signatmes of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) CONSENT. I con;Wto the submission o/ the application accompanyiny this request. Signed CERTIFICATION. I hereby knowledge. /i Signed (Ala record owners) PJ . Date 3-.;tG-9'0 of perierry that floe information herein provided is correct to the best of my (Applicant of Applicant's Agent) Date 3'47 - 9c L n 1515 S. UAU.t:Y VLST-A DIAMCIJD BNa- (Street address Lit distance liuul Ileilest Cllr Ss Sueet) between 4Orit-L J1Pt`l CENli✓1L MAVN (Street) (Street) in Zoite GM - -UG Zoned District (Land Use, not postal zone) f HNM/FS CSI TBG Assessur 8293 -50- 15 CT Planning Area USGS Y6eAA Li4OA CHAD Contract City General Plan Category Supervisorial District Local Plan Category (if applicable) Local Plan Project Size (gross acres) 4.3 /p� Project Density Previous Cases Present Use of Site 7-- ST -N CPF�C.t- 991L.Dl4 Use applied for DDM&( IrJ Ce OFIC— L.ICT -TO 7W0 �T,S Non Residential Project: No. o1 blrlys. No. of flours Gross Iluur arca Operating hours No, of employees No. of shills Maxium number of employeus Per shift Assembly and Dinino Uses: 10ccupaw load for buildings per Building & Salely) Non Residential Parking: Type Required — Provided _Total Required: Total Provided: Additional Information: The following must he completed for HOUSING PERMITS: Units allowed without bonus: Units Density Bonus Required: r Units Total Units including bonus: Units SUBDIVISION REQUEST TOTAL GROSS ACRES 4.37 TENTATIVE MAP NUMBER ZZIO Z LOTS: Existing Proposed 2 STAGE: T A RV'_ AM _ RN — RA _ FN _WR _ MAP; T_L RR(FD)` RR(LD)` RV_ A0_ LL VESTING: (Y) (N) X LOT TYPE;OWN'SHIP (Circle);NO, LOTS;NO. UNITS;AC LOT TYPE OWN'SHIP (Circle) NO. LOTS NO. UNITS ACRES SF MH I NC CC L DUP I NC CC L MF I NC CC L OS I NC CC L R PF I NC CC L OI` NC CC L 1 1 NC CC L Project Applicant (Owner): INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE COUNTY OE LOS ANGELES A. ['F &RAL INFORMATION Project Representative: (STAFF USE) PROJECT NUM$ ER (s) : qo -onJ41 5944 p_" tom) w ME1yT M r y_ts7 ASS cUP. , i aril BgJ P 1 STI RLp,T' p6soc . Mane Name 1575 S. VAUg2f V 1s-rA Dt , TiPXg Z EAZ ")17(,,5 ! 1 cM FA1fCL-Al CSL., SUM_ t 00 Address Address 714- 390- 028 ?)4 500a Phone Number Phone Number 1- Action requested and project description: M1a0e- Lp+n TAQULo,) ZZ IOZ 'p►ylSLC.J OF cwE Ur 'It:) Tt wo FkLcct_. 1 u Gxa�a`1 CoR.kka-c� Cama_ 2. Street location of project: 1575 -5• VAL4 � kAMP, D2tUC 1)4wCyoo !BP L.Cq �1?� 3a. Present use of site: 2- ST02y OFt;CE LTJ. LD?'J64 3b. Previous use of site or structures:, \)PIC s. Please list all previous cases (if any) related to this project: r1ot S. Other related peanit/approvals required. Sceci 4J type and granting agency. No^)t= o. Are you planning future phases of this aroject? /Y/ /N/ If yes explain: 7. Project area: Covered by structures, paving: �� �j� QC Landscaping, open space: Total area: 10. Water and sewer _'.ervice: Doe -'s ser -.rice exist 3t site? o_ NLff-ber of floors: 9. Present zoning: If yes, do Purveyors have capacity to meet demand of project and all other dpproved projects? I` danestic Nater or public sewers are not •3v Ii13D1_, low ',;;ill t *!sa services 'e provideC2? ""nest i c Water riiv�ll �N/ /R/ Z CM 5E-LJr- Public a�.re r s /N/ B. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION 1. Enviromental Setting - Project Site a. Existing usz!s`=sctures-STo¢_`i 0 FwtLpwA w &AaT '/Z or- _--_ b. Topcgramhv,/s Lopes (,t1 T %OF i d,&__LOT_ St.C1F 1}`} Nr- Z *c. Vegetation *d. Animals *e. Watercourses _. Cultural/11-i storical ruse__=.s �j0►]� c. Other 2. Envirormental Setting -- Surrounding Area �.-Xisting use s/struc:ures (tvoes,-._'..rLsOl es) : j��!►j0S1�� �iLSC(� Uf�al r 7 pC�f (�� - p�rat� b. Toccgrachv'slcces LEML P00_ Site-Kr4_eAS *c. ` ezetation *d. ?.n -1m s *e. Watercourses N f. Cultural/historical resources C. ot-ier 3. Are there any major trees on _ -e site, i-Icludirg oak trees? I•' _ =s, type and n�:ae=: .any natural watercourses, sur rice :Low oat`s ns., stc, e cltanged t=ouch grojec_ .:evr-lopment?: /Y/ N/ It yes, explain: not concain natsrai, uncev`14ced Land. w• J INITIAL STUDY 90-0041 3. b.) when the subject property is developed, there is substantial probability that the absorption rates will decrease.and surface run-off will increase. 7. a.) When the subject property is developed, there,is substantial probability that any sight improvements will include introduction of a structure(s) with reflective glass. There .will also be the introduction of additional lighting for parking facilities. 9. a.) The potential construction of a structure which will house in excess of five employees or shifts of employees will increase consumption of electricity and water resources as well as natural gas. 12. a.) The creation of jobs on this sight mai% increase the demand on existing housing in the community if the employees are relocating to this area. 13. a.) Depending on the size and nature of the development, a project may produce a_ significant increase lin excess of 500 trips) in traffic generation but this is unlikely. b.) Development of this site will produce.a demand -for parking facilities but this demand will be prod ded on site. 15. a.) Refer to gi.:estion 9.a. b.) The .development of any project will increase the demand on existing energy sources and will not require the development of new sources of energy or public facilities. City of Diamond Sarinftlal study Form Page 2 11. Environmental Impacts: (Explanations and additional Information to supplement all 'yes" and 'possibly" answers are required to be submitted on attached sheets) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result In: Yes No Possibly a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition, erosion of stream banks or land adjacent to standing water, changes in siltation, deposition or other processes which may modify the channel of constant or intermittently flowing water as well as the areas surrounding permanent or intermittent standing water? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such s earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? V 2. Air. Will the proposal result In: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any changes in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result In: a. Changes in currents or the course or direction 'of water movements? _ (� b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rte and amount of surface run-off? c. Alterations of the course or flow of flood waters? t� d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to dissolved oxygen and turbidity? t. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, / or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? t/ h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? `.,� Clty of Diamond Bsrinitial Study Form Page 4 11. Population. Witt the proposal: Yes No Posslbly a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12 -Housing. Will the proposal affect: a. Existing housing, or create a -demand for additional housing? 13. Transportatton/Circulatlon. Will the proposal result In: a. Generation of Substantial additional vehicular movement? b. E!fecis on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods. e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal: a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental sarvices in any of the following areas: 1. Fire protection? 2. Police protection?. 3. Schools? 4. Paries or other recreational facilities? I S. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 6. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result In: a. Use of substantial amounts of. fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing energy sources or require the deve!opment of new sources of energy? 16. Utllitles. Will the proposal result In: a. A need for new systems, or Substantial alterations to public utilities? i Cly of Diamond Bar /nidal Study Form Page S 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance? a. Does theproposed project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate or significantly reduce.a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short -tens, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c. Does the pro sad project pose impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable . d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III Discussion of Environmental Evaluation: (Attach Narrative) 1V. Determination: On the basis of this Initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been incorporated into the proposed project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. Yes No Possibly 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: X2'1��% Signature: ���- / Title: For the City of Diamond Bar, Califomia NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar that a Public Hearing will be conducted by the City Council on Tuesday, January 21, 1992, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Auditorium of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, located at 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, for the purpose of considering: Tentative Parcel Map 22102, a request to subdivide two parcels, one .77 acres and one 3.62 acres, from an existing 4.39 acre lot in the Gateway Corporate Center at 1575 S. Valley Vista Drive. There is an existing two-story building located on the site. The Gateway Corporate Center is bounded by Golden Springs Drive and the Orange and Pomona Freeways. The zone is CM-BE-U/C. Applicant: Specialty Equipment Market Association Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration Case Materials: Available for review during regular office hours at the Community Development Department, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. This case does not affect the zoning of surrounding property. If you are unable to attend the Public Hearing, but wish to send written comments, please write to the City Clerk at the address given below. You may also obtain additional information concerning this case by calling the Community Development Department at (714) 396-5676. If you challenge this application and project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this Notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. DATED: January 10, 1992 f s/ Lynda Burgess LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar Fi4X,F,D -To /?/O p4Ml6,/q 2 Diamond Bar Business Assn DBC Associates General Gateway Corporate Center 515 S. Figueroa St. Partnership Association Suite 1900 950 N. Tustin Ave. 515 S. Figueroa St. Los Angeles, CA 90071 Anaheim, CA 92807 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (Zelman Development Co.) c/o Arciero and Sons Inc. (Diamond Bar Bus. Assn.) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN BY THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR that the City Planning Commission will conduct public hearings on the following items: S ' �� 1. Tentative Parcel Map 22102, a request to subdivide two parcels, one .77 acres and one 3.62 acres, from an existing 4.39 acre lot in the Gateway Corporate Center at 1575 So. Valley Vista Drive. There is an existing two story building located on the site. The Gateway Corporate Center is bounded by Golden Springs Drive and the Orange and Pomona Freeways. The zone is CM-BE-U/C. Applicant: Specialty Equipment Market Association Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 91-8. A request for a billiard room establishment located in the Colima Plaza at 20627 Colima Road. The Commercial Center is operating under CUP 87-411. The unit is vacant. The site is bounded by Lemon Ave. and the Pomona Freeway. The project is located in the C2 -DP Zone. Applicants: Jung Ho and Yeon Ho Kim Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 91-09. A request for the placement of a reverse vending maching for recycling at 1139 So. Diamond Bar Blvd, Diamond Bar. The present site is occupied by Stand Brands Paint Co. The proposed project site is in a G3 zone. Applicant: Reynolds Metals Co. Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration 4. A request to merge two lots (Lots 20 and 21, Tract 39679) into one 6.89 acre parcel located at 21700 E. Copley Drive, in a C-M-BE-U/C Zone. The 6.89 Acre Site is currently developed with a new office building. Applicant: Zelman Development Environmental Determination: Catagorically Exempt Section 15305 Class 5 (c) This case does not affect the zoning of surrounding property. If you are unable to attend the public hearing, but wish to send written comments, please write to the City Community Development Department at the address given below. You may also obtain additional information concerning this case by phoning the Planning Department at (714) 396-5676. If you challenge this application and project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Monday, Sept. 23, 1991 TIME OF HEARING: 7:00 p.m. LOCATION: Walnut Valley Unified School District Board Room 880 S. Lemon Ave., Diamond Bar, California CASE MATERIALS: Are available for review during regular office hours at the Community Development Department, 21660 Copley Drive, Suite 190, Diamond Bar, CA 91789. LANDFORM GRADING EXHIBIT CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CA. 0