HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/05/1992CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Mayor — Jay C. IGm
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 CoastAir Quality Management DistactAuditonum
218185 East Copley Drive
re ;din om srr to eater or in mrta ambert
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992
MEETING TIME: Closed Session 5:00 p.m.
Regular Session 6:00 p.m.
Robert L. Van Nort
City Manager
Andrew V. Arczynski
City Attorney
Lynda Burgess
City Clerk
►ne u►ty or Dfamona Bar uses RECYCLED paper and encourages you to do the same.
THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY JONES INTERCABLE
FOR AIRING ON CHANNEL 51, AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM,
YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED.
1. 5:00 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION:
Personnel Section - 54957.6
Litigation Section - 54956.9
Property Acquisition - 54956.8
Next Resolution No. 92-17
Next Ordinance No. 2 (1992)
2. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Kim
ROLL CALL: 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. 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.
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 EVENTS:
5.1.1
Fire Station No. 119 Open House - May
9, 1992
- 10:00 to 5:00 p.m., 20480 Pathfinder
Rd.
5.1.2
Planning Commission General Plan
Public
hearing - May 11, 1992 - 7:00 p.m.,
AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.1.3
Sheriff's Quarterly Breakfast - May 12,
1992 -
7:00 a.m., AQMD, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.1.4
City Council Meeting - May 19, 1992
- 6:00
p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley
Dr.
5.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES -
5.2.1 Regular Meeting of April 7, 1992
5.2.2 Regular Meeting of April 21, 1992
MAY 5, 1992 PAGE 2
5.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Approve Warrant Register dated May 5,
Recommended Action: Deny.
5.8 BOND EXONERATIONS:
5.8.1 SURETY BOND POSTED FOR WATER SYSTEM FOR TRACT
NO. 42533 - The City desires to exonerate the
surety bond for the water system located on
Tract No. 42533, Montefino Condominiums, in
the amount of $114,000.
Recommended Action: Accept work and exonerate
the surety bond for the water system in Tract
No. 42533 in the amount of $114,000 and
instruct the City Clerk to notify the
principals.
5.8.2 SURETY BOND POSTED FOR WATER IMPROVEMENTS FOR
TRACT NO. 42533 - The City desires to
exonerate the surety bond for water system
improvements located on Tract No. 42533,
Montefino Condominiums, in the amount of
$120,000.
Recommended Action: Accept work and exonerate
the surety bond for Tract No. 42533 in the
amount of $120,000 and instruct the City Clerk
to notify the principals.
5.9 REDUCTION OF SURETY BOND POSTED FOR TRACT NO. 36741,
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AT MONTEFINO CONDOMINIUMS - The
City desires to reduce the surety bond posted for
drainage, sewer, road and water system improvements
located on Tract No. 36741, Montefino Condominiums, in
the amount of $94,000.
1992 in the amount
of $182,283.40.
5.4
RECEIVE &
FILE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES -
5.4.1
Regular
Meeting
of March
23, 1992
5.4.2
Regular
Meeting
of April
13, 1992
5.5
RECEIVE
& FILE
TRAFFIC
& TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MINUTES -
5.5.1
Regular
Meeting
March 12,
1992
5.5.2
Regular
Meeting
of April
9, 1992
5.6
RECEIVE &
FILE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES -
5.6.1
Regular
Meeting
of March
12, 1992
5.6.2
Special
Meeting
of March
19, 1992
5.7
CLAIM FOR
DAMAGES
- Filed
by Sherry Ann Tyree April 4,
1992.
Recommended Action: Deny.
5.8 BOND EXONERATIONS:
5.8.1 SURETY BOND POSTED FOR WATER SYSTEM FOR TRACT
NO. 42533 - The City desires to exonerate the
surety bond for the water system located on
Tract No. 42533, Montefino Condominiums, in
the amount of $114,000.
Recommended Action: Accept work and exonerate
the surety bond for the water system in Tract
No. 42533 in the amount of $114,000 and
instruct the City Clerk to notify the
principals.
5.8.2 SURETY BOND POSTED FOR WATER IMPROVEMENTS FOR
TRACT NO. 42533 - The City desires to
exonerate the surety bond for water system
improvements located on Tract No. 42533,
Montefino Condominiums, in the amount of
$120,000.
Recommended Action: Accept work and exonerate
the surety bond for Tract No. 42533 in the
amount of $120,000 and instruct the City Clerk
to notify the principals.
5.9 REDUCTION OF SURETY BOND POSTED FOR TRACT NO. 36741,
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AT MONTEFINO CONDOMINIUMS - The
City desires to reduce the surety bond posted for
drainage, sewer, road and water system improvements
located on Tract No. 36741, Montefino Condominiums, in
the amount of $94,000.
MAY 5, 1992 PAGE 3
Recommended Action: Accept work and reduce the surety
bond posted for Tract No. 36741 by $94,000 and instruct
the City Clerk to notify the principals.
5.10 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S
REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE ANNEXATION
OF CERTAIN LANDS INTO THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38; DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO
ANNEX LANDS INTO SAID DISTRICT; AND FIXING A TIME AND
PLACE FOR HEARING OF OBJECTIONS THEREON - Pursuant to
Council direction of March 3, 1992, staff has prepared
the Engineer's Report which includes a portion of the
City that was not contained in the original Citywide
District No. 38. This District was established to
benefit all property owners within the City. Each parcel
within the City equally receives general benefits from
the increase in the community standards and associated
property value.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 92 -XX approving
the Engineer's Report with respect to Landscape
Assessment District No. 38; declaring intent to annex
these lands; and fixing May 19, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. as date
and time for Public Hearing on the matter.
5.11 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S
REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38; AND
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS
FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR
HEARING OF OBJECTIONS HEREON - Pursuant to Council's
direction of April 7, 1992, staff has prepared the
Engineer's Report(s) for District No. 38 for Fiscal Year
1992-93. Said report(s) have been prepared pursuant to
the provisions of Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of
Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 92 -XX approving
the Engineer's Report with respect to City Landscaping
Assessment District No. 38 (Citywide); declaring intent
to levy and collect assessments for landscape maintenance
and fixing May 19, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. as date and time for
Public Hearing on the matter.
5.12 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S
REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39; AND
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS
MAY 5, 1992 PAGE 4
FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR
HEARING OF OBJECTIONS THEREON - Pursuant to the
Council's direction of April 7, 1992, staff has prepared
the Engineer's Report for District No. 39 for Fiscal Year
1992-93. Said report has been prepared pursuant to the
provisions of Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of
Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 92 -XX approving
the Engineer's Report with respect to Landscape
Assessment District No. 39; declaring intent to levy and
collect assessments for landscaping maintenance and
fixing May 19, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. as date and time for
Public Hearing on the matter.
5.13 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S
REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41; AND
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS
FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR
HEARING OF OBJECTIONS HEREON - Pursuant to Council
direction of April 7, 1992, staff has prepared the
Engineer's Report for District No. 41 for Fiscal Year
1992-93. Said report has been prepared pursuant to the
provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of
Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 92 -XX approving
the Engineer's Report with respect to Landscape
Assessment District No. 41; declaring intent to levy and
collect assessments for landscaping maintenance and
fixing May 19, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. as date and time for
Public Hearing on the matter.
5.14 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR STREET TREE TRIMMING - On April 7,
1992, Council authorized staff to solicit bids for
Citywide street tree service. Staff advertised for and
received bids from three qualified contractors. Bids
were opened and publicly read on April 27, 1992.
Recommended Action: Award the contract for citywide
street tree service to West Coast Arborists, the lowest
bidder, in the amount of $36,590.
5.15 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
INSTALLATION OF NO PARKING SIGNS ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF
BREA CANYON ROAD FROM COLIMA ROAD/GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE TO
310 FEET NORTH OF WESTBOUND ROUTE 60 OFF -RAMP - The City
received a request from Caltrans to create a No parking
zone on the easterly side of Brea Canyon Rd. from Colima
MAY 5, 1992
CV
M :1.LOAU
Rd./Golden Springs Dr. to 310 ft. north of westbound Rt.
60 off -ramp. The request is a result of the proposed
improvements for the westbound Pomona Freeway ramps at
Brea Canyon Rd. Caltrans and the City executed a
cooperative agreement on September 3, 1991 to improve and
upgrade the aforementioned ramps.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 92 -XX
authorizing and directing the installation of "No Parking
Signs" along the easterly side of Brea Canyon Rd. from
Colima Rd./Golden Springs Dr. to 310 ft. North of
Westbound Route 60 off -ramp.
5.16 ACTING CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT - The City
Manager's position will be vacated due to his recent
appointment to the position of City Manager for the City
of Chino Hills.
Recommended Action: Appoint Terrence L. Belanger,
Assistant City Manager, to the position of Acting City
Manager effective May 18, 1992 to September 18, 1992.
5.17 MEMBERSHIP OF CHINO HILLS IN SCJPIA - The Southern
California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, at their
meeting of April 22, 1992, recommended approval of the
City of Chino Hills as a member of the Authority. Cities
applying for membership must be approved by a two-thirds
majority of the current membership.
Recommended Action: Approve membership of the City of
Chino Hills in the SCJPIA and authorize C/Forbing to
execute the consent form as the City's delegate to the
Authority.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES ETC.,
6.1 Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation and City
Tiles to members of the General Plan Advisory Committee
6.2 Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to team
members from New Liberal Arts Clinic of Claremont
Colleges re study of Electro -Optical Applications.
6.3 Verbal presentation by Battalion Chief Wolfe regarding
Proclaiming May 9, 1992 as "Fire Service Day."
6.4 PROCLAMATIONS:
6.4.1
May,
1992 as
"Goodwill Industries Month"
6.4.2
May
3-9, 1992
as "Victims of Pornography Week"
6.4.3
May
4-10, 1992 as "Public Service Recognition
Week"
6.4.4
May
6-12, 1992 as "Hire -A -Veteran Week"
6.4.5
May
13, 1992
as "Teacher Appreciation Day" -
Presentation
to Yvonne Sevilla, W.V.U.S.D. and
Sue
Williams,
P.U.S.D., Teachers of the Year.
MAY 5, 1992 PAGE 6
6.4.6 May 18-22, 1992 as "Classified Employee Week"
- Presentation of Proclamation to Gail Fowler,
W.V.U.S.D. and Tom Hollister, P.U.S.D.,
Classified School Employees.
6.4.7 May 17-23, 1992 as "National Public Works
Week"
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as matters
can be heard.
7.1 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL
OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22986 (TPM) AND DENIAL OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (DR) 92-1 - The applicant is
appealing the Planning Commission denial of DR 92-1 and
the recommendation for denial of the TPM 22986. DR 92-1
is an application for a two floor office building of
approximately 6,000 sq. ft. and TPM 22986 requests
approval to substantially realign the existing lot lines
in order to meet the development standards for existing
development on-site and permit DR 92-1.
Recommended Action: Receive public testimony and uphold
Planning Commission denial of TPM 22986 and denial of DR
92-1.
7.2 RESOLUTION NO. 92 - XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89551, LOCATED ON
A 4.5 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 800 SOUTH GRAND AVE., DIAMOND
BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
RESOLUTION NO. 92 - XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA APPROVING
TENTATIVE TRACT 51079, FOR A ONE (1) LOT SUBDIVISION AND
CREATION OF 54 AIR SPACE UNITS LOCATED AT 800 S. GRAND
AVENUE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
The application requests approval of the Tentative Tract
Map and an amendment to the CUP for conversion of a 54
unit apartment complex currently under construction at
800 S. Grand Ave. to condominiums for the purpose of
individual unit ownership.
Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends
approval of Tentative Tract Map 5107 and the amendment to
CUP 89-551.
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
9. ADJOURNMENT:
MAY 5, 1992 PAGE 6
6.4.6 May 18-22, 1992 as "Classified Employee Week"
- Presentation of Proclamation to Gail Fowler,
W.V.U.S.D. and Tom Hollister, P.U.S.D.,
Classified School Employees.
6.4.7 May 17-23, 1992 as "National Public Works
Week"
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as matters
can be heard.
7.1 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL
OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22986 (TPM) AND DENIAL OF
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (DR) 92-1 - The applicant is
appealing the Planning Commission denial of DR 92-1 and
the recommendation for denial of the TPM 22986. DR 92-1
is an application for a two floor office building of
approximately 6,000 sq. ft. and TPM 22986 requests
approval to substantially realign the existing lot lines
in order to meet the development standards for existing
development on-site and permit DR 92-1.
Recommended Action: Receive public testimony and uphold
Planning Commission denial of TPM 22986 and denial of DR
92-1.
7.2 RESOLUTION NO. 92 - XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89551, LOCATED ON
A 4.5 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 800 SOUTH GRAND AVE., DIAMOND
BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
RESOLUTION NO. 92 - XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA APPROVING
TENTATIVE TRACT 51079, FOR A ONE (1) LOT SUBDIVISION AND
CREATION OF 54 AIR SPACE UNITS LOCATED AT 800 S. GRAND
AVENUE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
The application requests approval of the Tentative Tract
Map and an amendment to the CUP for conversion of a 54
unit apartment complex currently under construction at
800 S. Grand Ave. to condominiums for the purpose of
individual unit ownership.
Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends
approval of Tentative Tract Map 5107 and the amendment to
CUP 89-551.
S. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
9. ADJOURNMENT:
I .
2.
3.
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL DRAFT
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
APRIL 21, 1992
CLOSED SESSION: Personnel Section - 54957.6
Litigation Section - 54956.9
No reportable action taken.
CALL TO ORDER: M/Kim called the meeting to order at
6:06 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 Mayor Kim.
ROLL CALL: Mayor Kim, Mayor Pro Tem Papen,
Councilmen Forbing, Miller and
Werner.
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 and Lynda
Burgess, City Clerk.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: None offered.
4. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS: DCA/Curley announced that the lawsuit
filed by the San Gabriel Valley Tribune against the City
regarding a possible violation of the Brown Act had been
dismissed.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Phyllis Baca, 24239 High Knob Rd.
complained that one of her neighbors is in the business of
restoring antique cars and another makes furniture --both out
of their homes. Another homeowner manufactures clothing in
his garage on a neighboring street. She requested the City to
reconsider the issue of business licenses and presented a
petition signed by her neighbors asking for better regulation
of home businesses.
Following discussion, CDD/DeStefano stated that he would meet
with Ms. Baca and Code Enforcement Officer Flores regarding
the matter and report back to the Council and Ms. Baca.
Martha Bruske, 600 S. Great Bend Dr., asked whether the City
would be scheduling a hazardous waste roundup in the future.
She recommended that the City consider prohibiting junk mail
similar to that done in the City of Los Angeles. In addition,
she suggested that the City look into a way of collecting and
storing out of date telephone directories.
Beverly D'Errico, representing "Results," a citizens' hunger
lobby, announced that a meeting would be held on Thursday,
April 23, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in Room CC -6 at the AQMD.
Representatives of Congressional candidates Jay Kim and Kevin
Dockery will be on hand to answer questions and a video will
APRIL 21, 1992 PAGE 2
be shown regarding "Head Start" and "Wick." A meeting will
also be held on May 21, when the speaker will be Dr. Jack
Bath, biology professor at Cal Poly and a member of the Sierra
Club, on the importance of saving local bio -regions. Speakers
will also address the Earth Summit to be held in Rio de
Janeiro and the Earth Summit Leadership Act to be introduced
in Congress soon.
Ken Anderson, 2628 Rising Star Dr., spoke on his concerns
regarding Fountain Springs Rd. at Diamond Bar Blvd. and the
fact that in the past two weeks, there have been two serious
accidents at this intersection. He further stated that three
signs have been posted in the Country Hills Town Center that
do not conform with the Sign Code and that there is a problem
with graffiti in this area.
6. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: CM/Van Nort stated that Council
previously retained consultants to prepare a Tres Hermanos
Conceptual Plan with an estimated completion date of May,
1992. However, since the Pomona Unified School District has
not yet selected a site for the high school, the consultants
have been unable to finalize the plan. He further stated that
as soon as a recommendation has been made, the City will
present the conceptual plan to the public.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR: CM/Van Nort announced that on April
25, 1992 from Noon to 4:00 p.m., the City would celebrate its
3rd anniversary at Sycamore Canyon Park. He further stated
that the Council desires to recognize those who served on the
General Plan Advisory Committee with either a Certificate of
Recognition or City Tile and to officially dissolve the
Committee effective April 23, 1992. He went on to personally
thank Don Schad, Don Taylor, Don Robertson, Eric Stone, Greg
Hummel, Ed Layton and Ross Bilotta, who donated many, many
hours to completing the task of preparing a draft of the
General Plan.
C/Miller moved, C/Werner seconded to approve the Consent
Calendar as submitted. With the following Roll Call vote,
motion carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Miller, Werner, MPT/Papen,
M/Kim
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
7.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
7.1.1 Parks & Recreation Commission - April 23, 1992
- 7:00 p.m., AQMD Room CC -2, 21865 E. Copley
7.1.2 Traffic & Transportation Commission - April
23, 1992 - 6:30 p.m., Community Room, 1061 S.
Grand Ave.
7.1.3 3rd Anniversary Celebration - April 25, 1992 -
12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park
7.1.4 Planning Commission General Plan Public
APRIL 21, 1992
PAGE 3
Hearing - April 27, 1992 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
7.1.5 Planning Commission General Plan Public
Hearing - May 4, 1992 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
7.1.6 City Council Meeting - May 5, 1992 - 6:00
p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
7.1.7 Planning Commission General Plan Public
Hearing - May 11, 1992 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
7.1.8 Sheriff's Quarterly Breakfast - May 12, 1992 -
7:00 a.m., AQMD, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
7.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Study Session of March 24, 1992 -
Approved as submitted.
7.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Approved Warrant Register dated April
21, 1992 in the amount of $521,718.22.
7.4 TREASURER'S REPORT - Received & filed Treasurer's Report
for the month of March, 1992.
7.5 APPROVED RELEASE OF GRADING CASH DEPOSIT - $8,922.60 for
1948 Flintrock Road.
7.6 GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - Officially dissolved
the Committee effective April 23, 1992 and directed staff
to provide appropriate recognition for all participants
to include a City Tile and/or Certificates of Recognition
where appropriate.
7.7 AWARDED CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL CODIFICATION AND
PUBLICATION OF CITY ORDINANCES - Municipal Code Corp.,
Tallahassee, Florida in an amount not to exceed $18,440
and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
agreement on behalf of the City.
7.8 PATHFINDER BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECT - Authorized the Mayor
to enter into an agreement with the County of Los Angeles
and Caltrans for the widening of Pathfinder Rd.
overcrossing on State Route 57, modification of the
southerly ramp terminals and traffic signals and
construction of a park -n -ride lot on the northeast
quadrant of the interchange.
7.9 1991-92 SLURRY SEAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - AREA TWO -
Awarded a contract to Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. in the
amount of $145,599.75 for the 1991-92 Slurry Seal
Improvement Program - Area Two.
7.10 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 92-16: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF
PARKWAY TREES.
APRIL 21, 1992
PAGE 5
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, Werner, Forbing,
MPT/Papen, M/Kim
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
9.3 ORDINANCE NO. 28C (1989): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
28 (1989), AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, CONCERNING THE
SELECTION OF A CHAIR AND OTHER OFFICES OF THE TRAFFIC AND
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - C/Forbing, C/Werner seconded
to waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 28C (1989) .
With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, Werner, Forbing,
MPT/Papen, M/Kim
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
RECESS: M/Kim recessed the meeting at 6:40 p.m.
RECONVENE: M/Kim reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters
can be heard.
10.1 PRELIMINARY DRAFT HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT -
Asst. to CM/Butzlaff reported that the California
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) and
subsequent Assembly Bill 2707 requires the City to
prepare, adopt and implement a separate Household
Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) identifying how the City
Will properly reduce, collect, recycle, treat and dispose
of all household hazardous wastes generated in the City.
MPT/Papen declared the Public Hearing open.
With no one offering to speak on the matter, M/Papen
closed the Public Hearing.
Following discussion, it was moved by C/Miller, seconded
by MPT/Papen to forward comments received to the JPA
consultant for integration into the final Household
Hazardous Waste Element.
10.2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF
MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 92-1 AND APPROVAL OF
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 47850, 47851 AND 48487 - Due
to a potential conflict of interest, M/Kim removed
himself from the meeting.
C/Miller suggested that since there are a number of
concerns regarding Tract 47850, it should be withdrawn
from consideration until additional soils tests and other
data can be obtained.
APRIL 21, 1992 PAGE 6
Cecil Mills reported that Diamond Bar Associates was
willing to withdraw its application for Tract 47850
without prejudice to any right they may have to bring it
back to the Council at such time as additional studies
have been made.
Following discussion, C/Miller moved, C/Werner seconded
to withdraw Tract No. 47850 from the calendar.
Mr. Mills requested postponement of Tract No. 47850 for
approximately 3-4 months until approximately September
1st.
C/Miller amended his motion to require that the applicant
not bring Tract No. 47850 back for Council review before
September 1st but no later than October 31st. C/Werner
amended his second. Motion carried unanimously (4-0,
M/Kim abstaining).
Don Brockway, representing Leighton & Assoc., stated that
their recommendation would be that both Tracts No. 47851
and 48487 could be approved as vesting tentative tracts.
A change in the design of the shear key at the head of a
landslide, above lots 18, 19 and 20 on Tract 47851 was
suggested. The shear key was moved to prohibit building
within an area that could fail if the landslide were to
reactivate. This boundary to the restricted use zone is
established by projecting a one-to-one slope up from the
toe of the shear key as now planned. Since there is no
assurance that the shear key could be repaired in the
event that the landslide would move, it was recommended
that the zone be governed by a projection of a one and
one-half to one slope from the toe of the shear key. The
results would be about a 20 ft. wider zone to restrict
building. In lieu of that, if the developer's consultant
can design the shear key in such a manner as to enhance
the strength that would ensure safety using a one to one
projection, would also be acceptable.
In response to MPT/PapenIs inquiry into whether engineer-
ing changes would allow for sufficient pads on lot 19
with the same number of lots, CDD/DeStefano stated that
information received in the last two days indicated that
Lots 18, 19 and 20, which are at the end of a long cul-
de-sac, would be in jeopardy and may need to be
eliminated and the cul-de-sac shortened. He further
stated that a decision could not yet be made and would be
necessary to understand the geotechnical consultants'
findings and recommendations. He indicated that if the
Council chooses to approve 47851, direction could be
given to staff to specifically analyse the developable
pads and their possibilities at the end of the cul-de-sac
or Council could specifically direct staff to eliminate
those lots subject to much more detailed analysis
presented by the developer at a future date.
APRIL 21, 1992
PAGE 7
MPT/Papen opened the Public Hearing.
Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., stated that he felt that
hydrology factors have not been carefully considered and
that pollutants will enter Tonner Canyon and cause
permanent ecological damage. He suggested that staff
contact Michael Brandon, with the Department of Regional
Planning, regarding his ecological findings.
William Gross, 21637 Highbluff Rd., stated that this
project is inconsistent with the proposed General Plan
and that, in his opinion, this project is a "vesting
tract map."
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind, stated that he felt that
neither the City nor the developer have shown that this
project is geotechnically feasible at this stage.
C/Miller stated that the bentonite bed is 1/2" thick and
175' below the surface and would not require removal or
mixing. No bentonite exists in Tract 47861. He further
stated that a "worst case" design has been required for
Tract No. 47850.
With no further testimony offered, MPT/Papen closed the
Public Hearing.
Mr. Mills requested that Condition 24 for Tract No. 47851
as well as staff report Exhibit "B" be stricken which
deals with the remaining parcel.
In regard to vesting of the maps, CDD/DeStefano stated
that staff has receipts from the County showing that when
all three tracts were submitted, they were vested. In
addition, the maps accompanying the applications show
vesting.
MPT/Papen stated that she is concerned that the Water
District and Planning are not moving in the same
direction with regard to reclaimed water and that she did
not want the condition requiring dual water lines to be
stricken.
C/Werner requested that disclosure of the presence of
bentonite beds be included in one of the mitigation
measures to be covered under the EIR and part of the
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
CDD/DeStefano stated that this information could be
provided in a Buyer's Awareness package, a statement in
the CC&R's or any other documents that are appropriate
for place information such as this.
C/Miller stated that Condition 11 on Exhibit Bla for TTM
47851, should be redrafted to read "a detailed landscape,
APRIL 21, 1992
PAGE 8
irrigation plan and reclaimed water line plan for future
service including slope planning." Condition 10 on
Exhibit Bla for TTM 48487 should also be changed.
MPT/Papen obtained Council concurrence supporting
C/Werner Is suggestion that disclosure of the bentonite
beds be included in a buyer awareness package.
MPT/Papen further obtained Council concurrence supporting
the request of the applicant to remove Condition 24.
In regard to lots 18, 19 and 20, C/Miller suggested that
staff be directed to prepare a resolution of approval
with findings, conditions and mitigation measures for
that tract with the possible loss of lots 18, 19 and 20
if the geotechnical concerns associated with the shear
key cannot be resolved prior to Council approval.
C/Werner asked for a conclusive legal opinion as to
whether or not this was a vesting map application.
CA/Arczynski stated that the map in the EIR that has been
referred to as "the map that doesn't say vesting
tentative map on it" also does not include a lot of other
information normally found. It appears to be a portion
of the tract map that was copied to fit in the book. The
documentation in staff's possession indicates that the
original documents submitted reflect vesting tentative
tract maps on them and therefore, he would consider that
the maps are vested.
C/Werner asked to see documentation showing that when the
application was submitted, it was for vesting tract maps.
C/Miller moved, C/Werner seconded to direct staff to
prepare a resolution of approval with findings,
conditions and mitigation measures for Vesting Tentative
Tract No. 47851 with a possible loss of lots 18, 19 and
20 if the geotechnical concerns associated with the shear
key cannot be resolved and that the remainder parcel,
which is Condition 24, be open space and deeded to the
homeowners' association as such. With the following Roll
Call vote, motion carried:
AYES:
COUNCILMEN
- Werner, Forbing, Miller, MPT/
Papen
NOES:
COUNCILMEN
- None
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN
- None
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEN -
M/Kim
C/Miller moved, C/Werner seconded to direct staff •to
prepare resolutions of approval with findings, conditions
and mitigation measures for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
47850 and 48487. With the following Roll Call vote,
motion carried:
APRIL 21, 1992 PAGE 9
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Miller, Werner, MPT/
Papen
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN - M/Kim
11. ANNOUNCEMENTS: CM/Van Nort announced that, some time ago,
the City Council and Chamber of Commerce agreed to contact all
shopping center owners to determine what could be done as a
group to assist in the retention of businesses in the City.
The Council has authorized the City Manager's office to
proceed with the retention of a facilitator to organize a
workshop within the next several weeks. He further stated in
meetings held with neighboring cities attended by Mayor Pro
Tem Papen, Acting City Manager Belanger and himself, it was
discovered that the other cities are having similar problems.
12• ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct,
MPT/Papen adjourned the meeting at 8:33 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 Pape�n�.�nland Councilmember Forbing
FROM: Linda G. Magnuson Senior Accountant
SUBJECT: Voucher Register, May 5, 1992
DATE: April 30, 1992
Attached is the Voucher Register dated May 5, 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 fo
allowed from the following funds in
FUND NO,
FUND
DESCRIPTION
001
General Fund
112
Prop
A Fund
138
LLAD
#38 Fund
139
LLAD
#39 Fund
141
LLAD
#41 Fund
250
CIP Fund
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
APPROVED BY:
Linda G. Mag u on
Senior Account nt
Robert L. Van Nort
City Manager
dated May 5, 1992 have been
r payment. Payments are hereby
these amounts:
$165,326.21
239.49
5,215.74
6,504.85
3,663.69
1.333.42
$182,283.40
/ 4AKO /��—$
Phyllis E. Papen
Mayor Pro Tem
Jefin A. Forbing
Councilmember
*** City of Diamond Bar ***
RUN TIME: 15:14 94/31/92 V 0 U C H E R R E S I S T E R
DUE THRU.............65/95/92
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID.
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/N0. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION
ARA Services
Accurate
ARAGervice
69.19
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
+591-4919-2325
2
21595A
94/29
95/95
+"1-4219-2325
3
29595A
94129
95/55
ARA Services
2/S15A
ARAService
15/15
24438
*4f1-4919-2325
6
2151SE
94/29
95/95
*"1-4999-2399
1
2959SE
94/29
95/1S
ARA/Cory Refreshment
Svcs
ARA
April Maint Dist 139
+"1-4999-2139
1
29S95A
94/29
95/95 262944
ASL Consultants ASL
*138-4538-41" 1 21565A 94/29 95/95 13199
*139-4539-4111 1 21S9SA 14/29 15/15.13199
*141-4541-41" 1 21515A 14/29 15/15 13119
Accurate Landscape
Accurate
Meeting Supplies-CmaDvip
69.19
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
+138-4538-2215 1
21515A
54/29
85/15
24346
*139-4539-2211 2
21S9SA
94/29
85/15
24349
*139-4539-2211 1
2/S15A
54/29
15/15
24438
*138-4538-5591 1
2959SA
94129
55/55
24522
*139-4539-5599 1
2/59SA
54/29
15/15
24523
Accurate Landscape Accurate
*581-4331-2219 1 20S95A
Allard Shelton 1
*991-4429-4921
Allard5hel
1 21515A
94/29 15/55 24422
94/29 15/15
Alvarez, April AlvarezA
*191-4355-5395 22 29595X 54/29 15/55
PAGE 1
+ * PREPAID t +
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
Meeting Supplies-CCouncil
177.19
Meeting Supplies-CmaDvip
69.19
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
266.29
CCCA Mtg - 3/18/92
19.59 95/95192 099913289
CCCA Ntg - 3/16/92
675.99 95/95/92 909913289
TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ---->
685.59
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------}
t."
Rental/VaterLCoffee Unit
87."
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------}
87."
March Engr Svcs -Dist 138
2,194.99
March Eng Svcs -Dist 139
Set."
March Eng Svcs -Dist 141
5"."
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------->
3,894.99
Supplies-LLMD 138
65.34
Supplies-LLMD 139
264.85
Clean Drains -Dist 139
245.59
April Maint-Dist 36
April Maint Dist 139
5,5".99
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
9,199.19
Ditch Cleanup-Sycaere Cyn
1,315.99
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
1,398."
Special Legal Svcs-Papen
274.55
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
274.54
Contract Class Instructor
248.95
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
248."
+++ City of Dia■and Bar +++
RUN TIME: 15:14 /4131/92 V O U C H E R R E G I S T E R PAGE 2
DUE THRU.............05/45/92
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID. + t PREPAID t +
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/N0. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrev i Rolanda VanHusen VanHusen
+111-2311-1111
4 21515D
14/31 15/15
Ref/Dep Chge of Address
551.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --- ----- )
551.11
Arsentrout, Phil
Areentrout
+111-4441-1211
1 21SISA
14/29
45/15
Small Tools i Equip
26.47
+111-4441-2344
1 21565A
14/29
15/15
Meeting 4/17192
16.0
+111-4441-4141
1 21SISA
14/29
15/15
6116
Einer Coord Svcs -4/13-4/2S
1,151.14
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------>
1,194.41
BNI
BNI
+111-4511-2324
2 2154SA 11/1322
14/29
15/15
61/41522
92 Green Book
13.36
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
13.36
Balogh, Julianna
Balogh)
+111-4351-5311
4 215151!
/4/29
IS/45
Contract Class Instructor
4I.N
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
41.11
Baroldi, Luann
251
+141-3478
7 2/5/SR
14/29
I5/IS
254
Recreation Refund
26.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
26.0
Bauer, Bob
BauerB
+111-4351-5311
6 2854SX
14/29
15/15
Contract Class Instructor
279.34
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
279.34
Bee Removers
BeeRemove
+111-4313-2211
1 2051SA
14/29
45/15
9869
Bee removal Heritage Prk
81./1
+141-4555-5519
1 21SISA
14129
65/15
9889
Bee Removal I Capen Or
55.44
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
135.41
Beke, John C.
BekeJ
+441-4553-4114
1 2065D
14/34
45/15
TIT Con -4/9,4/23
81.41
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
81.14
Berry, Katrina
BerryK
"Il-4351-S3II
7 215ISX
14129
45/15
Contract Class Instructor
64.64
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
64.84
ttt City of Diamond Bar ttt
RUN TINE: 15:14 94/36/92 V 0 U C H E R R E 6 I S T E R
DUE THOU.............45/95/92
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID.
ACCOUNT PRDJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/N0. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION
Bieber, Marilyn BimberM
061-4351-530 6 295451
Boys Club/San Gabriel Vly BoysClub
+111-4555-5529 1 20595A
Brandman Assoc., Michael Brandman
+191-2311-1111 1 21SISA
Brea, City of
+191-4351-530
t01-4351-5314
Brehn, Brian
+141-4195-2353
Brown, Laurie
+111-4351-5341
Burgess, Lynda
+911-4995-2353
Cadman, Jonell
+111-4351-5311
Calvin Lin
t111-2311-1419
BreaCity
1 21515A
2 21515A
BrehnB
2 21515E
BrownL
9 24565X
BurgessLyn
1 215/5A
CadeanJ
24 21515X
CalvinLin
3 24515C
PAGE 3
t t PREPAID t t
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
14129
15/15
Contract Class Instructor
349.61
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
344.64
14/29
15/15
March Graffiti Removal
1,441.0
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
1,441.0
14/29
15/15 1292/161
Prof Svcs-EIR 91-2
6,464.19
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
6,464.19
14/29
15/15 12161
April Contract Services
26,923.11
14/29
15/15 12561
Spring Tiny Tot Program
1,674.0
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------->
26,797.0
14/29
45115
Entertainment - Anniv Cel
751.11 15/15/92 1111113265
TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----)
751.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------)
1.0
44/29
15/15
Contract Class Instructor
213.14
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
213.0
44/29
15/15
Supplies 3rd Anniv
41.21
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
41.21
14/29
15/15
Contract Class Instructor
142.61
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
142.64
44/29
IS/15
Refund,Deposit-ChgafAddrs
625.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
625.0
+++ City a Diamond Bar +++
RUN TIME: 15:14 14/3!/92 V 0 U C H E R R E 6 I S T E R
DUE THRU.............IS/15/92
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID.
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/N0. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION
Chapman, Robert 249
+111-3418 6 21515R
Chavers, J. Todd ChaversJT
+111-4553-4111 3 21S15D
Cheng, Diana ChengD
+111-4553-4111 2 24560
Childs, Tyra 242
+111-3478 9 215158
Chilstras, Linda 232
+111-3418 19 21515R
Chiu, Yung Sing 231
+111-3418 14 215/5R
PABE 4
+ + PREPAID t +
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
44129
15/15
2311
Recreation Refund
21.11
+111-4351-1211
1 21515A
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
21.11
14131
15/15
TIT Con -4/9, 4/23
81.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
46.51
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
b1.N
14134
15/15
TIT Coes-4/9, 4/23
81.0
1 204SA
14/29
15/45 8315
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------->
81.11
14/29
15/15
2684
Recreation Refund
21.11
75.N
D. B. Chamber of Commerce DBChasber
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
21.11
14129
15/15
3318
Recreation Refund
36.11
Brochure-SSVA Mens9orling
2,511.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------->
36.11
14129
15/15
3193
Recreation Refund
24.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
21.0
Convention Recorders
Convention
+111-4351-1211
1 21515A
14129
05/15
Come Svc Tapes
46.51
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
46.51
Cox's Steam Cleaning
CoxSteam
+111-4555-5512
1 204SA
14/29
15/45 8315
Sandblasting -falcon Rdge
15.0
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
75.N
D. B. Chamber of Commerce DBChasber
011-4195-4261
1 21515A
14/29
15/15
Brochure-SSVA Mens9orling
2,511.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
2,5®1.01
Dagampat, Bernice
252
011-3418
1 215158
44/29
15/15 2469
Recreation Refund
28.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
28.0
Citof Diamonr fif
RUN TIME: 15:14 84/38/92 V O y U C H E R R E 6 I S d T E BR a
DUE THRU.............15/85/92
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID.
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/NO. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION
David Evans L Assoc. DavidEvans
'111-230-1111 2 21515A
Diamond Bar Business Asoc DBBusAssoc
'181-4191-2211 1 21SISA
Diamond Bar Petty Cash PettyCash
101-4131-2325
2 2#S/5D
'181-4141-1111
2 24SI5D
001-4191-120
1 20545D
'811-4191-1314
1 28515D
011-44W2325
1 21515D
'111-4195-2111
1 MISS,
'111-4195-2353
3 26SOSD
'111-4211-1111
3 215150
Diamond Bar Petty Cash PettyCash
+111-3418
22 21515D
fell -4131-120
1 2/5150
+01-4131-2111
1 26505D
101-4131-2325
3 20SISD
'111-4151-2325
1 2851SD
fell -4891-110
4 2151SD
101-4898-2325
2 2/565D
fill -4191-2395
2 21515D
1181-4895-1218
2 21S/5D
1811-4211-2325
4 2151SD
011-4351-1211
3 26SISD
1111-4441-2344
4 21SISD
1181-4511-1211
2 21S15D
Dog Dealers Inc. DogDealers
1181-43SA-5311 11 215/5X
Durham Transportation Durham
f112-4368-5314 2 20515A 81/1386
44/29 65/15
14/29 15/15
14/29 IS/IS
14/29 15/15
14/29 15/15
14/29 85/IS
14/29 15!15
44/29 15/15
14/29 15/15
14/19 1S/15
.
14/29 15/15
04/29 ISM
14/29 IS/15
14/29 15/15
14/29 15/15
14129 15/15
14129 15/15
14/29 15/85
14129 15/15
14/29 15/15
14/29 15/15
14/34 IS/15
44/29 15/15
14/29 15/15
44/29 15/15 166153
Prof Svcs-EIR 91-4
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
May Conon Area Maint
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------)
Meetings
Supplies
Supplies
Small Tools i Equip
Meetings
Certificate
Anniv Invitations
Supplies
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------)
Recreation Refunds
Supplies -CM
Printing
CM-Mtgs
Fin Mtgs
Supplies -Gen Govt
Gen Mtgs
Misc Exp
Supplies -Com Promo
Ping Ntgs
Supplies -Recreation
Conf. Emer Prep
Supplies -FV
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
Contract Class Instructor
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
Excursion -Tiny Tots
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
PAGE 5
' f PREPAID ' f
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
119.0
119.0
16.11
11.33
3.13
14.64
25.46
1.61
2.11
12.52
81.21
66.11
31.15
9.31
33.11
15.0
15. N
44.11
31.12
19.42
181.16
41.a$
16.13
18.63
461.49
132.11
132.11
239.49
239.49
+++ City of Diamond Bar +++
RUNTIME: 15:1414/30/92 VOUCHER REGISTER
DUE THRU.............45/15/92
VENDOR MAKE VENDOR ID.
ACCOUNT PROJ.TI-MO BATCH PO.LINE/MO. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION
PAGE 6
* * PREPAID * *
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
Eastman Inc.
Eastman
+►11-4010-111!
1 205058
04/29 15/05
8805186
City Council -Supplies
4.16
*001-4041-1111
1 2/515B
44/29 15/15
8805196
City Clerk Supplies
41.41
+011-4191-1101
1 215158
44/29 15/05
8805091
Mon Dept -Supplies
61.22
*061-4211-1110
1 2/S/51
14/29 15/15
8815141
Planning Supplies
69.61
N/1-4511-1100
1 20515B
04/29 05/15
8815163
Pub Yorks Supplies
49.43
*001-4211-1111
2 20515B
14/29 15/15
8816934
Planning Supplies
31.61
*011-4031-2314
1 28515E
14/29
IS/15
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
283.65
Envicom Corporation
Envicom
5 205/5B
14/29
05/15
4212152
*011-2300-1011
3 205158
04/29 15/15
4121
Prof Svcs -EIA 91-3
3,116.16
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 3,016.18
Envicom Corporation Envicom
*011-2300-1011 4 205OSB 04/29 05/15 4145 Prof Svcs-EIR 91-3 15,695.63
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 15,695.63
Ewing Irrigation Products Ewing
*111-4311-1211 3 215158 13/1214 04/29 15/15 445264 2 Meter Keys 29.66
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 29.66
Exxon
ExxonS
*011-4311-2311
1 20565B
14/29
15/15
1412664
Fuel -Parks
15.24
*111-4310-2311
6 205158
14/29
15/15
1403452
Fuel -Parks
33.50
*011-4310-2311
2 215158
14129
15/15
2802656
Fuel -Parks
14.16
*111-4210-2310
1 245456
14/29
05/15
2812611
Fuel -Planning
18.80
*111-4311-2311
3 20505B
14/29
15/15
2802666
Fuel -Parks
16.51
*011-4031-2314
1 28515E
14/29
IS/15
3501254
Fuel-CMgr
16.90
*101-4311-2311
5 205/5B
14/29
05/15
4212152
Fuel -Parks
32.98
*101-4090-2211
1 215158
14/29
15/15
4202240
Pool Car Tire Repair
10.10
*101-4310-2310
4 205158
14/29
15/05
4212251
Fuel -Parks
30.51
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
189.25
Federal Express Corp.
FedExpress
*011-4511-2120
1 205158
04/29
15105
461919454
Express Mailing -Pub Wks
20.01
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
21.04
Firestone Stores
Firestone
*111-4131-2201
2 205658 01/1326
04129
45/15
46/468256
Equip Maint-CMgr
161.83
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 161.83
+++ Cit ++
RUN TIME: 15:14 64/34/92 V O y U C of Diaeond BH E R R E 6 I S T E A ar +
DUE THRU.............15/95/92
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID.
ACCOUNT PAOJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/NO. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION
PAGE 1
} + PREPAID + +
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
Frommx
Frosex
+111-4111-1111
2 215158
94/29 15/15 5699662 Film Processing
24.17
2 111.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
24.17
STEL
STEL
413.94
+111-4199-2131
2 295152
94/29 15/15 May Equip Rental
806.63
91.31
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
816.63
Gardner Communications
GardnerCoa
417.51
+001-4211-4221
1 215158
14/29 15/45 981 Gen Plan Posters
515 53
Gonsalves t Son, Joe A. Gonsalves
+191-4111-4111 1 21515B
gotta Dance 6ottaDance
+001-4351-5311 5 21515X
Grubbs, Nympha GrubbsN
+111-4351-5300 11 2051SX
Hall, Jessica Ha11J
+111-4351-5311 12 215151
Haserot, Diane HaserotD
+191-4351-5391 18 2151SX
Haynes, Rae 239
+111-3478 12 21595R
Heller t Associates Heller
+001-2111-1114 1 20515D
+001-2114-1116 1 20515D
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
515.53
14/29 15/15
May Prof Svcs
2 111.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
2,1/9.00
14/29 15/IS •
Contract Class Instructor
413.94
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
413.91
14/29 15115
Contract Class Instructor
91.31
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------)
91,30
14/29 95/15
Contract Class Instructor
417.51
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
487.50
14/29 85/15
Contract Class Instructor
235.81
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
235.81
14/29 15/15 3213
Recreation Refund
27.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
27,00
14/31 IS/15
May Dental Press
148.85
14/34 IS/15
May Vision Premiums
321.95
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
1,111.81
ttt
City
of
Di
m and Bar ttt
RUN TINE: 11:11 15111/92
V
0 U C
H E R R
E 6 I S T E R
PAGE 6
DUE THRU
.............45/15/92
VENDOR NAME
VENDOR ID.
t t PREPAID t t
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/N0.
ENTRY/DUE
INVOICE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
Hendricks, Kathe
HendricksK
*"1-43WS30
13
265151
14/29
15/15
Contract Class Instructor
142.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------->
142.0
Highlander Publications
Highlander
461-230-1111
1
2$SSSB
14129
15/15
12821
Pub Hrg CUP 91-13,DR91-4
37.79
#01-4211-2115
1
20S95B
14/29
1S/15
6613
Pub Hrg-Ping Con Ntgs
178.56
TOTAL DILE VENDOR -------->
216.35
Holmes, Darell
236
#01-3476
IS
2151SR
14129
15/IS
3227
Recreation Refund
23.0
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------)
23.0
Hustad, Joni
233
061-3418
18
2651SR
04/29
15/15
2934
Recreation Refund
27.0
•
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -- ------ )
27.0
Hyatt Regency
HyattRegen
#111-4131-2334
1
21515E
04/29
15/15
CCCA Sea 5/14 -17 -Belanger
363.11 15/15/92 101113282
TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----)
363.0
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
1.0
ICMA Retirement Trust -457
ICNA
#161-2111-1111
1
2/5158
14129
15115
May Cafe Contributions
571.11
001-4131-081
1
24515B
14/29
15/15
Cafe Contributions May
411.0
011-44314191
1
26SO58
$4/29
45/45
CMgr Cafe Contrib-May
1,248.14
#01-4141-1491
1
2/5158
44/29
IS/IS
CClk Cafe Contrib-May
543.44
041-4151-094
1
215158
44/29
15/15
Finance Cafe Cantrib-May
378.61
#111-4211-4194
1
215458
14129
15115
Ping Cafe Contrib-May
511.24
#411-4311-1191
1
2$S$SB
44/29
IS/15
Parks Cafe Contrib-May
731.21
t/1f-4511-091
1
21515B
44/29
45/45
Pub Wk Cafe Contrib-May
827.46
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
5,175.12
Image IV Systems Inc.
Ieage4Sys
#01-4191-2214
3
245158 11/1317
44129
15/45
179263
March Maint-Kanica Copier
154.81
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
154.61
Impressive Screenrorks
Impressive
#01-4195-1214
1
21SSSB
44/29
15/15
6211
Council/Staff Shirts
535.68
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
535.66
++a ar fff
RUN TIME: 15:14 04/31192 City V O UCof Diasand BH E R R E fi I 5 T E R
DUE THRU.............IS/05/92 PAGE 9
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID.
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/NO. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE f PREPAID f
---------------- DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK
Inland Valley Dly
Bulletn IVDB
001-4211-2115
+111-2311-1111
2 205158
2 215158
14/29 05/15 dcS283
Pub Hrg-Sen Plan
288.0
1111-4140-2115
1 215158
14/29 15/15 dc5383
Pub Hrg CUP 91-13,DR91-4
54.0
14/29 15/15 dc867I
Pub Hrg-Dev Review 92-1
61.51
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------1
419.51
Int'1 Business Equipment
InBusEquip
"11-4190-2211
2 24S4SB 11/1148
14/29 15/15 2027
April Copier Svc/Naint
564.81
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
569.80
K l V Blueprint Service KLVBluePrt
001-4551-2116
1 2/SISC
14/29 IS/15 11614
Blueprint Nachine Maint
167.79
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------y
167.79
Karapetian, Janet
Karapetian
}181-4351-5311
14 20S1SX
14/29 IS/05
Contract Class Instructor
154.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
1S4.0
Kens Hardware
kens
081-4511-1201
}101-4310-1211
1 20545C 29/1211
4 2/SISC
14/29 ISM 55128
Engr Storage Locks
34.53
001-4311-1201
31/1211
5 2150SC 31/1277
04/29 IS/05 55125
14/29 15/15
Traps
+111-4311-1201
6 21505C 32/1271
SS131
@4/29 15!15 55161
Extension Coupling7.52
3.24
Light Bulbs
3.63
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
48,92
Kleinfelder
Kleinfeldr
+101-4551-5224 15692
2 21SISC 61/1279A
44/29 05/15 582246
SeoTech-Prof. Svcs
1,125,68
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
1,725.66
Kuhn, Irene
236
011-3478
13 20SISR
14/29 15/15 2948
Recreation Refund
36.ee
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------y
36.0
Kunz, Wendy
247
011-3418
21 215158
14/29 15/15 3446
Recreation Refund
24.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
P9,0
Kurassis, Nick
234
011-3478
17 20SISR
04/29 IS/0S 3341
Recreation Refund
45.0
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
4S.0
*** ar ***
RUN TIME: 15:14 84/31/92 City V D UCof Diaaand BH E R R E G I S T E R
DUE THRU............./5/15/92
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID.
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/NO. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION
PAGE 1/
# * PREPAID * t
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
-------------------------
L.A. Cty-Fire Dept
LACFire
*041-4441-2344
3 215/5C 11/1316
14/29 15/15 21135
Eaer Prep Training
611.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
618.11
L -A -County -Dist. Attorney LACDistAtt
1111-4121-4121
2 28SISC
14/29 15/15
Feb Legal Svcs
438.69
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
436.69
LA Cty-Comnity L Senior LACCSCS
0481-4811-2325
6 21515E
14/29 15/15
Older Amer Rec-Ppn,Yerner
45.11 15/15/92 1111813286
TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ---->
45.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
1.04
Landscape Vest
LandscapeV
*141-4541-5511
1 21515C
14/29 15/15 116981
March Maint Dist t41
3,1M.H
•
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
3,118.04
League of Ca. Cities
League
*111-4351-2325
1 21515E
44/29 15/15
Cos Svc Conf-Vhelan,Medna
161.11 15/15/92 1104113284
TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ---->
161.16
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
1.11
Luther, Susan
LutherS
+111-4351-5304
15 2151SX
14/29 ISM
Contract Class Instructor
217.81
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------->
247,04
MMASC
MMASC
*111-4131-2315
1 21S15C
64/29 15/15
MMASC Meebership-Fritzal
41.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
48.04
Mac Bride, Dexter
MacBrideD
0481-423-2331
1 20545C
14/29 15/15
League Mtg Expenses 4/14
21.92
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
21.92
Marilyn Ortiz
Ortiz"
*111-4216-4221
2 28S15C
14/29 15/15
Reimb for 51 Color Maps
69.26
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
69.26
RUNTIME: 15:1414131192 +}} City of Diamond Dar }}}
VOUCHER REGISTER
VENDOR NAME DUE THRU.............K/15/92
VENDOR ID.
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO GATOR PO.LINE/0, ENTRY/DUE -----------------------------------------------NTRY/DUE INVOICEDESCRIPTION
Nisbet, Neil 254
*111-3476 2 215158
O.E.I Business Forms
es
}111-4190-1111 5C 01/ 319
3 215/50 8111319
P S Educational Supplies PSEducatio
+011-4351-120 2 21515E
Pac Tel Cellular
*01-4131-2125 1 2/PacTel
slsc
Pacesetter Building Svcs Pacesetter
*01-4191-2141 1 2150sC
Payroll Transfer
+011-1020 PaYrollTr
1 21515E
Pearson, Kym 246
*111-3416
5 205158sR
Planning Netrork
*111-4211-4221 PlanningNr
3 ?15150
Plunk, Lydia E.
+101-4350-4111 2 Plunk/
205150
PAGE
* + PREPAID +
AMOUNT DATE CHEC
14/29 15/Is
3091 Recreation Refund
51.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------�
51. M
04/29 05105
12/3323/ Copy Paper
564.55
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
564.SS
44129 15/05
6151 Supplies -Tiny Tot Prgm
36.61 05/05/92 0001013266
TOTAL PREPAID A0NT _--_�
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------1
36.60
0.01
04/29 0S/05
Cellular Svc March-CMgr
72.51
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------�
1231
14/29 05/05
April rent for ste 190
3,557.60
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
3,557.61
04/29 95/15
P/R Transfer - PP9
47,600-00 05/05/92 1111111809
TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ---->
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
47,190,08
0.0
04/29 05115 3223
Recreation Refund
25.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
25.0
44/29 15/05 90643
Ping Commission Yrkshop
115.s/
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------�
115.51
14129 15/05
PIR coma -Feb, March,April
200.01
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------�
201.0
+++ C +++
RUN TIME: 15:14 64/31/92 ity V 0 UCof Dia�ond BH E R R E 6 I 5 T E R ar
DUE THRU.............65/45/92
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID.
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/N0. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION
PAGE
+ + PREPAID +
AMOUNT DATE CHI
------------------------
Nariposa Horticultural Mariposa
+181-4322-2211
+811-4326-2211
1 21515C
14129 15/15 3211
Repairs -Ronald Reagan Prk
446.22
+181-4325-2211
1 2154SC
1 21S65C
14/29 15/85 3211
Repairs-SunitRidge Prk
185.39
64/29 15/15 3212
Repairs-Starshine Park
56.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
669.72
McCormick, Doug
244
+811-3476
6 215851
14/29 IS/65 3399
Recreation Refund
36.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
36.0
McCovn, Lee
CaptMcCovn
x11-4411-2325
1 21515C
14/29 15/15
Reieb Mtg Expenses
75.29
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------->
75.29
MC6oven, Cecil
Mc6ovenC
+111-4351-5311
23 21515X
14/29 15/15
Contract Class Instructor
129.61
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
129.61
NcNece, Kevin
McNece
+181-4358-530
21 26SOSX
14129 15/15
Contract Class Instructor
991.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
996.11
Medina, Raul
NedinaR
+161-4351-4111
1 2/515C
14/29 85//S
PkR-3/12,3/19,3/24,4/23
161.0
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
161.11
Moody, Lynn
Moody/
+881-4351-530
21 2/515X
14/29 85/15
Contract Class Instructor
141.41
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
146.44
Mousavi, Sid
Mousavisid
+181-4518-2338
1 20515C
14/29 65/65
APPA Congress Expenses
44.21
+111-4518-2338
2 21565C
14/29 85/15
APPA Congress Expenses
171.24
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
214.44
Myers, Elizabeth
MyersE
+181-4211-4811
1 26515C
64/29 15/15 92017
6PAC Minutes (4 Mtgs)
666.0
+181-4211-410
2 26515C
14/29 85//S 92db47
Ping Con Mtg 4/13
376.11
+611-4553-401
1 2/5150
64/38 85//S 92007
Trffc i Traits Mtg 4/9/92
266.61
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------->
1,332.0
+++ Citof Oiaa+++
RUN TIME: 15:14 /4/31/92 V O y U C H E R R E G and BI S T E R ar
DUE THAU............./5/05/92
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID.
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/N0. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION
PAGE 14
+ + PREPAID + +
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
RonKranzerlAssoc C.E. Inc RKA
011-4551-5223
1 215156
14/31 15/15
926151
Plan Checking Fees
4,739.49
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
4,739.49
Ruzicka, Joseph T.
RuzickaJ
+111-4351-4111
5 2/5/5C
14/29 15/15
PIR -Feb, Mar, Apr
211,11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
214.0
S.G. Valley Asn of
Cities SGVAsnCity
+111-4411-2325
5 21515E
14/29 45/15
Mtg 4/16 -Verner
18.0 15/45/92 00413283
TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ---->
16.0
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
/.0
S.G. Valley Asn of
Cities SGVAsnCity
041-4491-2315
1 26545D
44/29 15//5
Annual Dues -Jul 92/3un 93
451.0
•
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
451.0
San Gabriel Vly Tribune
SSVTribune
+01-4141-2115
2 2/5150
14/29 15/15
sgvt5768
Pub HRg TTM 51119
66.23
+01-4141-2115
3 26SISD
44/29 15115
sgvt5712
Bids -Concession Stand
26.61
011-4141-2115
4 215150
/4/29 45/15
sgvt5113
Bids Tree Svcs
25.44
+111-4144-2115
5 2/5150
14/29 45/15
sgvt5774
Bids Drainage System
33.54
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
153.81
Sanghavee, Nitsuyo
246
041-3478
4 245458
44/29 45/15
2664
Recreation Refund
45.0
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------)
45.0
Segura/Deutschaan
SuguraDuet
+251-4514-6416 44592 2 24S4SD 41/1315
14/29 15/45
9245
Landscape Svcs-Teapl
1,333.42
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
1,333.42
Shah, Charlene
251
041-3414
1 24515R
44/29 45/45
2714
Recreation Refund
1.13-
+601-3418
3 2656SR
14/29 45/15
2714
Recreation Refund
1/.19
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
9.66
Short, Jerry
ShortJ
041-4354-530
16 21545K
14/29 15/15
Contract Class Instructor
218.41
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
218.44
t�} Citof m and Bar tft
RUN TIME: 15:14 14/3!/92 V O y U C H E R Di A E 6 I S T E R PAGE 13
DUE THRU.............1S/15/92
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID.
ACCOUNT PREPAID t
... f
ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK
Ponona Valley Humane Sac. PVNS
*181-4431-5413 1 20505C
Pomona Valley Humane Sac. PVNS
061-4431-2325 1 21515E
Pounds, Lisa 244
+111-3416 11 2MSR
Public Eapl Retirement PERS
}01-4190-2395 1 2154SC
Public Espl Retirement PERS
"61-2111-106 1 20151)
f01-2111-110 2 2/5151)
Radio Dispatch Corp. RadioDispa
081-4838-2138 1 2158SD
#811-4318-2131 1 28S85D
Rauch, Joyce 245
}111-3476 2/ 215158
Rodriguez, Carolyn 235
}181-3416 16 285158
Rogers, Vendy Bates RogersV
081-4351-5381 3 21515X
14/29 15/15
91042511116 May Animal Control Svcs
4,137.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------->
4,137.0
14/29 15!15
Recognition Dnr-Belanger
25.11 /535/92 1111113261
TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ---->
25.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------->
1.11
14/29 15/15
3272
Recreation Refund
27.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
21.0
14/29 15/15
1222
Feb 92 Admin Charge
25.0
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
25.0
14/29 15/15
Retire Contrib PP9-Eaplye
2,1S3.62
14/29 15/15
Ret Contrib PP9-Emplyr
3,134.53
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
5,666.35
14/31 15/15
April Beeper Rntl-ACMgr
16.75
84/31 15!15
April Beeper Rntl-Prks
S6.2S
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------->
75.11
14/29 85/15
3299
Recreation Refund
31.51
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
31.51
64/29 15/15
2591
Recreation Refund
24.14
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
24.0
84/29 15/15
Contract Class Instructor
511.0
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
517,0
+++ City of Did/and Bar +++
RUN TIME: 15:14 04/34/92 V O U C H E R R E 6 I S T E R
DUE THRU.............65/15/92
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID.
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/N0. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION
Standard Insurance of Ore StandardIn
+111-2111-1115 2 215#5D
Stitt, Sarretson J. Stitt6
+111-4351-410 3 20515C
US Sprint
+111-4511-2125
Unocal
+111-4131-2311
+111-4131-2311
011-4131-2314
Ury, Donald
011-4553-410
USSprint
1 21515D
Unocal
2 2#5#5D
3 2151511
4 21515D
UryD
4 29SISD
Visco Comeunications Visco
011-4191-2211 4 215#5D
walnut Station Booster WSBooster
+111-4111-2325 1 21515E
Welch, Steve WelchS
+111-435#-530 17 205#SX
Whelan, Stephen P. WhelanSP
+111-4351-410 4 215ISC
04/31 15/15
14/29 15/15
14/31 15/15
14/31 15/15 235213
14/31 IS//S 435196
14/31 15/15 634779
14/31 15/15
14/31 I5/#5 5547
14/29 45/45
14/29 I5/I5
14/29 #5/I5
Suppl Life Ins -May
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
Prk i Rec Mtg 2/27
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------->
Engr Long Dist Phn Svc
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
Fuel-ACMgr
Fuel-ACMgr
Fuel-ACMgr
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
TtT Ca -4/9
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
FAX Machine Repairs
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
Recognition-Papen,Forbing
TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----)
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
Contract Class Instructor
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
P&R Come -Feb, Mar, April
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
PAGE 16
+ + PREPAID + +
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
61.51
61.54
41.11
41.0
7.49
7.49
12.51
13.93
15.33
41.71
41.0
41.11
79.11
79.0
51.0 15//5/92 6111113291
51.#6
I.#I
43.26
43.24
20.0
211.0
111 City of Diamond Bar 111
RUN TIME: 15:14 44/31/92 V O U C H E R R E G I S T E R
DUE THRU.............85/85/92
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID.
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/NO. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION
PAGE 15
1 1 PREPAID 1 1
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
Signs By Susan
SignsBy5us
}111-4214-4211
1 21585D
14134 IS/8S
1447
General Plan Signs
67.54
1181-4441-1281
2 285/5D
14/38 15115
1447
Signs Emer Prep
19.15
1181-4195-2353
4 21515D
14/31 15115
1452,1455
Signs 3rd Anniv Celebratn
172.64
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
259.23
Sir Speedy
Sir5peedy
1181-4195-2353
5 28515D
84/38 15/15
6677
Printing 3rd Anniv Poster
23.53
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------>
23.53
Smith, Allen
SmithA
1181-4358-530
19 21515X
14129 85/15
Contract Class Instructor
111.41
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
171.44
Smith, Robert
241
1111-3415
i1 21515R
14/29 15/85
3214
Recreation Refund
36.0
•
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------)
36.0
Southern Ca. Edison
SoCaEdison
1111-4555-2126
1 28545D
84/29 85/85
March Trffc Control
2,461.63
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------->
2,461.63
Southern Ca. Edison
SoCaEdison
1881-4316-2126
1 215150
14/29 45/45
March Elect -Maple Hill
316.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
316.61
Southern Ca. Edison
SoCaEdison
1136-4S38-2126
1 215850
14/29 15/15
March Elect -Dist 838
26.48
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
26.41
Southern Ca. Edison
SoCaEdison
1141-4S41-2126
1 215850
64129 85/15
March Elec-Dist 41
63.69
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
63.69
Standard Insurance of
Ore StandardIn
101-2111-1115
1 21515D
14129 15/15
May Life Ins Press
362.51
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
362.51
i t t
RUN TIME: 15:14 14/31/92
t 0f Dia a and Bar ttt
VOUCHER RE6ISTEI
DUE THRU.............05/15/92
PAGE it
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID. t t PREPAID t t
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX—NO BATCH PO.LINE/N0. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK
TOTAL PREPAID -----------) 49,153.19
TOTAL DUE ---------------> 133,134.21
TOTAL REPORT ------------) 162,253.41
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 23, 1992
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at 7:14
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 by
ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Flamenbaum.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Li, Commissioner Flamenbaum,
Commissioner Meyer, and Chairman Grothe. vice
Chairman MacBride was absent.
Also present were Community Director James
DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, City Engineer Sid
Mousavi, Deputy City Attorney Bill Curley, and
Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
MINUTES:
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Li,
and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of March 23,
Mar. 23, 1992
1992. C/Meyer abstained.
NEW BUSINESS:
C/Flamenbaum suggested that discussion regarding
Planning Commission Standards of Operation should
PC Standards
be held at the end of the meeting. The Commission
of Operations
concurred.
TT Map 51079/
AP/Searcy reported that the application, to convert
Amendment to
a 54 unit apartment complex to condominiums,
Cup 89-551
located at 800 S. Grand Ave., was conditionally
approved on the February 24, 1992 public hearing.
Staff has, per Commission's direction, prepared the
amended Resolutions. It is recommended that the
Commission approve Resolution 92-07, and 92-08,
approving an Amendment to CUP 89-551 and
recommending approval of Tentative Tract 51079 to
the City Council. AP/Searcy explained that the
changes made to the Resolutions are in bold print.
He reviewed those changes made, to the Commission.
C/Meyer stated that, because he is not adequately
familiar with all the issues of the project, he
will not be participating in the vote.
C/Flamenbaum stated that item #19, of Resolution
92-07, should reflect that the 8 parking spaces are
to be outside of the gate.
CE/Mousavi, responding to C/Flamenbaum's inquiry,
stated that there should be a minimum of 4 guest
parking spaces.
Chair/Grothe requested item #19 be amended to
insert that there is to be a minimum of 4 parking
spaces, outside of the gate, to total 130 parking
spaces. The Commission concurred.
March 23, 1992 Page 2
C/Flamenbaum suggested that the Resolution be
modified to eliminate the traffic light and the
current median cut because the traffic light may
cause further traffic congestion, and, it is not
certain that the driveway of the proposed hospital
project will align with the present median cut.
CE/Mousavi stated that the developers of the
proposed hospital project has indicated that it
would not be a problem to align the driveway with
the present median cut.
CD/DeStefano indicated that the developer may be
asked to contribute a fair share of the costs of
the signal now, but to not install it until a later
date, when it is needed. The developer will then
receive a portion of his contribution back when the
other projects are developed.
CE/Mousavi stated that he believes the statue of
limitation, to use money held, is three years.
Motion was made by Chair/Grothe, seconded by
C/Flamenbaum and CARRIED to approve Resolution
92-7, with the modifications made to item #19.
C/Meyer abstained.
David Ayala, designer of the proposed building,
residing at 140 Yolinda Place, Brea, explained that
the reason the requested information was not
submitted was because they are in the process of
redesigning the project. They are incorporating
the following changes: reduce the massiveness in
Motion was made by Chair/Grothe, seconded by
C/Flamenbaum and CARRIED to approve Resolution
92-8, as presented. C/Meyer abstained.
':ONTINUED
AP/Searcy reported that at the conclusion of the
PUBLIC HEARING:
March 9, 1992 meeting, the Commission requested the
applicant to provide staff with additional
^entative Parcel
information for review and evaluation related to
,tap 22986/
the visual impacts and the compatibility of the
)R 92-1
proposed office building in relation to adjacent
developments. The applicant did not provide the
information, and requested another continuance to
the March 23rd Commission meeting. As of the date
of the staff report, the requested information has
not been received. Based on the findings and
conclusions, set forth in the Resolution, staff
recommended that the Commission adopt the attached
Resolution 92 -XX, denying DR 92-1, and Resolution
92 -XX recommending that the City Council deny
Tentative Parcel Map 22986.
David Ayala, designer of the proposed building,
residing at 140 Yolinda Place, Brea, explained that
the reason the requested information was not
submitted was because they are in the process of
redesigning the project. They are incorporating
the following changes: reduce the massiveness in
March 23, 1992 Page 4
Nancy Villalobos, residing at 23910 Decorah Rd.,
representing the following individuals opposing the
project: Eve Terrien, residing at 23976 Minnequa
Dr.; Chalyce Rolfness, residing at 23960 Sunset
Crossing; Stewart Liddell; Mattie Roberts, residing
at 23917 Decorah Rd.; Wanda Bowman, residing at
23968 Sunset Crossing; Donald Reinhart, residing at
23612 Stellgate Dr.; Mae Benson, residing at 24023
Willow Creek Rd.; May Hart Wycorn, residing at 414
N. Del Solla; Don Gravdahl and Dean Gravdahl,
residing at 23988 Minnequa, stated the following
concerns: Sunset Crossing and Willow Creek are the
only access roads into the tract, therefore 90% of
the traffic exits or enters through Sunset
Crossing; the area is already congested by the LA
Fitness Health Club; the increase in traffic will
be dangerous to the youth and elderly that are
participants to the Racquetball/ Swim Club on the
corner across from the proposed building; the
building will create a lack of privacy to the
residents east of the project; the parking for the
workers and customers of the building is
insufficient; there's already excessive parking in
the alley way; there will be an increase traffic
accidents; and speeding.
Don Gravdahl, residing at 23988 Minnequa, a member
of the Racquetball/Swim Club, stated the following
concerns: it is a minimum parking situation;
because there is a 6% slope on the hill, left turns
in and out of the project may cause traffic
problems; it would be a detriment to the Diamond
Point community; there is a heavy traffic count in
the area now; it will impact parking for those
wanting to use the Racquetball/Swim Club
facilities; and the applicant has indicated that
there will be major revisions made to the exterior
of the building, but nothing has been done
regarding the parking situation.
CE/Mousavi, responding to Chair/Grothe's inquiry of
the Traffic and Transportation Commission's (TTC)
response upon review of the traffic concerns
regarding the project, explained that the TTC
reviewed the egress/ingress situation, the site
distance issues from the driveway, and how the
driveway should be oriented. The TTC approved the
design of the driveway, with a right turn only.
The parking situation, on site and off site, was
not reviewed.
Don Gravdahl noted that a customer or an employee
may be more apt to park at the tennis courts, as
March 23, 1992 Page 3
the rear of the building; break up the remaining
massiveness by reducing the elevation, having more
roof top in the front of the building, and
splitting the office above and below the parking
structure; and create a rear ingress into the
building. He requested that the matter be
continued to the next meeting.
DCA/Curley advised that the application should be
withdrawn because it appears that the applicant has
made substantial changes to the project as
originally presented.
David Ayala explained that there has not been much
revision made to the drawings, except for exterior
revisions. The elevation of the project is being
changed to reduce massiveness.
C/Meyer indicated that he feels he is adequately
familiar with the project, and will be
participating in the vote. He inquired why the
applicant did not supply the information that the
Commission had requested.
David Ayala explained that they are in the process
of finishing a model of the building incorporating
the changes made to the proposed project. They do
not anticipate any more revisions.
CD/Destefano stated that, because it appears like
there has been major changes made to the project,
and that it is a significantly different package
then the one staff has been analyzing in the past,
the application should be resubmitted with the new
design.
DCA/Curley, noting that the applicant is proposing
a new auxiliary access, stated that there would
need to be an environmental review. Furthermore,
since the applicant is changing the basic design of
the project, another public hearing should be
reinitiated.
Fred Janz, residing at 2683 Shady Ridge, explained
that the changes being made are in response to the
concerns voiced by the Commission that the building
is too massive. The building is still 6,000 square
feet, but will sit on the lot differently. The
model will be more effective in visualizing the
building in the surrounding area.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
March 23, 1992 Page 6
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by
C/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adopt a
Resolution recommending to the City Council to deny
Parcel Map 122986.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 8:39 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 8:43 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CD/DeStefano reported that the City Council
approved Tract Map 31977, proposing 22 lots on 16
Tentative Tract acres, in February of 1990. The project is located
Map 31977 north of Goldrush Dr. and Highcrest Dr. Staff has a
variety of concerns regarding the map. It does not
match the current standards of development
practices for both planning and engineering. Staff
is not aware of any legal obligation to extend a
tentative map. It is recommended that the
Commission deny the request for the extension of
time.
CD/DeStefano, in response to Chair/Grothe,
explained that the City Council approved the map in
February of 1990. This is the first application
for an extension of time.
CE/Mousavi, responding to C/Meyer's inquiry, stated
that there was no action on behalf of the staff
which would have delayed recordation of the final
map. Because the conditions proposed at the time
of approval have not been satisfied at this time,
staff cannot recommend recordation of the map to
the City Council.
AP/Searcy, responding to C/Meyer's inquiry if the
Tentative Map could be modified to comply with the
Hillside Management Ordinance, stated that the
applicant has indicated that he would be amenable
to look into if the tract map may be able to be
modified to bring it closer to conformance with
existing standards and codes.
CD/DeStefano stated that staff would need to
understand the issues behind not only changing the
map, but the previously approved conditions. Also,
the issues before the staff are not related to
density, but related to the overall lot site design
and configuration.
C/Meyer suggested that, if the applicant is
amenable to redesigning the map, staff can add new
conditions as part of the extension process.
Andrew King, the applicant, residing at 1595 South
MacVerne Ave., Monterey Park, explained that when
March 23, 1992 Page 5
opposed to walking through the health club, which
would directly impact the neighborhood.
Nancy Villalobos stated that the Racquetball/ Swim
Club is open 6 days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m. Parking is now already limited.
Roger and Elizabeth Mejia, residing next to the
proposed building site, opposing the project,
presented pictures of the proposed site in relation
to the sloped hill.
David Ayala stated that the project is not a
minimum parking situation. Furthermore, they are
attempting to revise the project to mitigate the
parking and traffic concerns stated. 'In response
to C/Meyer's inquiry if they would prefer to
withdraw the application until the plans are
suitable for the Commission's review, he stated
that they are requesting a continuance to be able
to revise the project, and present it to the
Commission at the next meeting.
Fred Janz stated that the parking problem was
created by LA Fitness. He reminded the Commission
that there is a shared parking agreement with LA
Fitness that will help alleviate some of the
parking congestion.
Nancy Villalobos noted that the parking situation
occurs all day long. The 19 additional parking
spaces will not help the problem.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Meyer noted that the applicant is proposing to
put the building on a slope easement, which is
usually dedicated to the public for maintenance to
the roads. He inquired what uses are permitted in
the CM zone.
AP/Searcy reviewed some of the uses permitted. It
is one of the most potentially intense uses, or
zoned areas, in the City.
CD/DeStefano explained that the property on Diamond
Bar Blvd, from Sunset Crossing north to the bowling
center are all zoned Commercial Manufacturing.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adopt the Resolution to deny
Development Review 92-1.
March 23, 1992 Page g
condition a time extension if we can make a finding
that to not do so can place the residence of the
subdivision, the immediate community, or both, in a
condition of "dangerous to their health, or safety,
or both." This aspect has not been investigated.
Chair/Grothe indicated that since the Commission
has never had the opportunity to be part of
developing this tract map, he would be apt to deny
the continuance.
The Public hearing was declared open.
The applicant stated their consent to the
continuance.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by
C/Flamenbaum and CARRIED to continue the matter to
the April 13, 1992 meeting, with concurrence from
the applicant.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Flamenbaum, and
Meyer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Grothe.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride.
Planning CommissionCD/DeStefano presented the Draft Planning
Standards of Commission Handbook to the Commission. The
Operations handbook is a composite of procedural guidelines
prepared by the City Attorney in late 1989;
outlining the creation of the Planning Commission,
their powers and duties, and the council handbook
created mid-1990.
Chair/Grothe suggested that public comments be
limited to five minutes.
C/Flamenbaum concurred that there be a modicum of a
time limit. He further suggested that there be a
policy whereas public hearings would not commence
passed 9:00 p.m., and that all meetings end by
10:30 p.m.
CD/DeStefano recommended placing a statement on the
agenda that indicates that no public hearing items
would be open after a particular time period, and
that the Commission will adjourn at a particular
time period.
Following discussion, the Commission concurred to
begin the meeting at 7:00 p.m., and placing a
statement on the agenda indicating that no Public
Hearings are to be held passed 9:30 p.m., and
meetings are expected to adjourn around 10:30 p.m.
March 23, 1992
1
Page 7
the map was approved by the City Council, the
consultant at the time, RKA, was to give the
details of the final conditions. However, only a
draft version of the conditions was received in
June of 1990. Because of the changes in staff, the
final conditions had never been received. We had
been operating under the draft conditions assuming
that it would be the final conditions. He
clarified that they are applying for an automatic
extension under the Map Act.
AP/Searcy explained that State Law provides an
automatic 60 day extension of time for tentative
tract maps. The Subdivision Map Act, and the
County Code allow a one year maximum extension of
time on a two year approval, for a maximum of three
years of any tentative approval of a map. Noting
the correspondence received by the applicant, he
stated that the applicant is requesting a two year
extension of time on the tentative map. However,
the maximum allowed by State Law and the Code is
for a period of one year.
Wes Lind, engineer, located at 44 S. Chester Ave.
Pasadena, stated that there is also a provision in
the State Map Act which allows for an automatic
extension of time when there are circumstances
where the processing through the government agency
has caused delay. He explained that the draft set
of conditions received are very different from the
set of conditions approved under the Planning
Commission resolution. We are trying to work to
resolve the matter and abide by both of them.
Andrew King explained that because the final
conditions were not received, the Department of
Real Estate was delayed in the processing of the
tentative map.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Meyer inquired if the applicant is amenable to
exploring the possibility of modifying the map so
it would comply with the Hillside Management
Ordinance.
Andrew King indicated that they could probably
accommodate changes to the CC&R's and the grading
conditions.
DCA/Curley indicated that, notwithstanding the
vesting map, the Map Act provides that we can
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1992
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at 7:11
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 by
ALLEGIANCE: C/Meyer.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Li, Commissioner Flamenbaum,
Commissioner Meyer, Vice Chairman MacBride, and
Chairman Grothe.
Also present were Community Director James
DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney
Bill Curley, Lloyd Zola of the Planning Network,
and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by
C/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the
Minutes of Minutes of March 23, 1992 of the Consent Calendar.
Mar. 23, 1992
NEW BUSINESS: CD/DeStefano reported that discussion of the
Development Review Ordinance is placed on the
Discussion of agenda per the request of the Commission on the
Development March 9th meeting. The issues rested on the
Review following concerns: The review of buildings,
Ordinance specifically single family homes that seem to be
getting larger and larger; the massing on the side
of residential structures; and architectural style.
It was further suggested that a subcommittee, of
the Commission, be formed to review some of the
issues of concern.
Chair/Grothe suggested that the Commission send a
list of the issues, with the goals and objectives,
regarding architectural review, to the City
Council.
C/Flamenbaum proposed to recommend to the City
Council that the issue of large buildings, of any
nature, should be part of the Commission's
development review. Specifics could be discussed
at a later date.
C/Li stated that he is opposed to creating another
level of government. The Commission can exchange
ideas during a public hearing, and receive
recommendations from staff.
Chair/Grothe stated that the intent of forming a
sub -committee would be to review the development
review process, to develop guidelines, and to make
appropriate adjustments to the process. The sub-
committee would not be permanent.
April 13, 1992 page 2
CD/DeStefano, in response to C/Li, explained that
the issue is being brought back, per direction of
the Planning Commission, after the review of a
7,500 sq. ft. home that came before the Commission
only because it involved an oak tree removal
permit. One of the issues being raised is to
determine if homes of such scale should be reviewed
on a regular basis, versus the authority contained
in the ordinance which precludes Commission review.
The community is expressing a desire to see these
homes, and provide guidelines to make sure they are
architecturally and physically compatible with the
setting that they are being placed within. Staff
has the following additional issues regarding the
Ordinance: it is not clear when review begins or
ends; there needs to be clarity of the Public
Hearing process; and there needs to be further
direction to staff on issues of heighth, bulk,
shape, mass, size and compatibility. Staff desires
to clean up the grey areas of the ordinance, modify
the ordinance pursuant to the direction received by
the Planning Commission, incorporating staff
thoughts and, if appropriate, the wording of a
subcommittee of the Commission, and then bring the
package back to the Commission for full review, and
forward the recommended changes to the City
Council.
C/Meyer, noting that the Development Code is
supposed to be consistent with the General Plan,
suggested that the issue of whether or not the
Commission should review the construction of
mansions could be reviewed with respect to the
public hearing process on the General Plan. Once
that is concluded, the Commission could take a look
at a Development Code that would implement, and be
consistent, with the General Plan.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride and seconded by
C/Meyer to table the matter until the completion of
the General Plan review.
Chair/Grothe suggested that staff receive some
direction for their design review, from a sub-
committee of the Commission, regarding side yard
setbacks and architectural style, with the
understanding that it will be rewritten upon
completion of the General Plan review.
C/Flamenbaum stated that the purpose of the
Development Review Ordinance is to outline the
procedures for a review of a particular
development, and describe those applications that
falls under the purview and jurisdiction of the
April 13, 1992 Page 3
Planning Commission. It is not intended to do much
in terms of specifics. He once again suggested
that the Commission express their concerns to the
City Council that the purview of the Commission
should include buildings of a "yet to be
determined" size or larger.
C/Meyer stated that development criteria, such as
setbacks, are in the zoning criteria. The
Ordinance indicates that whatever findings of facts
made by the Planning Commission on 5 units or more,
staff would make the same findings of facts on
fewer than that. Furthermore, any "size"
determined would be arbitrary and capricious.
Chair/Grothe received a request to speak from a
member of the audience.
Martha Brusque, residing at 600 S. Great Bend Dr.
referencing the development that occurred on Kiowa,
Crest on property once considered undevelopable,
stated her concern that there are no levels of
government in Diamond Bar, and not much planning.
C/Flamenbaum inquired why the Commission is
required to review a 2,000 sq. ft. commercial
structure, but yet a 15,000 sq. ft. home does not
come under the Commission's jurisdiction.
The Commission voted on the Motion made by
VC/MacBride and seconded by C/Meyer to table the
matter. The Motion CARRIED.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Meyer, VC/MacBride,
and Chair/Grothe.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Chair/Grothe inquired how the Commission would go
about making a change to the side yard setback.
C/Meyer, with CD/DeStefanols confirmation,
explained that the item would have to be placed on
the Commission's agenda, whereas a consensus would
have to be received to give direction to staff to
modify the zoning ordinance. Staff would then
modify the ordinance, per direction of the
Commission, come back with an environmental review,
and a draft ordinance, to be presented to the
Commission in a public hearing process.
Chair/Grothe requested staff to place the matter on
the agenda as a discussion item.
Reorganization VC/MacBride suggested that the reorganization of
April 13, 1992 Page 4
the Planning Commission item be moved to the last
item of the agenda. The Commission concurred.
CONTINUED CD/DeStefano reported that, at the conclusion of
PUBLIC HEARING: the public testimony on the March 23rd meeting, the
Commission directed the applicant and staff to
TT Map 31977 investigate the possibility of incorporating
revisions to the tentative map, permitting 16 units
on 22 acres, located at Highcrest Ave. near
Goldrush, in order to bring the map closer to
current development standards. The applicant and
staff have met to discuss potential alterations to
the map. However, because the tentative revisions
were submitted to the City for review on April 8th,
staff has not had an adequate review period to
comment, nor discuss the ramifications of the
revisions with the City Attorney and City Engineer.
However, staff was able to review the map briefly,
from a planning perspective, and noted the
following: it incorporates land form grading to
the extent that it provides undulation in the 2:1
slopes being proposed; and the map has been
modified to provide independent access from the
street for each lot. The issues were reviewed with
the City Attorney's office, and the issues are
generalized in these various areas: if the map
were to be continued, the existing map would remain
alive allowing the developer to modify the project,
if in agreement, and provide the staff with the
appropriate fees based upon the fee schedule to
pursue the modifications to the document;
continuing the project keeps the map alive and,
therefore, the developer could submit the final map
to the City Council; if continued, and all the
conditions of the tentative map have been met, the
City Council has to approve the final map; the
extension of time can be approved; the extension
of time could be denied; and if denied, the
developer could revise the map to meet the current
standards, or to appeal the denial to the City
Council. After a brief review, at this point in
time, staff is not convinced that it is a map that
should move forward in the system.
DCA/Curley, in response to C/Flamenbaum, stated
that since it is a vesting map, any changes and
ordinances, that have occurred since 1990, that
require health and safety modifications, can be
imposed on the map as a condition of an extension.
The applicant can also consent to accept a
continuance based on certain amendments. There is
a risk factor with the second option in that if
there is a proposition, along the way, that the
consent was coerced, the action could be challenged.
April 13, 1992 Page 5
C/Meyer suggested that the Commission recommend, to
the City Council, a one year extension of the
vesting map, subject to modification of the grading
plan to substantially
Grading ordinance, comply with the Hillside
as determined by the Community
Development Director and the City Engineer. The
Commission can make a finding that the old grading
plan is a condition that is dangerous to the health
or safety of the residents of the community.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Wes Lind, 13801 Roswell, Chino, applicant,
explained that not everything can be done
conclusively to meet the new Hillside Ordinance
because of certain constraints, such as the streets
in the tract are already existing, and some of the
grading has already been done. Revisions have been
made to try to meet the intent of the map. He
consented that what the Commission is proposing is
acceptable to them.
Andrew King, residing at 1595 S. McFarren, Monterey
Park, stated that they do not disagree with any
proposal the Commission has put forth. However, he
Pointed out that since receiving approval of the
tentative map in 1990, they have not received
definitive direction from the City of Diamond Bar
as how to proceed with this.
Donald Robertson, residing at 309 N. Pantado Dr.,
member of the GPAC, inquired if the project falls
within the parameters set up by GPAC at this time.
CD/DeStefano stated that the General plan is
designating that site as RL, which is low density
residential with 3 dwelling units per acre. That
three dwelling units per acre is consistent with
all of the properties surrounding it.
Gary Neely, a GPAC member, stated that, from an
audience standpoint, it would be helpful to have a
Picture of the project.
Andrew King explained that they had presented
Pictures at the time of the application.
Martha Brusque stated that she hopes there was
consideration made for a traffic signal with two
left turn lanes at Goldrush/Diamond Bar Blvd.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
April 13, 1992 Page 6
CD/DeStefano, in response to C/Meyer, confirmed
that there is a resolution that sets forth the
conditions for the vesting map.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to recommend to the City
Council a one year continuance to the
subject to project
the grading being modified to
substantially comply with the Hillside Development
Ordinance, that is currently in existence, as
interpreted by the Community Development Director
and the City Engineer.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 8:12 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 8:29 p.m.
Draft General CD/DeStefano explained that the GPAC, General Plan
Plan Advisory Committee, is comprised of dedicated and
concerned residents that have studied the choices
for the future of Diamond Bar for the last two and
one-half years. The General Plan serves as a blue
print for the type of community we desire for the
future and the means by which it can be obtained.
The General Plan will serve as a comprehensive
strategy for the management of growth and change in
our community throughout the next twenty years.
The Planning Commission will conduct six to eight
public hearings to give the residents an
opportunity to voice their opinions about the
Policies outlined in the General Plan. The
Commission will use public input to revise the
document before it submits it to the City Council
for adoption. It is anticipated that the City
Council will begin it's review in the months of
June and July of 1992.
CD/DeStefano stated that State law requires each
city and county to prepare and adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the
physical development" of the community. The
General Plan incorporates seven required elements,
mandated by State law, into five major sections.
The Planning Commission will review The Plan for
Public Services and Facilities, and the Plan for
Resource Management at tonights meeting. GPAC has
made further changes, at their April 9th meeting,
to The Plan for Public Services and Facilities, The
Plan for Resource Management, and The Plan for
Physical Mobility which outlines the Circulation
Element. Staff will outline these changes to the
Planning Commission, and will be providing GPAC
with the final changes to these sections for their
perusal at their next meeting. Various methods
were used to advertise this document and the
April 13, 1992 Page 7
upcoming scheduled public hearings, as indicated in
the staff report. The General Plan, once adopted
will not remain static. State law permits up to
four amendments per year. He stated that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) had been
developed as a "Program EIR", as is required by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is
recommended that the Commission begin the Public
Hearing process on the General Plan, receive
testimony, forward comments to staff, review the
Plan for Public Facilities and the Plan for
Resource Management and continue the Hearing to
April 20, 1992. The changes made by the Commission
tonight will be brought back for the April 27th
meeting.
Lloyd Zola, of the Planning Network, explained that
the General Plan is to "act as a constitution for
development, the foundation upon which all land use
decisions are to be based". This plan, upon it's
adoption, will govern the zoning designations
throughout the City, and the subdivision
regulation. All public improvements need to be
consistent with the City's General Plan, as well.
The General Plan is to address all of the issues
related to development, regulation, and management
of land use. He reviewed the seven mandatory
elements mandated by State law: The Land Use
Element; The Circulation Element; The Housing
Element; The Conservation Element; The Open Space
Element; The Noise Element; and The Safety Element.
The Diamond Bar General Plan will also include a
Public Services and Facilities Element. The
General Plan incorporates these elements into five
major sections: The Plan for Community
Development; The Plan for Resource Management; The
Plan for Public Health; The Plan for Public
Services and Facilities; and The Plan for Physical
Mobility. In addition to the General Plan
document, the Commission will be dealing with the
Master Environmental Assessment, and the EIR. It
is requested that the Commission review the General
Plan in the following order: Public Services and
Facilities; Resource Management; Public Health and
Safety; Mobility; and Community Development.
Following the Planning Commission's recommendations
to the General Plan, the document will go to the
City Council for review. State law provides that
any changes that the Council wishes to make in the
General Plan, that has not been reviewed by the
Planning Commission, will be referred back to this
Commission for a report prior to final Council
action. Mr. Zola noted that, in regards to the
land use element of the Plan for Community
April 13, 1992 Page 8
Development, the GPAC has recommended the
following: The triangular area bounded by Brea
Canyon, Colima, and the 57 is to be retained as
residential use; and the Diamond Bar golf course be
kept as a golf course.
CD/DeStefano explained that there are sections of
the document that have been stricken out. GPAC has
recommended that a public information document,
outlining a variety of these issues, be created,
and provided to the community. Also, those
statements repeating what is already code, have
been stricken to avoid repetitiveness.
CD/DeStefano explained that in some cases, the
recommendations of the GPAC may be different than
the Parks and Recreation Commission, which reviewed
the Plan for Resource Management in February of
1992, and the Traffic and Transportation Commission
(TTC), which reviewed the Circulation Element of
the Plan for Physical Mobility. Staff has
forwarded, to the Commission, the recommendations
of GPAC. GPAC, and the general public, has been
invited to every meeting. The TTC has been
specifically invited to the meeting of May 4, 1992
in order to review the Plan for Physical Mobility.
The Commission concurred to first open the public
hearing to allow public comment, close the public
hearing to allow the Commission to review the
document, with staff, section by section, and then
reopen the public hearing for further public
comment.
The Public Hearing was declared open for comment on
any portion of the General Plan not on the agenda.
Dan Buffington, residing at 2605 Indian Creek,
concerned that GPAC began with 30 members and
dwindled down to 6 members, stated that he does not
feel the document is representative of the
community. He argued that the idea of preserving
Tonner Canyon is unrealistic because development is
coming into Tonner Canyon from LA, San Bernardino,
and Orange County. Something must be done to
direct the traffic out of the City of Diamond Bar.
Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove Dr., a GPAC
member, thanked the Commission for sending the
draft General Plan back to GPAC for further review.
He complimented CD/DeStefano and staff for
expediting the process. He stated that, though he
has a basic philosophical difference with the idea
of not building Tonner Canyon Road, he feels that
98% of the document is a good document.
April 13, 1992 Page 9
Chair/Grothe inquired if there was any comment on
the Plan for Public Resources and Facilities.
Gary Neely made the following observations: page
2, section B, second line - Inhouse services do not
include parks and recreation. The organizational
structure for the City is parks and maintenance;
page 3, section C, third paragraph, last sentence -
The statement "sphere of influence" should read for
"the entire City"; page 5, subsection D.1.1.6a -
This section was put back in by GPAC and reads,
"Discuss plans by the Metropolitan Water District
to locate a reservoir in upper Tonner Canyon.". He
requested that the word "Discuss" be changed to
"Encourage". He offered to provide a status of the
Tres Hermanos Water Resource Project; and page 6,
Strategy 1. 3.2 - He stated that it is not a good
idea to encourage this City to promote benefit
assessment districts, and would like to see it
removed.
CD/DeStefano stated that other than the change to
page 5, subsection D.1.1.6a, as referenced by Mr.
Neely, the only other change to the Plan for Public
Resources and Facilities, made by GPAC is on page
8, whereas GPAC added a new strategy 2.3.3 which
reads, "Provide a regular City bulletin to inform
citizens of current issues, public safety
information, resource management information, city
services, public meeting schedule, hazardous
material collection programs, etc."
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
VC/MacBride made the following comments: page 7,
strategy 2.1.1 - He is uncomfortable with the use
of the word "node"; page 8, strategy 2.1.5 - He
indicated that he liked the strategy and feels it
should not have been deleted; and page 2, section B
- He suggested there be reference made, in the
menu, of the postal service, the school system
(with special reference to a High School in the
north end of Diamond Bar), a bus system, a comment
to the existing YMCA in Diamond Bar, and a comment
if there is or is not a Senior Citizen facility.
C/Flamenbaum concurred with Mr. Neely if the City
is going to do a Master Drainage Plan for the
"sphere of influence" or the "entire City". He
made the following comments: page 4, section D -
There is no mention of the need for a fire station
in Tres Hermanos, and one should be mentioned; page
4, section D, Goal 1 - There should be reference to
Senior Citizen facilities, as well as Youth
April 13, 1992
Page 10
facilities; page 7, strategy 1.5.2 - He questioned
if "an ecological museum pertaining to Diamond
Bar's botanical heritage" needs to be in the
document. He suggested that it may be more
appropriate to say "a museum pertaining to Diamond
Bar's heritage"; and page 8, strategy 2.2.1 - He is
uncomfortable referring to California legislation
by it's associated Assembly Bill, and suggested
that we cite the appropriate public resources civil
code or whatever it evolved into.
C/Meyer, referring to page 7, strategy 2.1.5,
concurred with VC/MacBride that there should be
mentioned, as often as possible, that every service
needed and demanded has a cost associated with it.
C/Li suggested that, page 2, Existing Conditions,
mention the need for a larger Public Library
System.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that, page 6, Objective 1.3,
strike the wording "legally defensible". He once
again questioned the need for a "botanical
heritage" museum.
CD/DeStefano explained that there is an interest to
create some sort of a heritage, historical type of
museum for our residents, or a specifically
identified facility, or aspect, involving the
issues with the open space, land use, and the
circulation element dealing with the botanical,
biological resources in the community.
C/Meyer suggested that the idea of a museum be
indicated generically in the Plan for Public
Services and Facilities, but be more specific
regarding the botanical heritage of the community
in the other elements of the plan.
Lloyd Zola suggested changing the wording to "a
museum related to Diamond Bar's natural and
cultural heritage".
Chair/Grothe made the following comments: page 8,
strategy 2.1.5 - He concurred that there should be
some mention of revenue; page 8, strategy 2.3.3 -
He stated that the method of delivery in providing
citizen with information is too specific.
C/Flamenbaum inquired of the Commission's consensus
to the wording of strategy 1.1.6a on page 4.
C/Meyer indicated that the term "Investigate" may
be more appropriate.
April 13, 1992 Page 11
CD/DeStefano outlined the changes identified: page
2 - Review the issue of the Master Drainage Plan
and deal with the conflicting language; add and
expand discussion, on page 2, regarding the school
facilities, the post office, the bus system, the
YMCA, senior citizen facilities, and youth
facilities.
Lloyd Zola stated that the youth and senior
citizen's facility should be added on page 3,
section C, because it is not an existing condition,
but rather an issue that needs to be discussed.
Also, on page 2, section B, first paragraph should
read "parks and maintenance", as suggested by Mr.
Neely. The correct phrase, on page 3, is that a
Master Plan will need to be developed "for the City
and it's sphere of influence".
C/Meyer, objecting to the changes made to the
recreation, stated that, ultimately, there is still
a City staff person that is responsible for
recreational activities, whether they are provided
through a contract.
CD/DeStefano, concurring with C/Meyer, recommended
that page 2, section B, first paragraph not be
changed. Additionally, the issue of whether or not
additional fire station(s) are necessary for Tres
Hermanos needs to be addressed.
C/Meyer suggested that the issue be tied in with
Development Activity as opposed to being site
specific.
CD/DeStefano continued outlining the changes made:
page 5, strategy 1.1.6a, would read, "Investigate
plans by ..."; page 6, objective 1.3 should read,
"Establish and implement comprehensive equitable
solutions to the financing..."; page 7, strategy
1.5.2 should read, "...art center and a museum
pertaining to Diamond Bar's natural and cultural
heritage"; page 7, strategy 2.1.1 change the term
"nodes" to "areas"; page 8, strategy 2.1.5 should
read, "Prepare and maintain a municipal cost
benefit model."; page 8, strategy 2.2.1 to
reference specific assembly bill identifications to
the proper civil or government code section of
State law; and add on page 8, strategy 2.3.3 to
read, "Provide regular information to citizens of
current issues of importance."
C/Flamenbaum proposed that a new strategy be added
to page 5, to become strategy 1.1.7, to read,
"Promote the addition of larger library facilities,
April 13, 1992 Page 12
improve senior citizen and youth facilities within
the City."
Lloyd Zola suggested that the library be added to
strategy 1.4.3 on page 7, and the senior citizen
and youth facilities be added to the strategies in
the Land Use Element or under recreation.
Chair/Grothe recommended that the senior citizens
and youth facilities be put in the Plan for Public
Service and Facilities as an issue, since it is
mentioned in strategy 1.3.1 of the Resource
Management Plan, as referenced by Mr. Zola.
C/Meyer suggested that the senior citizen's and
youth facilities to be added to page 7, strategy
1.5.1. The Commission concurred. The Commission
also concurred to move the library from strategy
1.4.3 to strategy 1.5.4.
The Public Hearing was declared reopened.
Gary Neely stated that he is concerned that the
Commission only wants to "investigate" the Metro
Water District plan to locate a reservoir in upper
Tonner Canyon. Also, he is concerned that the
Commission never dealt with the assessment district
issues.
Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star,
referring to page 7, strategy 2.1.1, stated that
the strategy is very general.
Lloyd Zola explained that the strategy aims at the
intensification of the sales tax generating from
existing business, not necessarily the uses
themselves, by promoting "Shop Diamond Bar".
Martha Brusque informed the Commission that a
tremendous amount of the parking space in the
shopping areas are taken by commuters from 6:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff
to amend the document as corrected, and to return
it to the meeting of April 27, 1992.
Due to the late hour, and in accordance to the
policy of the Planning Commission, C/Flamenbaum
proposed that the next section of the General Plan
be tabled to the April 20th meeting at 7:00 p.m.
April 13, 1992 Page 13
Chair/Grothe suggested that the public hearing be
opened to allow anyone, who had anticipated the
item, an opportunity to comment. The Commission
concurred.
The Public Hearing was declared opened for the Plan
for Resource Management.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 10:27 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 10:34 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS: CD/DeStefano reported that, pursuant to the
Ordinance amendment by the City Council, each
Reorganization Commission should handle the annual reorganization
in March of each year, or the first available date
following April 7th of this year. Staff
recommended that the Commission consider to
recommend and elect a Chairman and a Vice Chairman.
Motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Li to
nominate C/Flamenbaum for Chairman.
Motion was made by C/MacBride and seconded by
C/Flamenbaum to nominate C/Grothe for Chairman.
Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by
C/Flamenbaum to nominate C/MacBride for Chairman.
Motion was made by C/MacBride and seconded by
C/Grothe to close the nomination.
The Commission voted on the Motion for C/Flamenbaum
for Chairman.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: M e y e r, L i, a n d
Flamenbaum.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride and Grothe.
The Motion CARRIED.
Motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Grothe
to nominate C/MacBride for Vice Chairman.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Li
to nominate C/Meyer for Vice Chairman.
Motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Grothe
to close the nomination.
The Commission voted on the Motion for C/MacBride
for Vice Chairman.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Li, Grothe and
Chair/Flamenbaum.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride.
April 13, 1992
Page 14
The Motion CARRIED.
VC/MacBride suggested that the Commission recommend
to the City Council that, for continuity, they
consider having fixed terms for all the
Commissions. The Commission concurred.
Chair/Flamenbaum requested staff to place the item
on the agenda for discussion at some future
meeting.
INFORMATION CD/DeStefano recommended that the Claremont's
ITEMS: informational statement, regarding the Commission
meetings, be attached as the last page of the
Planning Commission agenda. The Commission
concurred.
CD/DeStefano informed the Commission that City
Manager VanNort has accepted the City Manager
position in Chino Hills, City Engineer Sid Mousavi
has accepted a position in Baldwin Park, and Parks
And Maintenance Director Charlie Janiels has
accepted a position in Fresno.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
10:55 p.m. to April 20th at 7:00 p.m.
Respectively,
/s/ James DeStefano
James DeStefano
Secretary/Planning Commission
Attest:
/s/ Bruce Flamenbaum
Bruce Flamenbaum
Chairman
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MARCH 12, 1992
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Chavers called the meeting to order at
6:35 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Hearing Room, 21865 East Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Beke, Cheng, Ury, Vice Chairman
Gravdahl, and Chairman Chavers.
Also present were City Engineer Sid Mousavi,
Administrative Analyst Tseday Aberra, Associate
Engineer David Liu, Sgt. Rawlings, and Contract
Secretary Liz Myers.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: C/Beke.
SELECT A C/Gravdahl nominated C/Chavers for Chairman. C/Ury
CHAIRMAN/ seconded the nomination.
VICE CHAIRMAN AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng,
Gravdahl, and Chavers.
NOES, COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
C/Chavers won the nomination.
C/Beke nominated C/Gravdahl for Vice Chairman.
Chair/Chavers seconded the nomination.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng,
G r a v d a h l a n d
Chair/Chavers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
C/Gravdahl won the nomination.
MINUTES:
Feb. 27, 1992 Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by VC/Gravdahl
and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of February 13,
1992. C/Ury and C/Cheng abstained.
COMMISSION Chair/Chavers welcomed C/Ury and C/Cheng to the
COMMENTS: Commission.
C/Beke requested a roster of the names, addresses,
and telephone numbers of the full Commission.
VC/Gravdahl welcomed the new Commissioners. He
informed the Commission of the proposed office
building on Sunset Crossing. He and Chair/Chavers
will be going to the Planning Commission meeting to
express their concern regarding parking that may
occur on Sunset Crossing due to the proposed
project.
March 12, 1992 Page 2
MATTERS FROM Mr. Schad recommended consideration of a deer
THE AUDIENCE: crossing sign on Grand Ave./Golden Springs area.
CE/Mousavi, per Chair/Chavers request, explained
that the matter was considered at the last
Commission meeting. However, because staff could
not obtain any information from the Sheriff
Department indicating accidents caused by deer
crossing, and the Fish and Game have no record of
deer crossing in that area, the Commission, based
on staff's recommendation, denied the request for
the installation of a deer crossing.
Chair/Chavers suggested that, if Mr. Schad has
additional information, he should contact the City
Engineer.
Ken Anderson, resident, stated his concern for the
traffic on the intersection of Fountain Springs and
Diamond Bar Boulevard. Since there will soon be
further developments in the Country Hills Towne
Center, the traffic problems will increase.
CE/Mousavi, per the request of Chair/Chavers,
updated the Commission regarding the developments,
in the Towne Center, which were approved by the
Planning Commission.
Chair/Chavers explained that if Mr. Anderson would
like to participate in the planning process of
those development on those parcels, then he should
go to the City Council. If he would like to
discuss the circulation aspect of the Fountain
Springs/Diamond Bar Blvd. intersection, then he
should contact the City Engineer, and discuss the
specific concerns with staff. Staff will bring
back the item as an agenda item, or an
informational item, appropriately.
CONSENT Chair/Chavers requested that item A of the Consent
CALENDAR: Calendar be pulled.
C/Beke requested that item B be modified to
indicate that the crossing guard service is to be
continued.
Motion was made by VC/Gravdahl, seconded by C/Ury
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Consent
Calendar, with the modification of item B.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng,
G r a v d a h l a n d
Chair/Chavers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
March 12, 1992 Page 3
Request for
The Commission requested staff, at the last
Minutes to
additional
Commission meeting, to review the
determine what recommendations were previously made
crossing guard,
a crosswalk, and
regarding the traffic concerns at the Maple Hill
"No Stopping"
Elementary School. CE/Mousavi explained that
sign by Maple
because staff's files were developed February of
had to request the Minutes from the
Hill Elementary
1990, staff
consultants of that time. The Minutes of January
9, 1990 will be available during the week of March
9th. Staff recommended that the item be postponed
to the meeting,of April 9, 1992. If the Commission
is inclined, the audience can be given the
opportunity to comment, and make suggestions on how
to improve the situation. The Commission may wish
to form a sub -committee to immediately address
solutions, to be handled administratively.
C/Beke indicated that, rather than forming a sub-
committee, he would prefer to hear the audiences'
perception to the problem, and any ideas for
solutions. Staff can then bring the matter back to
the Commission, at the next meeting, with the
recommendation. The Commission concurred.
Leslie Stoltz, residing at 1755 Ano Nuevo, stated
her concern for the safety of the children as they
are being dropped off and picked up at the Maple
Hill Elementary School. This matter was brought
before the Commission January of 1990, in which the
Commission recommended a crossing guard, and that
the crosswalk be further studied. Also, Dr.
Skinner, the principal, mailed a letter, November
27, 1991, pointing out all of the issues. We were
told at that time that the matter will be studied
and put on the agenda. Though we know the problem,
we are unable to determine a viable solution to the
problem. She requested input from the Commission.
Leslie Stoltz; Sallie Paul; residing at 1429
Blenbury; Judy McFadden, residing at 1342 Spruce
Tree; Veronica Hei, residing at 1928 Ano Nuevo; and
Pete Wronski, residing at 1324 Deeplawn made the
following comments regarding what they perceive the
problem to be: there are 600 children arriving at
the same time; parents come from various
directions; parents stop on the "No Parking" areas;
double parking; U-turns in the crosswalk; cars
block driveways and crosswalks; children and
parents jay walk across the street from the park;
there needs to be traffic enforcement; and a sign
is needed stating "Children Present" going up
towards the school.
March 12, 1992
OLD BUSINESS:
Page 4
VC/Gravdahl noted that Diamond Point had the same
type of problems. After discussion with their
principal, the following solutions were done: "No
Parking" signs were put in; buses were pulled off
the street and into the parking lot; an officer
spoke to an assembly of children; and a program was
outlined indicating the route to be traveled to
drop off and pick up the children. The parents at
Maple Hill need to be similarly educated. He
discussed possible solutions for a drop off point
at the Maple Hill School.
C/Beke stated that various options could be
considered such as, a double yellow center line
stripe, "No Parking", and/or moving the crossing
guard opposite the park. He suggested that a
member of staff, and a Commissioner meet with the
principal and come back with a list of things to
consider. In conjunction with these options, the
parents must be educated.
Chair/Chavers indicated that any remedial action,
within staff's purview, should be taken care of
immediately, in conjunction with enforcement.
Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Ury and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the
next meeting, and to appoint a committee of one
member of staff, a Commissioner, and a
representative of the school, to meet next week,
and come back to the April 9th meeting with
information of what was done and the recommended
action.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng,
G r a v d a h l a n d
Chair/Chavers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
VC/Gravdahl volunteered to be on the committee.
Chair/Chavers called a recess at 7:40 p.m. to allow
the committee to discuss a time to meet. The
meeting was called back to order at 7:47 p.m.
Request for AE/Liu reported that, at the last meeting, the
"No Parking" on Commission, requested staff to obtain the County's
Fallowfield at procedure and policy for a street sweeping program.
Brea Canyon The County process, as indicated in the staff
Cut -Off report, will take a minimum of six months. Mr.
Frank Barowski, of 20910 Pasco Court, contacted the
City in September of 1991 to complain about the
March 12, 1992 Page 5
parking and street sweeping problems in front of
First Mortgage Corporation at 3230 Fallowfield
Drive between Brea Canyon Cut -Off Road and Pasco
Court. Upon review, it appears that motorists have
been using Fallowfield as a park-and-ride, and that
there is inadequate onsite parking at the First
Mortgage Corporation. Therefore, it is recommended
that the Commission consider the four alternatives,
indicated in the staff report, for the parking
condition on Fallowfield Drive at Brea Canyon Cut -
Off Road, and to direct staff as necessary.
Mr. Barkowski stated the following concerns
regarding the parking -on Fallowfield: the streets
never get swept; double parking; poor visibility;
and mail doesn't get delivered if there are cars
parked in front of the mail boxes. He presented
photos, taken yesterday, showing all the cars
parking on Fallowfield as a park-and-ride. He
suggested that the curbs be painted red, or signs
be placed prohibiting parking.
Following discussion, Chair/Chavers suggested that
the area between Pasco Court and Brea Canyon Cut -
Off be'red curbed allowing only 4 cars to park. He
suggested putting 2 hour parking signs, 8:00 to
5:00 weekdays, further north of Pasco Court.
Mr. Barowski stated that, in his opinion, limiting
parking from Pasco Court to Diamond Bar Blvd. on
Fallowfield, would end the park-and-ride.
Sgt. Rawling suggested that "No Parking" signs,
weekdays between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., be
placed to discourage park-and-ride people, rather
than the two hour limit sign.
Motion was made by VC/Gravdahl to limit parking,
coming from the westside of Fallowfield, from Brea
Canyon Cut -Off to Pasco, not fronted by residential
property, from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. weekdays.
The Motion FAILED for lack of a second.
Motion was made by C/Ury, seconded by C/Beke and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to limit parking coming from
the westside of Fallowfield, from Brea Canyon Cut -
Off to Pasco, not fronted by residential property,
from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. weekdays. None of the
alternatives presented by staff are to be adopted.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng,
G r a v d a h l a n d
Chair/Chavers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
C/Beke nominated C/Gravdahl for Vice Chairman.
Chair/Chavers seconded the nomination.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng,
G r a v d a h l, a n d
Chair/Chavers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
C/Gravdahl won the nomination.
MINUTES:
Feb. 27, 1992 Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by VC/Gravdahl
and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of February 13,
1992. C/Ury and C/Cheng abstained.
COMMISSION Chair/Chavers welcomed C/Ury and C/Cheng to the
COMMENTS: Commission.
C/Beke requested a roster of the names, addresses,
and telephone numbers of the full Commission.
VC/Gravdahl welcomed the new Commissioners. He
informed the Commission of the proposed office
building on Sunset Crossing. He and Chair/Chavers
will be going to the Planning Commission meeting to
express their concern regarding parking that may
occur on Sunset Crossing due to the proposed
project.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES
OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MARCH 12, 1992
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Chavers called the meeting to order at
6:35 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Hearing Room, 21865 East Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners Beke, Cheng, Ury, Vice Chairman
Gravdahl, and Chairman Chavers.
Also present were City Engineer Sid Mousavi,
Administrative Analyst Tseday Aberra, Associate
Engineer David Liu, Sgt. Rawlings, and Contract
Secretary Liz Myers.
PLEDGE OF
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE:
C/Beke.
SELECT A
C/Gravdahl nominated C/Chavers for Chairman. C/Ury
CHAIRMAN/
seconded the nomination.
VICE CHAIRMAN
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng,
Gravdahl, and Chavers.
NOES! COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
C/Chavers won the nomination.
C/Beke nominated C/Gravdahl for Vice Chairman.
Chair/Chavers seconded the nomination.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng,
G r a v d a h l, a n d
Chair/Chavers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
C/Gravdahl won the nomination.
MINUTES:
Feb. 27, 1992 Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by VC/Gravdahl
and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of February 13,
1992. C/Ury and C/Cheng abstained.
COMMISSION Chair/Chavers welcomed C/Ury and C/Cheng to the
COMMENTS: Commission.
C/Beke requested a roster of the names, addresses,
and telephone numbers of the full Commission.
VC/Gravdahl welcomed the new Commissioners. He
informed the Commission of the proposed office
building on Sunset Crossing. He and Chair/Chavers
will be going to the Planning Commission meeting to
express their concern regarding parking that may
occur on Sunset Crossing due to the proposed
project.
March 12, 1992 page 2
MATTERS FROM Mr. Schad recommended consideration of a deer
THE AUDIENCE: crossing sign on Grand Ave./Golden Springs area.
CE/Mousavi, per Chair/Chavers request, explained
that the matter was considered at the last
Commission meeting. However, because staff could
not obtain any information from the Sheriff
Department indicating accidents caused by deer
crossing, and the Fish and Game have no record of
deer crossing in that area, the Commission, based
on staff's recommendation, denied the request for
the installation of a deer crossing.
Chair/Chavers suggested that, if Mr. Schad has
additional information, he should contact the City
Engineer.
Ken Anderson, resident, stated his concern for the
traffic on the intersection of Fountain Springs and
Diamond Bar Boulevard. Since there will soon be
further developments in the Country Hills Towne
Center, the traffic problems will increase.
CE/Mousavi, per, the request of Chair/Chavers,
updated the Commission regarding the developments,
in the Towne Center, which were approved by the
Planning Commission.
Chair/Chavers explained that if Mr. Anderson would
like to participate in the planning process of
those development on those parcels, then he should
go to the City Council. If he would like to
discuss the circulation aspect of the Fountain
Springs/Diamond Bar Blvd. intersection, then he
should contact the City Engineer, and discuss the
specific concerns with staff. Staff will bring
back the item as an agenda item, or an
informational item, appropriately.
CONSENT Chair/Chavers requested that item A of the Consent
CALENDAR: Calendar be pulled.
C/Beke requested that item B be modified to
indicate that the crossing guard service is to be
continued.
Motion was made by VC/Gravdahl, seconded by C/Ury
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Consent
Calendar, with the modification of item B.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng,
G r a v d a h l a n d
Chair/Chavers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
March 12, 1992
Page 3
Request for
The Commission requested staff, at the last
additional
Commission meeting, to review the Minutes to
crossing guard,
determine what recommendations were previously made
a crosswalk, and
regarding the traffic concerns at the Maple Hill
"No Stopping"
Elementary School. CE/Mousavi explained that
sign by Maple
Hill
because staff's files were developed February of
Elementary
1990, staff had to request the Minutes from the
consultants of that time. The Minutes of January
9, 1990 will be available during the week of March
9th. Staff recommended that the item be postponed
to the meeting of April 9, 1992. If the Commission
is inclined, the audience can be given the
opportunity to comment, and make suggestions on how
to improve the situation. The Commission may wish
to form a sub -committee to immediately address
solutions, to be handled administratively.
C/Beke indicated that, rather than forming a sub-
committee, he would prefer to hear the audiences'
perception to the problem, and any ideas for
solutions. Staff can then bring the matter back to
the Commission, at the next meeting, with the
recommendation. The Commission concurred.
Leslie Stoltz, residing at 1755 Ano Nuevo, stated
her concern for the safety of the children as they
are being dropped off and picked up at the Maple
Hill Elementary School. This matter was brought
before the Commission January of 1990, in which the
Commission recommended a crossing guard, and that
the crosswalk be further studied. Also, Dr.
Skinner, the principal, mailed a letter, November
27, 1991, pointing out all of the issues. We were
told at that time that the matter will be studied
and put on the agenda. Though we know the problem,
we are unable to determine a viable solution to the
problem. She requested input from the Commission.
Leslie Stoltz; Sallie Paul; residing at 1429
Blenbury; Judy McFadden, residing at 1342 Spruce
Tree; Veronica Hei, residing at 1928 Ano Nuevo; and
Pete Wronski, residing at 1324 Deeplawn made the
following comments regarding what they perceive the
problem to be: there are 600 children arriving at
the same time; parents come from various
directions; parents stop on the "No Parking" areas;
double parking; U-turns in the crosswalk; cars
block driveways and crosswalks; children and
parents jay walk across the street from the park;
there needs to be traffic enforcement; and a sign
is needed stating "Children Present" going up
towards the school.
March 12, 1992
OLD BUSINESS:
Page 4
VC/Gravdahl noted that Diamond Point had the same
type of problems. After discussion with their
principal, the following solutions were done: "No
is
Parking signs were put in; buses were pulled off
the street and into the parking lot; an officer
spoke to an assembly of children; and a program was
outlined indicating the route to be traveled to
drop off and pick up the children. The parents at
Maple Hill need to be similarly educated. He
discussed possible solutions for a drop off point
at the Maple Hill School.
C/Beke stated that various options could be
considered such as, a double yellow center line
stripe, "No Parking", and/or moving the crossing
guard opposite the park. He suggested that a
member of staff, and a Commissioner meet with the
principal and come back with a list of things to
consider. In conjunction with these options, the
parents must be educated.
Chair/Chavers indicated that any remedial action,
within staff's purview, should be taken care of
immediately, in conjunction with enforcement.
Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Ury and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the
next meeting, and to appoint a committee of one
member of staff, a Commissioner, and a
representative of the school, to meet next week,
and come back to the April 9th meeting with
information of what was done and the recommended
action.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng,
G r a v d a h l a n d
Chair/Chavers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
VC/Gravdahl volunteered to be on the committee.
Chair/Chavers called a recess at 7:40 p.m. to allow
the committee to discuss a time to meet. The
meeting was called back to order at 7:47 p.m.
Request for AE/Liu reported that, at the last meeting, the
"No Parking" on Commission, requested staff to obtain the County's
Fallowfield at procedure and policy for a street sweeping program.
Brea Canyon The County process, as indicated in the staff
Cut -Off report, will take a minimum of six months. Mr.
Frank Barowski, of 20910 Pasco Court, contacted the
City in September of 1991 to complain about the
March 12, 1992 Page 5
parking and street sweeping problems in front of
First Mortgage Corporation at 3230 Fallowfield
Drive between Brea Canyon Cut -Off Road and Pasco
Court. Upon review, it appears that motorists have
been using Fallowfield as a park-and-ride, and that
there is inadequate onsite parking at the First
Mortgage Corporation. Therefore, it is recommended
that the Commission consider the four alternatives,
indicated in the staff report, for the parking
condition on Fallowfield Drive at Brea Canyon Cut -
Off Road, and to direct staff as necessary.
Mr. Barkowski stated the following concerns
regarding the parking -on Fallowfield: the streets
never get swept; double parking; poor visibility;
and mail doesn't get delivered if there are cars
parked in front of the mail boxes. He presented
photos, taken yesterday, showing all the cars
parking on Fallowfield as a park-and-ride. He
suggested that the curbs be painted red, or signs
be placed prohibiting parking.
Following discussion, Chair/Chavers suggested that
the area between Pasco Court and Brea Canyon Cut -
Off be'red curbed allowing only 4 cars to park. He
suggested putting 2 hour parking signs, 8:00 to
5:00 weekdays, further north of Pasco Court.
Mr. Barowski stated that, in his opinion, limiting
parking from Pasco Court to Diamond Bar Blvd. on
Fallowfield, would end the park-and-ride.
Sgt. Rawling suggested that "No Parking" signs,
weekdays between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., be
placed to discourage park-and-ride people, rather
than the two hour limit sign.
Motion was made by VC/Gravdahl to limit parking,
coming from the westside of Fallowfield, from Brea
Canyon Cut -Off to Pasco, not fronted by residential
property, from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. weekdays.
The Motion FAILED for lack of a second.
Motion was made by C/Ury, seconded by C/Beke and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to limit parking coming from
the westside of Fallowfield, from Brea Canyon Cut -
Off to Pasco, not fronted by residential property,
from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. weekdays. None of the
alternatives presented by staff are to be adopted.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng,
G r a v d a h l a n d
Chair/Chavers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
•auoN :saaxoISSImoo :NIVISSV
• auoN
• auoN : SHaNOISSIKKOD : SSON
: SSON
• SaaAPgD/JTRgO
•s2anleg0/aTggO
P u le ' T g R P A E a o
' buag0 ' a3(ag ' Aln : SHaNOISSINHOD : saAv
T u g P A le a 0
•uoTgoyl sTu og 4u9azpu9MR aug pagdaoole AaII/0
•uoTSToap agnoa at;g Aq pagggoTp sg 'apTsggnos
' axag 'Ian
aug ao apTsggaou at;g aaugTa og dogs snq aq-4
:SSA'
agleooTaa og J3le4s azTaoggnE og popuamv aq 'puooas
aug pule 'uoTgoK 9144 gletJ4 pagsabbns SaaAgtiZ)/aTRgD
s o j jegs
•pleagsuT apTsggnos at;g og panom aq
pTnotjs dogs snq eqq 'os 3I _Avm9aa3 aqg sgTxa gleug
Pule AaII/0
agnoa snq g ST aaat;g 'ATguasaad '3T paaTnbuT 9x9g/0
UOT40K
•uoTglepuaurMooaz si33Egs gdaoole og
TugpAEaO/0A Aq papuooas 'AaII/0 Aq OPRM SRM UOT40l
•uoTgoasaaguT at;g Jo 9pTsg4aou
aqg og dogs snq aug agleooTaa og osg azT.zougnE
dutEa 33o 09
pule gsanbaa S, TlgePAEao/0A gg'CM anouoo uOTSSTUTMO,
agnog SSOaoE
aug gEt44 papuau UIOOOa ST gI • dtliEa-j jo AleMaaaj
paleATnog aleg
09 aqg aleau "PATS aleg pUOMVTG punoggsaM uo dogs
puoui2TQ uo dogs
snq buTgsTxa aqg 3o uOTgleooTaa at;g aglebTgsanuT dgTO
snq aggooTaa
9T44 pagsanbaa Tglepnleao/0A gggg pagaodaa TAlesnoK/s0
og gsanbag
• auoN : saaxoissiHK00 : NIvisav
AY
UOM9q pule • UT
pgog le�zTToO gE sMoaaE uang-g3aT TTggSuT
og gsanbaa aqg Auap uoTSSTWROD aqg gggg papUgUXMooaa
ST gI •uoTggTnoaTo OT40999P 4gbTM gEgg
Sao4oE3 SnoauleTTSOSTuc pug '9UMTOA OT33lea4 'SAETap 3j0 -4n0 •ulju0
'sguapTOOV 3o SM294 UT pagEnTEAO sleep uoTgOasaaguT gaag/RMTTOD gE
atis • BAY UOM9rI pule pgog VMTTOD Jo uoTgoasaaquT Moaag uang
9144-4v Moaale uang 498T g TTEgsuT og gsanbaa g -439T le TTlegsuT
paATaoaa SxaoM OTTgnd 944 ggug pagaodaa TAlesnolq/s0 og gsanbag
ss3NIsflH AM
•leaaE TETguapTsaa
9q4 oguT papuagxa aq og uoTgggTMTT sTug ao3 gaaags
gEgg buT4uoa3 aTdoad aqg moa3 gaoddns 3o uoTsseadxe
TleTguggsgns le axleg PTnoM gT 42g4 PaggoTPUT axag/0
9 ebled Z66T AZT goalei+I
• auoN
: SggNOISSINKOD
: SSON
•s2anleg0/aTggO
P u e
T u g P A le a 0
`buatj0
' axag 'Ian
:SHaNOISSINHOD
:SSA'
• uoTggpuatutuooaa
s o j jegs
gdsooe 0-4ArisfloKIKVNfl
aaiu-d t0
Pule AaII/0
Aq papuooas 'axag/0 Aq SPVM SVM
UOT40K
AY
UOM9q pule • UT
pgog le�zTToO gE sMoaaE uang-g3aT TTggSuT
og gsanbaa aqg Auap uoTSSTWROD aqg gggg papUgUXMooaa
ST gI •uoTggTnoaTo OT40999P 4gbTM gEgg
Sao4oE3 SnoauleTTSOSTuc pug '9UMTOA OT33lea4 'SAETap 3j0 -4n0 •ulju0
'sguapTOOV 3o SM294 UT pagEnTEAO sleep uoTgOasaaguT gaag/RMTTOD gE
atis • BAY UOM9rI pule pgog VMTTOD Jo uoTgoasaaquT Moaag uang
9144-4v Moaale uang 498T g TTEgsuT og gsanbaa g -439T le TTlegsuT
paATaoaa SxaoM OTTgnd 944 ggug pagaodaa TAlesnolq/s0 og gsanbag
ss3NIsflH AM
•leaaE TETguapTsaa
9q4 oguT papuagxa aq og uoTgggTMTT sTug ao3 gaaags
gEgg buT4uoa3 aTdoad aqg moa3 gaoddns 3o uoTsseadxe
TleTguggsgns le axleg PTnoM gT 42g4 PaggoTPUT axag/0
9 ebled Z66T AZT goalei+I
March 12, 1992 Page 7
ITEMS FROM C/Ury inquired what the procedure is for relaying
COMMISSIONERS: requests from concern citizens to the Commission.
CE/Mousavi explained that the residents, if asking
for certain improvements, can write a letter, or
submit a petition from the community to the Council
or the Commission, or make a phone call to staff.
CE/Mousavi, in response to VC/Gravdahl's request
for an update of the "Reduce Speed Zone Ahead" sign
that was to be installed by Tin Drive, stated that
the sign was ordered and should have been
installed.
C/Cheng noted that the two left turn arrows at the
intersection on southbound Diamond Bar Blvd. and
Golden Springs should be moved more to the left to
align with the left turn lanes.
CE/Mousavi, in response to Chair/Chaver's inquiry,
stated that since the design, for a 3 way stop sign
for Brea Canyon/Pathfinder, will modify the
entrance to the freeway, staff felt that it should
be discussed with CalTrans. If CalTrans does not
comment, then it will be scheduled with the City
Council for discussion.
CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Beke, confirmed that
all Commissioners are encouraged to attend the
study session scheduled March 24, 1992.
VC/Gravdahl informed the Commission that, in
conjunction with the Third Anniversary Celebration
on April 25th, there will be a free electric bus
service offered.
ITEMS FROM STAFF: CE/Mousavi distributed copies of the Commission
Handbook to the Commissioners.
INFORMATIONAL C/Beke stated that, though he has no objection to
ITEMS: the request made by Saint Denis Church, he would
like it to be noted that the Commission gave
blanket approval for only two Church events, Easter
and Christmas.
CE/Mousavi indicated that many of the items on the
"Future Agenda Items" have been taken care, and it
will be further condensed.
March 12, 1992 Page 8
CE/Mousavi, in response to CE/Chavers, stated that
discussion of the Circulation Element of the
General Plan will be an advertised joint meeting
between the Planning Commission and the Traffic and
Transportation Commission. He will update the
Commission regarding the date for that discussion.
CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Beke, stated that the
modifications for the right turn ingress on Grand
Ave., between Montefino and Diamond Bar, will be
implemented immediately.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Ury and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 8:40
p.m.
Respectively,
Sid Mousavi
Secretary
Attest`
-fiodd avers
Chairman
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
APRIL 9, 1992
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Chavers called the meeting to order at
6:35 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Hearing Room, 21865 East Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Ury.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Ury, Beke, Cheng, Vice Chairman
Gravdahl, and Chairman Chavers.
Also present were City Engineer Sid Mousavi,
Administrative Analyst Tseday Aberra,, Associate
Engineer David Liu, Engineer Technician Ann Garvey,
Sergeant Rawlings, and Contract Secretary Liz
Myers.
MINUTES:
Mar. 12, 1992 Motion was made by C/Ury, seconded by VC/Gravdahl
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of
March 12, 1992.
COMMISSION C/Ury and C/Beke wished CE/Mousavi luck at his new
COMMENTS: position.
VC/Gravdahl wished CE/Mousavi the best of luck in
his new job. He suggested that the Commission hold
a meeting, strictly on the Circulation Element,
prior to the joint meeting with the Planning
Commission scheduled May 4, 1992.
The Commission concurred to meet April 23, 1992 at
6:30 p.m. The location of the meeting will be
determined later.
C/Ury informed the Commission that he will be
unable to attend the meeting but will submit any
comments that he may have to Chairman Chavers.
VC/Gravdahl requested that DKS attend the meeting
as well.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Rhonda Aihara, residing at 23822 Chinook Place,
stated that even though Chinook is a cul-de-sac
street, it is a blind curve that appears to be an
access street to other parts of the neighborhood.
As a result, there is an increase of traffic.
Furthermore, there is a home, on a flag lot, that
seems to be providing day care. The parents are
racing through during 6:00 to 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 to
6:00 p.m. to drop off and pick up their children,
respectively. She requested an evaluation of
posting "Not a Through Street" and "Children at
Play" signs, as well as a rumble strip.
April 9, 1992
Page 2
Chair/Chavers stated that, because he lives on the
cul-de-sac, he will abstain from discussion on this
matter.
C/Beke stated that since Not a Through Street"
signs are used for cul-de-sacs that appear to be a
through street, the installation could be handled
administratively, and the rest of the items be
placed on the next agenda for the Commission's
consideration. The Commission concurred.
Sgt. Rawlings indicated that he can arrange to have
selective enforcement during the peak hours of the
day care service.
Gary Collins, residing at 18008 Via La Cresta,
Chino Hills, addressed the Commission regarding the
posting of the "Keep the Intersection Clear" sign
in front of the Fire Station on Grand Ave. He
explained that he received a traffic citation for
stopping at that intersection during the peak
traffic hour. After some thought, he realized that
the reason he did not see the sign was because the
sign is off to one side, and obscure. He suggested
that, since it is a public safety issue, the signs
visibility should be enhanced by enlarging the
sign, restenciling it, and changing the color so
that it is eye catching.
C/Ury concurred that the sign is not well posted.
Chair/Chavers suggested that a new sign be
reordered at the time of the restriping.
CONSENT CALENDAR:Chair/Chavers requested that items A and B be
pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by VC/Gravdahl
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve item C of the
Consent Calendar.
AYES: COMMISSIONER: Ury, Beke, Cheng,
VC/Gravdahl, and
Chair/Chavers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Crossing Guard ET/Garvey reported that the Department of Public
Service at Works received a request to investigate the need to
Golden Springs retain a crossing guard service at the intersection
Dr./Ballena Dr. of Ballena Dr. and E.Meadow Falls at Golden springs
Elementary School. Upon investigation, staff
recommended that, because the traffic controlled
signal crossing on Golden Springs Drive is
approximately 250 feet from the subject crossing,
April 9, 1992 Page 3
and the volume of vehicle traffic is below minimum,
the school crossing guard service should be
discontinued.
CE/Mousavi stated that since there has been concern
from the citizens that they have not had the
opportunity to review all the data, staff
recommends that action on this matter be postponed
to the next meeting.
Chair/Chavers, noting that it now appears that the
citizens have had an opportunity to review the
data, suggested that the item be discussed tonight,
the audience be allowed to voice their comments,
and, if possible, a decision be made tonight.
C/Beke stated that he would not have supported any
action to remove the crossing guard service before
the end of the school year.
Tom Mangham, principal of Golden Springs
Elementary, stated that the crosswalk at the
intersection of Meadow Falls and Ballena is
directly in front of the school. He is alarmed
that the administration was not made aware of this
situation. Parents will not use the traffic light
at Golden Springs and Ballena because it is a high
traffic area, and also because it is two and half
blocks from the intersection where parents pick up
and drop off their children. He submitted letters,
to the Commission, objecting to the recommended
action.
The following residents voiced their concerns and
objections to the discontinuation of the crossing
guard service: Pam Stroud, residing at 2202 Rusty
Pump, president of the PTA; Sandra Neas, residing
at 778 S. Farben; Kandee Beas, residing at 23520
Jubilee; Carlos Kilburg, residing at 306 Rock River
Dr., the crossing guard supervisor; Colleen parks,
residing at 815 Golden Prados; Joan Luke, residing
at 209 La Bonita Rd.; Mari Smith, residing at 24439
Darrin Dr.; Robin Stone, residing at 24401 Darrin
Dr.; Augustine Biggs, residing at 2385 Chinook; and
Dave Oliver, residing at 510 Charmingdale Rd.
CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Ury, explained that
since this request came from the Commission, the
residents would have been notified pursuant to the
recommendation made by the Commission. C/Cheng and
C/Ury concurred that, after listening to the
concerns, they are in favor of continuing the
crossing guard service.
April 9, 1992 Page 4
C/Beke stated that there was very little activity
at
site he time that he made a recent visit to the
He stated that he will look at it once
again, and recommended that the item be continued
to allow each Commissioner time to visit the site.
ET/Garvey, in response to VC/Gravdahl, stated that
there were 117 children, and 220 cars counted
between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m.
Irene Bowers, residing at 24301 E. Seagreen, stated
her concern with the excessive speed of motorists
coming down into Seagreen. She suggested ggested the
g. the installation of a 3 way stop sign;
trim the tree restricting visibility; a "Kids
Playing" sign; a radar sign; a police survey; and a
copy, with the results, of the last police survey
conducted.
VC/Gravdahl, noting that the peak hours are between
7:45 and 8:20
a.m., suggested that the intersection
be studied at the
appropriate time frame.
Chair/Chavers suggested that the Cit Periodically
upgrade or check
crossingY
tivity. After
discussion with Council members, it
was indicated
that there is a need to do what is best for the
community, and
that it should not be a monetary
issue. Therefore, he
suggested that the crossing
guard service be continued for the
remainder of
this school year, and be retained for the following
Years as well.
He also suggested that perhaps the
count did not include the children
coming from the
end of the cul-de-sac, or those crossing midway.
Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by VC/Gravdahl,
and CARRIED to defer
decision till May, 1992 and
that each Commissioner, if
possible, go out and
personally review the situation.
AYES: COMMISSIONER: Beke, Cheng,
g ' a n d
.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury and Chair/Chavers.
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: None.
Request for
Stop Control
AA/Aberra reported that the Public Works Department
received
Sea Green/
Greycloud
a request to consider the installation of
stop signs at Seagreen
Lane
and Greycloud, a T-
intersection, in order to
control speeding vehicles
on Seagreen. Based on the preliminary analysis
of
the data, staff determined the detail study of the
intersection
was not warranted for stop control.
It is recommended that the
Commission deny the
request to install stop signs at Seagreen Drive
Greycloud
Lane. and
Irene Bowers, residing at 24301 E. Seagreen, stated
her concern with the excessive speed of motorists
coming down into Seagreen. She suggested ggested the
g. the installation of a 3 way stop sign;
trim the tree restricting visibility; a "Kids
Playing" sign; a radar sign; a police survey; and a
copy, with the results, of the last police survey
conducted.
April 9, 1992 Page 5
Following discussion, Chair/Chavers suggested that
there be yellow striping, 25 mph speed limit signs
Posted, and that the area be surveyed by the
Sheriff Department.
Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Ury and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommenda-
tion denying the request for the stop signs, and to
direct staff to post one or two 25 mph signs at
obvious locations, giving notice to the people in
the area, and to implement yellow striping to the
appropriate length.
AYES: COMMISSIONER: Ury, Beke Chen
VC/Gravdahl, and
Chair
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. Chavers.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
INFORMATION
ITEM":
Ed Rugle, of the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works
presented a brief overview of the
Traffic Committee and the
Synchronization
County -wide Traffic
Signal Synchronization Operation
of Traffic
Signals
and Maintenance
Program (SOM). He submitted handouts providing
information
on the development of the Traffic
Committee,
a matrix showing the membership, a
synopsis of the SOM
program, and a comparison of
the SOM program with the County,s traffic signal
synchronization program. He reviewed the
information
with the Commission.
In response to C/Cheng, Mr. Rugle explained that 13
cities
are presently participating in the program.
Since all systems
are compatible with this program,
the cities would be able to maintain their existing
systems and stay in the program.
CE/Mousavi inquired if there is a consensus among
the Commission that Diamond
Bar should participate
in the program, or if the program is viable for the
City to
consider for Grand Ave., and possibly for
Colima and Golden Springs.
Chair/Chavers indicated that, since the item was
presented as an informational item, it would be
appropriate to allow the Commission time to digest
the information received, before making any
comments. He requested that the item be placed as
an agenda item for the first meeting in May of
1992. The Commission concurred.
April 9, 1992 Page 6
OLD BUSINESS:
Request for
add'1 traffic
AE/Liu reported that Maple Hill Elementary
improvement by
requested that the City investigate the double
parking, illegal -turns,
Maple Hill
u and illegal parking in
the restricted parking area
Elem. School
along Maple Hill Road
between Blenbury Dr. and Eaglefen Dr. during school
hours. VC/Gravdahl and staff met with the school,
on March 18th and 20th, and agreed that "NO U-
TURN", and "NO
PARKING, 7AM-5PM, LOADING AND
UNLOADING PERMITTED"
signs are appropriate and
necessary to allow a smooth and continuous traffic
movement. Staff has prepared the plan for the
installation
of said signs. Additionally, a double
yellow centerline will be striped after the
area
receives the slurry seal improvement scheduled for
June of this fiscal year. To address the
observations noted, as indicated in
the staff
report, staff recommended conducting a mid -block
crosswalk evaluation and a warrant study for
crossing
guard service, including the feasibility
of removing the
current crosswalk on Maple Hill
Road west of Eaglefen Dr. and
of moving the
crossing guard from Blenbury to the proposed mid -
block crosswalk. Furthermore, "suggested travel
routes" have been made to the school for
consideration.
Motion was made by VC/Gravdahl, and seconded by
C/Ury to install the crosswalk, as soon as
Possible, and put in double yellow centerline
striping after the area receives the slurry seal
improvement. If a study is required for the
crosswalk, the study is to be conducted, but the
crosswalk is to be done as soon as possible.
C/Beke suggested that VC/Gravdahl's motion be
amended to accept staff's recommendation. He noted
that the school year may be over by the time the
warrant study is conducted.
AE/Liu, in response to VC/Gravdahl, stated that a
study should be done before the installation of the
crosswalk. An evaluation can be ready by the next
meeting.
CE/Mousavi suggested that it may be more
appropriate to wait on the crosswalk until after
the slurry seal.
VC/Gravdahl amended his motion to accept staff's
recommendation.
April 9, 1992 Page 7
CE/Mousavi, in response to Chair/Chavers, stated
that the City should have the schedule, of the
slurry seal contractor, by the first week of May.
The motion and the second was rescinded.
Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Ury and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommenda-
tion, and after the slurry seal project, if
warranted, install the crosswalk before the fall
school year begins, as well as put in the
appropriate striping at the same time. Staff is
directed to make a good faith effort to expedite
the installation of the crosswalk, if the slurry
seal is completed early, and it is deemed
warranted
AYES: .COMMISSIONER: Ury, Beke, Chen
VC/Gravdahl, and
Chair
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. Chavers.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Policy for
funding traff.
CE/Mousavi reported that, on October 10, 1991, the
Commission
signals on
list with two
received a priorityhose
categories included:
priv. & public
intersections
t intersections with
completed warranted studies; and candidate
intersections
for warrant studies. The Commission
requested that
private/public street intersections
be placed in a special
category until a policy for
funding of traffic signals on such intersections is
developed. It is recommended that the Commission
discuss the matter
and consider the option of using
number of lanes to determine the fair share
cost to
fund traffic signals on private/public street
intersections,
as indicated in the staff report,
and forward the recommendation to the City
Council.
CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Ury's inquiry,
explained that
one of the arguments to charge
private developments is because
gas tax monies are
only paid for improvements on public streets, and,
generally, streets are maintained by the gas tax
monies. Also, other
funding available are usually
for public streets only, not private.
Another
argument is that private developments are the sole
users of those intersections, and a signal would
not be needed had it
not been for that development.
It is a policy issue for the Commission to discuss.
C/Ury stated that those people in the private areas
are paying gas tax monies,
and also pay for the
maintenance of their private roads, at no cost to
the City. VC/Gravdahl concurred.
April 9, 1992
Page 8
C/Beke stated that if the signal is going to be
warranted, because of accidents for example, the
accidents are all going to occur on the public
street.
Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Ury and
CARRIED to recommend to the City Council that they
adopt a policy with regard to funding of signals at
private street or driveway intersection with public
highways along these lines:
o Proposed Development - The cost of the signal
would be borne 100% by the developers on the
private street. It would be done at no cost
to the City.
o Existing Development (involving commercial
property) - The cost be shared based on the
number of lanes at the intersection. if it is
a T -intersection, and one lane is private, it
would be split on a 1/3 private street
contribution, 2/3 public. If it is a four
legged intersection, one lane private, it
would be a 3/4 public, 1/4 private sharing of
the costs.
o Existing Residential Subdivision street coming
into a Public street - The cost be borne 100%
by the City.
AYES: COMMISSIONER: Ury, Beke, Cheng, and
VC/Gravdahl.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Chavers.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ITEMS FROM C/Beke suggested that the island at Grand and
COMMISSIONERS: Montefino may have to be extended past the library
to help Century 21.
CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Beke's inquiry,
explained that, other than what has already been
approved by the Commission, only those additional
requests made by St. Denis for parking exemptions
for special occasions will come to the Commission
for approval.
CE/Mousavi, in response to VC/Gravdahl, stated that
the "Reduce Speed Ahead" signs should have been
installed on Diamond Bar Boulevard. Staff will
check into the matter.
ITEMS FROM CE/Mousavi announced that this is his last meeting
STAFF: with the Commission. He thanked the Commission for
the opportunity to have worked with them.
April 9, 1992 Page 9
INFORMATION Chair/Chavers indicated that he was comfortable
ITEMB: with the revisions made to the TIA report.
C/Ury abstained from discussion regarding the
correspondence received from the Walnut Valley
School District.
C/Beke and VC/Gravdahl indicated their displeasure
with the School District's seemingly lack of
cooperation.
Chair/Chavers, noting that the signs will benefit
the City, stated that the safety of the community
should not be jeopardized, even if the attitude of
the School District seems to be inappropriate.
C/Beke stated that, as the area is presently
posted, it can still be used as a loading zone.
There is nothing there that is precluding them from
operating in a safe manner. If they want to do
something different that is to their advantage,
then they should pay for it.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by Chair/Chavers, seconded by C/Ury
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
9:44 p.m. to April 23, 1992 at 6:30 p.m.
Respectively,
/C/ Sirs Mrnicavi
Sid Mousavi
Secretary
Attest:
/s/ Todd Chavers
Todd Chavers
Chairman
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MARCH 12, 1992
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Chairman Whelan called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m. at City Hall, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite
100, Diamond Bar, California.
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
Vice Chairman Ruzicka.
Commissioners: Medina, Plunk, Schey, Vice Chairman
Ruzicka, and Chairman Whelan.
Also present were Assistant City Manager Terrence
Belanger, Administrative Assistant Kellee Fritzal,
Administrative Assistant Troy Butzlaff, and
Recreation Supervisor Bob Rose.
Chair/Whelan welcomed C/Schey and C/Medina to the
Commission.
Minutes of Motion was made by VC/Ruzicka, seconded by C/Plunk
Feb. 20, 1992 & and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of February 20,
Feb. 27, 1992. 1992 and February 27, 1992. C/Schey and C/Medina
abstained.
OLD BUSINESS:
Park and Chair/Whelan stated that the "White Paper" must be
Recreation finalized for the presentation to the City Council,
Issues: scheduled March 24, 1992.
ACM/Belanger informed the Commission that 45
minutes has been allotted for presentation, and
discussion, of the "White Paper", with the City
Council, as it relates to the Parks and Recreation
Commission. Upon completion of the study session,
the Commission will have an understanding on how
the Council views the role of the Commission in the
following months. It is suggested that the
document going to the Council be more of a general
statement, as opposed to specifics.
VC/Ruzicka suggested that the third paragraph,
first page, of the "White Paper", should include a
statement that outlines the Commission's goals for
this year, to read, "The completion of this needs
assessment, and Parks and Recreation Master Plan
will be the goal of the Commission this year.".
The third paragraph, of the second page, stating,
"The utilization of Edison easements", should be
moved down to a lower paragraph so that it is a
separate idea. Furthermore, the Mission Profile
and Priorities List should be updated, and the 8
categories bulleted to make sure it contains
everything the Commission thinks should be on
there, and the order of priority. He suggested
March 12, 1992 Page 2
that the following items should be included in the
categories: A Parks Master Plan, under sub-
committees; A Needs Assessment; and, under Policy,
an idea for Impact Fees for new homes and
apartments.
C/Medina suggested that the third paragraph also
include that one of the goals is to get children
involved in the community.
Chair/Whelan suggested that the Commission review
the "White Paper" by paragraph. The Commission
concurred.
Following discussion, the Commission concurred on
the following changes: the second paragraph should
become the first paragraph; paragraph three should
become the second paragraph; paragraph one should
become paragraph four; the statement, "This will
lead to developing properties to the best and
highest use possible.", should follow the needs
assessment, and added to paragraph 2; the first
line of paragraph two should be modified to read
"The Commission's top priority is to develop a
Master Plan of Parks, that includes a recreational
needs assessment for the community.", and the
following sentence should be amended to read,
"...be established and periodically be updated.";
following the last statement, the wording should
indicate that "The completion of this needs
assessment and Master Plan will be the goal of the
Commission for this year."; add that professional
consultants will also be sought for assistance, as
well as local colleges and universities; there
should be a statement, inserted in the middle of
paragraph four, indicating the economic challenges;
revise the statement, "It is apparent that the City
does not have the physical or the economic
resources..." to indicate "The importance of
economic resources to the fulfillment of any of the
goals and objectives is important."; and omit "In
severe economic times..." of paragraph three.
The Commission began review of the "White Paper"
work sheet.
VC/Ruzicka, concerned that the Administration item
can be misinterpreted to mean that the Commission
has a desire to hire office and field staff,
suggested that the item be crossed out.
March 12, 1992 Page 3
C/Schey stated that the context of the Commission's
duty is to advise the City Council on recreation
matters. Therefore, the Council can be properly
advised by the Commission on such matters as field
staff, and administrative function.
ACM/Belanger suggested that the Commission could
develop a policy statement, or a recommendation, to
the City Council, as it relates to such items as
play areas and organized programs, or picnic areas
and the rental of facilities that has to do with
staffing, contracting, and things of that nature.
The Commission concurred.
C/Plunk inquired if there was a way to receive
updated information regarding recommendations sent
to the City Council.
ACM/Belanger stated that the same tracking format
used by the City Council can be used for the
Commission, so that the Commission can receive
monthly updates regarding priority items.
C/Plunk noted that the Commission had concurred
that the title of Community Recreation Trust Fund
would be changed.
Chair/Whelan suggested that the Commission review
the work sheet category by category.
Administration
C/Schey suggested that it would be appropriate to
add a needs assessment and Master Parks Plan both
here, and in the Sub -committee category.
Budget Items
C/Schey stated that he would like the utilization
of existing Landscape and Lighting Maintenance
Districts included in this category to indicate
that such a mechanism is possible and effective.
C/Plunk inquired if the JPA, Adopt -A -Park, and the
Community Recreation Trust Fund should be put in
this category.
Chair/Whelan indicated that the Adopt -A -Park should
be under Programming. The impact fees, mentioned
by VC/Ruzicka, would go under Policy. The
placement of the JPA will be determined at a later
time.
March 12, 1992 Page 4
Acquisitions
C/Plunk suggested that the Larkstone Park item
indicate Larkstone Park expansion.
C/Plunk, noting that the 12 acre site at Lanterman
is not for sale, but rather that the owners may be
interested in a JPA, suggested that the item be
more specific.
VC/Ruzicka stated that the Lanterman site can be
included in the statement written on the bottom of
the document which mentions other sites considered
for a JPA.
Chair/Whelan, in response to C/Plunk, indicated
that the Community Civic Center/Senior Center site
would be placed under Capital Improvement and
Budget.
ACM/Belanger, in response to C/Schey's inquiry if
there should be mention of the acquisition of
nature areas like Sandstone Canyon, suggested that
it be listed as Conservancy Areas.
C/Medina suggested that a permit fee be charged,
particularly at peak times, for the use of the
tennis facilities in parks, such as Ronald Reagan,
so that the facilities are equitably shared.
Chair/Whelan stated that it has been addressed
under the Park Use Policy.
Capital Improvements
C/Plunk suggested that the category be split into
major and minor.
The Commission concurred on the following: a
public pool; a Community Center/Senior Center; a
gymnasium; unless there is a separate category, the
JPA, with Pomona, regarding the YMCA Little League
for possible field usage; the JPA with Lanterman;
lights at Summitridge Park; and retrofitting
seeding at Summitridge Park and Peterson Park.
C/Schey suggested that there be funding for a
professional assessment of the turf needs, at the
various parks.
March 12, 1992
Page 5
ACM/Belanger, with the Commission's concurrence,
called the category, suggested by C/Schey, Turf and
Field Appraisal and Maintenance Program. In
response to C/Plunk, the checking of the brick dust
at all the Parks, would be part of the same
category.
C/Plunk stated that it was suggested that scalping
the second baseball diamond, at Paul Grow Park, may
be more cost effective, and give a better playing
diamond.
VC/Ruzicka indicated that sports organizations
don't like scalped infields because they get
rutted, and players may be injured.
C/Plunk inquired if the upgrading the lights a
Heritage Park should be placed under a Light
Assessment and Maintenance category.
Chair/Whelan stated that it may be more cost
effective to look at improving lighting and
replacing fixtures at Heritage Park, rather than
replacing them.
ACM/Belanger in response to C/Medina's suggestion
to place a meter box on the lighting system, stated
that because of vandalism, it is better to make the
lights free, with a timer on the system.
C/Schey suggested that the Commission consider, as
a future option, the system of issuing cards to
user groups to access the lights.
Programming/Special Events
The Commission concurred on the following: a nature
center; an anniversary celebration; the Oak as a
City Tree; at -risk youth intermural sports program;
City sponsored sports festival; adopt -a -park; and
Arbor Day programming.
C/Plunk suggested putting an insert, on the Oak as
the City Tree, into the document, for the purpose
of getting it on the agenda.
Chair/Whelan, in response to C/Plunk, stated that
Reservation signage is part of the Park Use Policy.
March 12, 1992 Page 6
Sub -committees
Chair/Whelan, in response to C/Plunk, stated that
the needs assessment is under the Parks Master
Plan.
VC/Ruzicka explained that he put down the sub-
committees that he thought were currently in
existence. Other sub -committees include: Adopt -A -
Park; Sports User Groups; Senior Citizens; Master
Plan; Recreation Program; and Conservancy.
Policy
The Commission concurred on the following: impact
fees; greenwaste; and conservation of open space.
C/Plunk inquired if the title, Mission Profile,
could be confused with the Mission Statement.
VC/Ruzicka explained that the Mission Profile is a
sketch of what the Commission is trying to address.
Each item to be addressed has a priorities list.
The Mission Statement, however, will include all of
these areas, and each item will be discussed in
depth.
C/Plunk suggested that, upon completion of each
item, it not only be discussed but also the
recommendation to Council and it's disposition
should be included.
Chair/Whelan suggested a JPA heading for the
purpose of discussing what JPA's are available, and
which JPA to look at. The JPA should still remain
in Capital Improvements.
ACM/Belanger indicated that staff will distribute
copies of the amended draft "White Paper" to the
Commission Tuesday of next week.
The Commission concurred to adjourn the meeting to
Thursday, March 19th at 6:30 p.m.
INFORMATION ITEMS:
Resource ACM/Belanger reported that the Resource Management
Management Element has been amended, per the recommendations
Element made by the Commission. There will be a series of
public hearings on the General Plan, at both the
Planning Commission and the City Council level, to
begin next month.
March 12, 1992
Page 7
Parks and ACM/Belanger reported that the Commission has
Recreation received a copy of the draft Parks and Recreation
Handbook Handbook, a memorandum written by the City
Attorney, in 1989, for the Commissions, and a copy
of the Resolution, recently adopted by the City
Council, for conducting their meetings. If the
Commission has any comments regarding the Handbook,
inform staff so that the revisions can be made.
County of LA
ACM/Belanger
reported that this item
is for the
Park & Rec.
Commission's
information regarding the
County of
Strategic Plan
Los Angeles'
plans on their Parks and
Recreation
For 2010
Programs.
League of Ca.
ACM/Belanger
stated that those Commissioners
Cities Community
interested in
attending the conference,
to be held
Serv. Conference
in San Diego,
should contact staff.
New County wide ACM/Belanger reported that there is a new County
Prog./Arts Org. wide grant program for art organizations.
STAFF COMMENTS: ACM/Belanger reported that the YMCA has requested
reservation of Sycamore Canyon Park for summer day
camp. It will be handled, in a similar manner,
like any other park reservation request. There
will be reservation signage indicating the group,
location, and the time period that the area is
reserved for.
RS/Rose informed the Commission of the continuing
success of the Recreation Program.
COMMISSION C/Schey stated that he is pleased to be part of the
COMMENTS: Parks and Recreation Commission. He volunteered to
be a member of the User Group sub -committee.
C/Plunk informed the Commission that Evan Ray
qualified for the Junior Olympics. She inquired
why the bathrooms at the parks are being locked
prior to 5:00 p.m.
VC/Ruzicka welcomed C/Medina and C/Schey to the
Commission.
C/Medina indicated that he would like the
Recreation Program to have more of an emphasis on
the children of the community. He suggested that
there be more tennis lessons geared to the
children.
March 12, 1992 Page 8
Chair/Whelan requested staff to develop a JPA with
the Maple Hills Club giving the City use of their
pool and Community Building.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:34 p.m. to Thursday,
March 19, 1992 at 6:30 p.m.
Respectively,
1s/ Terrence Belanger
Terrence Belanger
Secretary
Attest:
/s/ Pat Whelan
Pat Whelan
Chairman
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MARCH 19, 1992
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Whelan called the meeting to order at 6:00
p.m. at City Hall, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite
100, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Ruzicka.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Medina, Plunk, Vice Chairman
Ruzicka, and Chairman Whelan. Commissioner Schey
was absent.
Also present were Assistant City Manager Terrence
Belanger, Administrative Assistant Kellee Fritzal,
and Recreation Supervisor Bob Rose.
OLD BUSINESS:
Park and Chair/Whelan stated that the "White Paper" must be
Recreation finalized for the presentation to the City Council,
Issues: scheduled March 24, 1992.
The Commission reviewed and amended the draft
"White Paper".
ACM/Belanger indicated that staff will distribute
copies of the amended "White Paper" to the
Commission on Friday, March 20, 1992.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. to Tuesday,
March 24, 1992 at 6:00 p.m.
Respectively,
/s/ Terrence Belanger
Terrence Belanger
Secretary
Attest:
/s/ Pat Whelan
Pat Whelan
Chairman
X/60/CARL WARREN & CO.
Insurance Adjusters
Claims Administrators
P.O. Box 25180
Santa Ana, CA 92799-5180
(714) 740-7999 FAX: (714) 740-7992 _
Date: April 13, 1992
TO: City of Diamond Bar
Attention: Lynda Burges
Re: Claim: Tyree vs Diamond Bar
Claimant: Sherry Ann Tyree
D/Event: 10-26-91
Rec'd Y/Office: 4-04-92
Our File: S 71220 GEK
We have reviewed the above captioned claim and -request that you take
the action indicated below:
xCLAIM REJECTION: Send a standard rejection letter to the claimant.
Q CLAIM INSUFFICIENCY: In accordance with the telephone conversation
of , 19 , a notice of insufficiency must be mailed
to the claimant no later than 19•THIS MUST BE
MAILED TO THE CLAIMANT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORIGINAL
CLAIM IN YOUR OFFICE. DO NOT SUBMIT A "REJECTION" LETTER. See
Government Code Sections 910 and/or 910.2 and/or 910.4.
b AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM: Send a standard rejection letter to
the claimant, rejecting this additional/amended claim.
LATE CLAIM RESPONSE: Return the original claim material to the
clal.mant, advising that the claim is late and that their only
recourse is to file a written "Application for Leave to Present
a Late Claim". (Retain copies in your file.) THIS MUST BE MAILED
TO THE CLAIMANT WITHIN 45 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE CLAIM IN YOUR
OFFICE. DO NOT SEND A "REJECTION" LETTER. See Government Code
Section 911.4.
[] APPLICATION REJECTION: Reject claimant's "Application for Leave
to Present a Late Claim". See Government Code Section 911.8.
[) TAKE NO ACTION: Defer any written response to the claimant
pending our further advice.
Please provide us with a copy of the notice sent, as requested above.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
CARL WARREN & COMPANY
cc: S.C.J.P.I.A.
( djus
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10'
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LAW OFFICES OF
CHAMBERS, HOFFMAN & NORONHA
XEROX CENTRE
1851 EAST F1RST STREET. SUITE 1450
SANTA ANA CALHORNU 92705-4001
(7141558-1400
AHorney for Claimant
SHERRY ANN TYREE,
Claimant,
VS.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR,
Defendants.
ISPACE BELOW FOR�&VtSI ONLY)
^1 7) 1
CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
(Government Code Section 910)
TO: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that SHERRY ANN TYREE
whose address is 9945 Madronna, Fontana, California, claims
damages from the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR in the amount of 500,000.00
by means of the filing of this claim for damages.
This claim is based upon personal injuries sustained by the
Claimant on October 26, 1991, while involved in a two (2) vehicle
accident one-eighth (1/8) mile south of the intersection of Brea
Canyon Cut -Off (aka Diamond Bar Boulevard) and Pathfinder Road in
the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of
California, under the following circumstances:
1
1
At approximately 18:50, Claimant, SHERRY ANN TYREE was
traveling northbound on Brea Canyon Cut-off south of its
2
intersection with Pathfinder Road. At that moment in time, a
3
4
1988 Honda owned and operated by BRIAN ALLEN PARMELEE, was
traveling southbound on Brea Canyon Cut -Off. The operator of the
5
Honda, due to the aforementioned dangerous condition of public
6
property, lost control of his vehicle, crossing into the
7
northbound lane, violating Claimant's right of way and causing a
8
collision wherein Claimant's vehicle impacted head-on with the
9
Honda. The collision was caused by and/or contributed to by the
10
defective nature of the roadway.
11
At the present time, Claimant is informed and believes that
12
13
the Respondent, CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, owns, controls, and/or
zmaintains
the subject roadway where the collision occurred, at
s
14
the time of the accident.
15
Claimant is informed and believes that the defective nature
16
of the roadway, its design, and road surface caused and/or
V
17
contributed to, in some manner, the accident. The defective
18
19
nature of the roadway, its design and road surface, included, but
20
was not limited to, the following: The northbound and southbound
lanes of travel are constructed, maintained, engineered,
21
22
designed, covered, angled and banked so as to render it more
23
likely for vehicles traveling thereon to loose control in
24
inclement weather and leave their respective lanes of travel
25
resulting in traffic collisions. Further, Claimant is informed
26
and believes that said roadways are owned, controlled, and/or
27
maintained by the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, and/or that the CITY OF
28
DIAMOND BAR is otherwise responsible for said roadways.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
191
20
21
221
23
24
25
26
27
28
As a result of the carelessness and negligence of the CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR and/or its agents and/or employees and the
defective nature of the roadway, roadway design and road surface
as hereinabove described, Claimant suffered severe injuries to
her person, from the collision. Injuries sustained by Claimant,
as far as is known as of the date of presentation of this claim,
consist of severe orthopedic injuries to the neck, back, legs and
knees, resulting in internal derangement requiring major surgery
to the right knee, as well as other physical problems.
The amount claimed as of the date of presentation of this
claim is computed a follows:
Expenses for medical and hospital care In excess of
$5,000.00
Loss of earnings and/or capacity Unknown
Other special damages Unknown
General damages $495,000.00
Total amount claimed as of the date
of presentation of this claim $500,000.00
All notices or other communication with regard to this claim
should be sent to Claimant in care of Gary L. Chambers, Esq., Law
Offices of Chambers, Hoffman & Noronha, 1851 East First Street,
Suite 1450, Santa Ana, California 92705.
DATED: April 1, 1992
3
CHAMBERS, HOFFMAN�& NORONHA
By:
GAJ
tL.UCHAMBERS
Aney for Claimant
11
12
13
"
ob " s
14
E x"�
15
5O W �
16
17
18
191
20
21
221
23
24
25
26
27
28
As a result of the carelessness and negligence of the CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR and/or its agents and/or employees and the
defective nature of the roadway, roadway design and road surface
as hereinabove described, Claimant suffered severe injuries to
her person, from the collision. Injuries sustained by Claimant,
as far as is known as of the date of presentation of this claim,
consist of severe orthopedic injuries to the neck, back, legs and
knees, resulting in internal derangement requiring major surgery
to the right knee, as well as other physical problems.
The amount claimed as of the date of presentation of this
claim is computed a follows:
Expenses for medical and hospital care In excess of
$5,000.00
Loss of earnings and/or capacity Unknown
Other special damages Unknown
General damages $495,000.00
Total amount claimed as of the date
of presentation of this claim $500,000.00
All notices or other communication with regard to this claim
should be sent to Claimant in care of Gary L. Chambers, Esq., Law
Offices of Chambers, Hoffman & Noronha, 1851 East First Street,
Suite 1450, Santa Ana, California 92705.
DATED: April 1, 1992
3
CHAMBERS, HOFFMAN�& NORONHA
By:
GAJ
tL.UCHAMBERS
Aney for Claimant
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
I am employed in the County of Orange, State of
2 California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the
within entitled action; my business address is 1851 East First
3 Street, Suite 1450, Santa Ana, California 92705-4001.
4 On April 2, 1992, I served the foregoing document(s)
described as CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURIES; on the interested
5 parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof
enclosed, in (a) sealed envelope(s), addressed as follows:
6
City Clerk
7 City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive
8 Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
9
I am readily familiar with our office's practice for
10 collecting and processing of corespondence and other
materials for mailing with the United States Postal Service.
11 On this date, I sealed the envelope(s) containing the above
materials and placed the envelope(s) for collection and
12 mailing on this date at the address stated above, following
Z M our office's ordinary business practices. The envelopes)
013 will be deposited with the United States Postal Service on
zND this date, in the ordinary course of business.
0ZWz 14 I declare that the above service was made at the
U� ° direction of a member of the bar of this Court. I declare
5=aQ� 15 under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct
Ln U 16 and that this Proof of Service was executed on April 2, 1992,
at Santa Ana, California.
°L" 17
18
19 LA -CYAMfERS
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
`t e
ZZ-OW
CARL WARREN & CO. S ' 19
Insurance Adiusiers A , t'
Claims Administrators
P.C. Box 25180 !
I
Santa Ana, CA 92799-5180
(714) 740-7999 FAX, (714) 740-7992 f `
Date:-
TO:
ate TO: City of Diamond Bar -
Attention: Lynda Burges
Re: Claim: Tyree vs Diamond Bar
Claimant: Sherry Ann Tyree
D/Event: 10-26-91
Rec'd Y/Office: 4-04-92
Our File: S 71220 GEN
We have reviewed the above captioned claim and request that you take
the action indicated below:
)gf CLAIM REJECTION: Send a standard rejection letter to the claimant.
E:J CLAIM INSUFFICIENCY: In accordance with the telephone conversation
of , 19 , a notice of insufficiency must be mailed
to the claimant no later than , 19•THIS MUST BE
MAILED TO THE CLAIMANT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORIGINAL
CLAIM IN YOUR OFFICE. DO NOT SUBMIT A "REJECTION" LETTER. See
Government Code Sections 910 and/or 910.2 and/or -71-0.4.
b AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM: Send a standard rejection letter to
the claimant, rejecting this additional/amended claim.
LATE CLAIM RESPONSE: Return the original claim material to the
claimant, advising that the claim is late and that their only
recourse is to file a written "Application for Leave to Present
a Late Claim". (Retain copies in your file.) THIS MUST BE MAILED
TO THE CLAIMANT WITHIN 45 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE CLAIM IN YOUR
OFFICE. DO NOT SEND A "REJECTION" LETTER. See Government Code
Section 911.4.
[� APPLICATION REJECTION: Reject claimant's "Application for Leave
to Present a Late Claim". See Government Code Section 911.8.
C3 TAKE NO ACTION: Defer any written response to the claimant
pending our further advice.
Please provide us with a copy of the notice sent, as requested above.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
4CARLARREN & COMPAN4Y
cc: S.C.J.P.I.A. djus
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.�
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992 REPORT DATE: April 28, 1992
FROM: David G. Liu, Associate Engineer
TITLE: Landscaping Assessment District Number 38
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the City Council's direction of April 7, 1992, staff has prepared the Engineer's
Report(s) for District Number 38 for the 1992-93 Fiscal Year. Said report(s) have been prepared pursuant to
the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and
Highway Code of the State of California.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's Report, adopt the
attached Resolution to declare the City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District Number 38 and
direct the City Clerk to advertise the public hearing before the Council at the regular meeting of May 19, 1992.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
X Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
_ Ordinances(s) X Other: Engineer's ftQrt(s)
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
Robert L. Van, Nort Terrence L. Belanger David G. Liu
City Manager Assistant City Manager Associate Engineer
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Landscaping Assessment District Number 38
ISSUE STATEMENT
Pursuant to the City Council's direction of April 7, 1992, staff
has prepared the Engineer's Report(s) for District Number 38 for
the 1992-93 Fiscal Year. Copies of these report(s) are attached
for your review.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's
Report; adopt the attached Resolution to declare City's intention
to levy and collect assessments for District Number 38; and direct
the City Clerk to advertise the public hearing before the Council
on the question of the levy of the proposed assessments on
assessable lots within District Number 38.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
The revenues generated by the District are proposed to pay for it.
There will be no impact on the City's General Funds.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The attached Engineer's Report(s) for the City's Landscaping
Assessment District Number 38, which is prepared pursuant to
provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of
Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of
California, includes authority for the report, plan and
specifications, estimated costs of improvements, a diagram for the
District and the assessments.
The estimated number of parcels within the existing District is
16,000 parcels and 1,100 parcels within the annexed area are
proposed to be incorporated into District Number 38.
The amount assessed upon the lands within District Number 38 for
Fiscal Year 1991-92 was $15.00 per parcel. The amount estimated to
be assessed for Fiscal Year 1992-93 is to remain at $15.00 per
parcel. The assessment reflects the proposed median island
improvements on Colima Road between Gona Court and Lemon Avenue
within the annexed area. However, if annexation cannot be
realized, the $15.00 per parcel assessment reflects the proposed
sidewalk improvements on Diamond Bar Boulevard from Golden Springs
Drive to Gold Rush Drive.
Prepared By:
David G. Liu
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE
CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38; AND DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING
MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93; AND FIXING
A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OF OBJECTIONS HEREON.
A. RECITALS.
(i) Heretofore, City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment
District No. 38 was created pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the California
Streets and Highway Code (§§ 22500, et. seq).
(ii) The City Engineer has prepared, filed with the City Clerk and
presented to this Council a report relating to said assessment district pursuant
to the provisions of the California Streets and Highways Code § 22623.
(iii) New improvements include landscaping and construction of the
median islands on Colima Road from Gona Court to Lemon Avenue in the annexed
area, but not other substantial changes in existing improvements are proposed for
said Landscaping Assessment District No. 38.
(iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does
hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:
1. In all respects as set fourth in the Recitals, Part A, of this
Resolution.
38(A) LEVY 4/30
2. The above-described report submitted by the City Engineer
relating to City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 is hereby
approved as filed.
3. This Council hereby declares its intention to levy and collect
assessments during fiscal year 1992-93 pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the
Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, known as the "Landscaping
and Lighting Act of 1972," on that area designated "City of Diamond Bar
Landscaping Assessment District No. 38," as shown on Exhibit "A-1" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
4. A general description of the improvements proposed for the
aforementioned district is as follows:
(a) Capital construction includes landscaping and
construction of the median islands on Colima Road from Gona Court to Lemon
Avenue.
(b) The maintenance and possible future replacement of
landscaping and any facilities which are appurtenant thereto or which are
necessary or convenient for the maintenance and servicing thereof, including
grading, clearing, removal of debris, pruning, fertilization, pest control, weed
control, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters walls, sidewalks or
paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities. Said
maintenance, servicing, landscaping and related work shall be within the area of
Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 as shown on Exhibit "A-1".
5. Reference is hereby made to the report of the City Engineer
relating to the said assessment district hereinabove approved. Said report is
on file with the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar and contains a full and
38(A) LEVY 4/30
1992 - 93
ENGINEER`S REPORT
for the City of Diamond Bar
Landscaping Assessment District No. 38
Prepared By:
ASL Consultants, Inc.
55 E. Huntington Drive, Suite 200
Arcadia, California 91006
38 (A) LEVY 4/30
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR REPORT
This report is prepared under the authority and
direction of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar pursuant to their
Resolution No. and in compliance with the requirements of Article 4,
Chapter 1, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
SECTION 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The plans and specifications for the improvements
within the district are on file in the City Hall of the City of Diamond Bar
and are available for public inspection. Reference is hereby made to said
plans and specification for the exact location and nature of the improvements
and is hereby made a part of this report.
SECTION 3. ESTIMATE OF COSTS OF IMPROVEMENTS
The total estimated costs for the maintenance of
improvements within the district are as follows:
Approp. Fund Balance
Prop. Tax & Assessments
Interest Revenue
TOTAL
APPROPRIATIONS:
Personal Services
Operating Expenses
Professional Services
Contract Services
Transfer out-CIP
Reserves
TOTAL
1991-92 1992-93
Adjusted Budget Adopted Budget
(47,439) 30,000
241,590 256,500
5194,151 5286,500
33,800
35,500
49,300
69,000
6,250
9,000
63,920
131,500
39,881
1,000
5194,151
$286,500
Note Capital Projects Include:
Colima Medians from Gona Court to Lemon Avenue
38 (A) LEVY 4/30
$131,500
SECTION 4. DIAGRAM FOR DISTRICT
Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 is a city wide
district and consists of all assessable parcels located within the boundaries
shown on the Assessment Diagram labeled "Exhibit A-1" attached hereto.
SECTION 5. ASSESSMENT
The landscape and open space improvements have been
established and are maintained for the safety and enjoyment of all the
properties within the assessment district boundaries, and all parcels within
the district benefit from the improvements.
The amount estimated to be assessed upon the lands
within the district and the amount apportioned to each assessable parcel
within the district is shown in the table below.
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Assessment
No of
Assessment
Requirements
Parcels
Per Parcel
$256,000
17,100
$15.00
1991-92
1992-93
Assessment
Assessment
Per Parcel
Per Parcel
Difference
$15.00
$15.00
($.00)
Respectfully submitte ,
Ernest Hami o
Assessmen Engineer
rpt38-1.1ss
38 (A) LEVY 4/30
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE
CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38; AND DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING
MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93; AND FIXING
A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OF OBJECTIONS HEREON.
A. RECITALS.
(i) Heretofore, City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment
District No. 38 was created pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the California
Streets and Highway Code (§§ 22500, et. seq).
(ii) The City Engineer has prepared, filed with the City Clerk and
presented to this Council a report relating to said assessment district pursuant
to the provisions of the California Streets and Highways Code § 22623.
(iii) New improvements include Diamond Bar Boulevard sidewalk
improvements from Golden Springs Drive to Gold Rush Drive, but no new
improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements are proposed for
said Landscaping Assessment District No. 38.
(iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does
hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:
1. In all respects as set fourth in the Recitals, Part A, of this
Resolution.
38 LEVY 4130
2. The above-described report submitted by the City Engineer
relating to City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 is hereby
approved as filed.
3. This Council hereby declares its intention to levy and collect
assessments during fiscal year 1992-93 pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the
Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, known as the "Landscaping
and Lighting Act of 1972," on that area designated "City of Diamond Bar
Landscaping Assessment District No. 38," as shown on Exhibit "A-1" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
4. A general description of the improvements proposed for the
aforementioned district is as follows:
(a) Capital construction includes improvement of Diamond Bar
Boulevard sidewalks from Golden Springs Drive to Gold Rush Drive.
(b) The maintenance and possible future replacement of
landscaping and any facilities which are appurtenant thereto or which are
necessary or convenient for the maintenance and servicing thereof, including
grading, clearing, removal of debris, pruning, fertilization, pest control, weed
control, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters walls, sidewalks or
paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities. Said
maintenance, servicing, landscaping and related work shall be within the area of
Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 as shown on Exhibit "A-1".
5. Reference is hereby made to the report of the City Engineer
relating to the said assessment district hereinabove approved. Said report is
on file with the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar and contains a full and
detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the assessment
38 LEVY 4/30
district and contains the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels
of land within City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 for
fiscal year 1992-93. Said proposed assessment per lot is the amount of $15.00.
6. This council hereby fixes 7:00 p.m. on May 19, 1992 in the
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, California, as the time and place for a hearing before this council on this
question of the levy of the proposed assessments on assessable lots within City
of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 for fiscal year 1992-93 and
hereby gives notice of said hearing.
7. The City Clerk shall:
a. Certify to the adoption of this resolution; and
b. Cause a true and correct copy of this Resolution to be
published pursuant to California Government Code § 6066.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of , 1992.
Mayor
38 LEVY 4/30
I, LYNDA BURGESS, the City Clerk 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
, 1992 by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
1905.002\misc09.lss
38 LEVY 4/30
1992 - 93
ENGINEER'S REPORT
for the City of Diamond Bar
Landscaping Assessment District No. 38
Prepared By:
ASL Consultants, Inc.
55 E. Huntington Drive, Suite 200
Arcadia, California 91006
38 LEVY
SECTION 4. DIAGRAM FOR DISTRICT
Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 is a city wide
district and consists of all assessable parcels located within the boundaries
shown on the Assessment Diagram labeled "Exhibit A-1" attached hereto.
SECTION 5. ASSESSMENT
The landscape and open space improvements have been
established and are maintained for the safety and enjoyment of all the
properties within the assessment district boundaries, and all parcels within
the district benefit from the improvements.
The amount estimated to be assessed upon the lands
within the district and the amount apportioned to each assessable parcel
within the district is shown in the table below.
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Assessment
No of
Assessment
Requirements
Parcels
Per Parcel
$240,000
16,000
$15.00
1991-92
1992-93
Assessment
Assessment
Per Parcel
Per Parcel
Difference
$15.00
$15.00
($0.00)
Respectfully submitted,
2est4Ham* on
Assessment Engineer
rpt38.lss
38 LEVY
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.. 7. /
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992 REPORT DATE: April 28, 1992
FROM: David G. Liu, Associate Engineer
TITLE: Landscaping Assessment District Number 38 Annexation
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the City Council's direction of March 3, 1992, staff has prepared the Engineer's
Report which includes a portion of the City that was not contained in the original citywide District Number 38.
This District was established to benefit all property owners within the City. Each parcel within the City equally
receives general benefits from the increase in the community standards and associated property value. The
report has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of
Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's Report; adopt the
attached Resolution to declare City's intention to annex a portion of the City into District Number 38 and
direct the City Clerk to advertise the public hearing before the Council at the regular meeting of May 19, 1992.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report
X Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
X Other: Engineer's Rept
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
X Yes No
by the City Attorney?
_
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
_ Yes X No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
_ Yes X No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
_ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REV D BY:
Robert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger
avid G. iu
City Manager Assistant City Manag
Associate Engineer
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Landscaping Assessment District Number 38 Annexation
ISSUE STATEMENT
Pursuant to the City Council's direction of March 3, 1992, staff
has prepared the Engineer's Report for District Number 38 which
includes a portion of the City that was not contained in the
original citywide district.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's
Report; adopt the attached Resolution to declare City's intention
to annex a portion of the City into District Number 38 and direct
the City Clerk to advertise the public hearing before the Council
on the question of the levy of the proposed assessments on asses-
sable lots within District Number 38.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
The revenues generated by the District are proposed to pay for it.
There will be no impact on the City's General Funds.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The attached Engineer's Report for the annexation of a portion of
the City into District Number 38 has been prepared pursuant to
provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of
Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of
California. The report includes the authority for the report,
plans and specifications, estimated costs of improvements, a
diagram for the District, and the assessments.
Page Two
District Number 38 Annexation
May 5, 1992
Prior to the incorporation of the City of Diamond Bar, Landscaping
Assessment District Number 38 was formed to include all properties
located within the City. District Number 38 was intended to be a
citywide district consisting of all assessable parcels. The lands
to be annexed are shown on the attached Engineer's Report. The
annexation will enable the City to provide funds for construction
and maintenance of landscaped areas and median islands throughout
the City. Specifically, median islands on Colima Road from Gona
Court to Lemon Avenue are proposed to be constructed during Fiscal
Year 1992-93.
The estimated number of parcels within the existing District is
16,000 parcels and 1,100 parcels within the annexed area are
proposed to be incorporated into District Number 38.
The amount assessed upon the lands within District Number 38 for
Fiscal Year 1991-92 was $15.00 per parcel. The amount estimated to
be assessed for Fiscal Year 1992-93 is to remain at $15.00 per
parcel. The assessment reflects the proposed median island
improvements on Colima Road between Gona Court and Lemon Avenue.
Prepared By:
David G. Liu
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE
CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE ANNEXATION
OF CERTAIN LANDS INTO THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 38; DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ANNEX SAID LANDS INTO
SAID DISTRICT; AND FIXING A TINE AND PLACE FOR HEARING OF OBJECTIONS
HEREON.
A. RECITALS.
(i) Heretofore, City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment
District No. 38 was created pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the California
Streets and Highway Code (§§ 22500, et. seq).
(ii) The City Engineer has prepared, filed with the City Clerk and
presented to this Council a report relating to the annexation of certain lands
into said assessment district pursuant to the provisions of the California
Streets and Highways Code § 22623.
(iii) New improvements include landscaping and construction of the
median islands on Colima Road from Gona Court to Lemon Avenue in the annexed
area, but no other substantial changes in existing improvements are proposed for
said Landscaping Assessment District No. 38.
(iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does
hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:
38 Annex 4/30
1. In all respects as set fourth in the Recitals, Part A, of this
Resolution.
2. The above-described report submitted by the City Engineer
relating to the annexation of certain lands into the City of Diamond Bar
Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 is hereby approved as filed.
3. This Council hereby declares its intention to annex certain
lands, pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California, known as the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972," into
that area designated "City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No.
38," as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
4. This Council hereby declares its intention to levy and collect
assessments during fiscal year 1992-93 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting
Act of 1972, on that area designated "City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment
District No. 38," as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference.
5. A general description of the improvements proposed for the
aforementioned district is as follows:
(a) Capital construction includes landscaping and
construction of the median islands on Colima Road from Gona Court to Lemon
Avenue.
(b) The maintenance and possible future replacement of
landscaping and any facilities which are appurtenant thereto or which are
necessary or convenient for the maintenance and servicing thereof, including
grading, clearing, removal of debris, pruning, fertilization, pest control, weed
38 Annex 4/30
control, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters walls, sidewalks or
paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities. Said
maintenance, servicing, landscaping and related work shall be within the area of
Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 as shown on Exhibit "A".
6. Reference is hereby made to the report of the City Engineer
relating to the said assessment district hereinabove approved. Said report is
on file with the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar and contains a full and
detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the assessment
district and contains the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels
of land within City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 for
fiscal year 1992-93. Said proposed assessment per lot is the amount of $15.00.
7. This council hereby fixes 7:00 p.m. on May 19, 1992 in
the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California, as the time and place for a hearing before this council
on this question of the levy of the proposed assessments on assessable lots
within City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 for fiscal year
1992-93 and hereby gives notice of said hearing.
8. The City Clerk shall:
a. Certify to the adoption of this resolution; and
b. Cause a true and correct copy of this Resolution to be
published pursuant to California Government Code § 6066.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of , 1992.
Mayor
38 Annex 4/30
I, LYNDA BURGESS, the City Clerk 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
, 1992 by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
1905.002\misc05.1ss
38 Annex 4/30
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
ENGINEER'S REPORT
for the Annexation of Lands
into the City of Diamond Bar
Landscaping Assessment District No. 38
March 20, 1992
Prepared By:
ASL Consultants, Inc.
55 E. Huntington Drive, Suite 200
Arcadia, California 91006
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR REPORT
This report is prepared under the authority and
direction of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar pursuant to their
Resolution No. and in compliance with the requirements of Article 4,
Chapter 1, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
SECTION 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The plans and specifications for the improvements
Within the district are on file in the City Hall of the City of Diamond Bar
and are available for public inspection. Reference is hereby made to said
plans and specification for the exact location and nature of the improvements
and is hereby made a part of this report.
SECTION 3. ESTIMATE OF COSTS OF IMPROVEMENTS
The total estimated costs for the maintenance of
improvements within the district are as follows:
Approp. Fund Balance
Prop. Tax & Assessments
Interest Revenue
TOTAL
APPROPRIATIONS:
Personal Services
Operating Expenses
Professional Services
Contract Services
CIP Project
Reserves
TOTAL
1991-92 1992-93
Adiusted Budget Adopted Budget
(47,439) 30,000
241,590 256,500
1194,151 5286,500
33,800
35,500
49,300
69,000
6,250
9,000
63,920
41,500
39,881
131,500
1,000
$194,151 5286,500
Note Capital Projects Include:
Colima Medians from Gone Court to Leman Avenue $131,500
SECTION 4. DIAGRAM FOR DISTRICT
prior to the incorporation sofpithe ACitys of tDiiam ndcBa'ro�to 8include was forme
properties located within the community of Diamond Bar. The area to be
annexed was included within the Corporate Limits of the City of Diamond Bar
during the incorporation process.
Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 was intended
to be a city wide district consisting of all assessable parcels located
within the Corporate Limits of the City of Diamond Bar. The lands to be
annexed consist of all assessable parcels located within the boundaries shown
on the Assessment Diagram labeled "Exhibit A" attached hereto.
SECTION 5. ASSESSMENT
The landscape and open space improvements have been
established and are maintained for the safety and enjoyment of all the
properties within the City of Diamond Bar, and all parcels within the
district benefit from the improvements.
The estimated number of parcels within the district
include 16,000 parcels located within the existing district and 1,100 parcels
located within the area to be annexed.
The amount estimated to be assessed upon the lands
within the district and the amount apportioned to each assessable parcel
within the district is shown in the table below.
Estimated Estimated Estimated
Assessment No of Assessment
Requirements Parcels Per Parcel
$256,500 17,100 $15.00
1991-92 1992-93
Assessment Assessment
Per Parcel Per Parcel Difference
$15.00 $15.00 $0.00
Respectfully submitted,
7 '
Ernest F'i1ton
JAm
Assessment Engineer
rpt38a.lss 4/30
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. - ,1
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992 REPORT DATE: April 28, 1992
FROM: David G. Liu, Associate Engineer
TITLE: Landscaping Assessment District Number 39
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the City Council's direction of April 7, 1992, staff has prepared the Engineer's
Report for District Number 39 for the 1992-93 Fiscal Year. Said report has been prepared pursuant to the
provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highway
Code of the State of California.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's Report, adopt the
attached Resolution to declare the City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District Number 39 and
direct the City Clerk to advertise the public hearing before the Council at the regular meeting of May 19, 1992.
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)
X Other: Engineer's Rert
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? — Yes X No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
z
ED BY. %
Gelid ��.
Robert L. Van Nort
City Manager
Terrence L. Belanger
Assistant City Manage
David G. Liu —
Associate Engineer
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Landscaping Assessment District Number 39
ISSUE STATEMENT
Pursuant to the City Council's direction of April 7, 1992, staff
has prepared the Engineer's Report for District Number 39 for the
1992-93 Fiscal Year. A copy of this report
review. is attached for your
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's
Report; adopt the attached Resolution to declare City's intention
to levy and collect assessments for District Number 39; and direct
the City Clerk to advertise the public hearing before the Council
on the question of the levy of the proposed assessments on
assessable lots within District Number 39.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
The revenues generated by the District are proposed to pay for it.
There will be no impact on the City's General Funds.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The attached Engineer's Report for the City's Landscaping
Assessment District Number 39, which is prepared pursuant to
Provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of
Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of
California, includes authority for the report, plan and
specifications, estimated costs of improvements, a diagram for the
District and the assessments.
The estimated number of parcels within the existing District is
1,250 parcels. The amount assessed upon the lands within District
Number 39 for Fiscal Year 1991-92 was $77.00 per parcel. The
amount estimated to be assessed for Fiscal Year 1992-93 is $73.50
per parcel. This reflects aproximately a 5% reduction in the
assessment amount per parcel for Fiscal Year 1992-93. Also, it
reflects the installation of a tot -lot located in the mini park at
Summitridge Drive and Softwind Drive, and landscape and irrigation
improvements at various locations.
Prepared By:
David G. Liu
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623
OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39; AND
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR
CERTAIN LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1992-93; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OF
OBJECTIONS HEREON.
A. RECITALS.
(i) Heretofore, City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment
District No. 39 was created pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the
California Streets and Highway Code (§§ 22500, et. seq).
(ii) The City Engineer has prepared, filed with the City Clerk
and presented to this Council a report relating to said assessment district
pursuant to the provisions of the California Streets and Highways Code §
22623.
(iii) New improvements include development of a TOT lot at mini
Park located at Summitridge Drive and Softwind Drive and landscape/irrigation
improvements at various locations with no substantial changes in existing
landscaping in said Landscaping Assessment District No. 39.
(iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this,Resolution
have occurred.
39 Levy 4/30
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does
hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:
1. In all respects as set fourth in the Recitals, Part A, of
this Resolution.
2. The above-described report submitted by the City Engineer
relating to City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 39 is
hereby approved as filed.
3. This Council hereby declares its intention to levy and
collect assessments during fiscal year 1992-93 pursuant to Part 2 of Division
15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, known as the
"Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972," on that area designated "City of
Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 39," as shown on Exhibit "A-2"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
4. A general description of the improvements proposed for the
aforementioned district is as follows:
(a) Development of a TOT lot at mini park located at
Summitridge Drive and Softwind Drive and landscaping/irrigation improvements
at various locations.
(b) The maintenance and possible future replacement of
landscaping and any facilities which are appurtenant thereto or which are
necessary or convenient for the maintenance and servicing thereof, including
grading, clearing, removal of debris, pruning, fertilization, pest control,
weed control, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters walls,
sidewalks or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities.
39 levy 4/30
I, LYNDA BURGESS, the City Clerk 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
, 1992 by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
misc07.lss
39 Levy 4/30
1992 - 93
ENGINEER'S REPORT
for the City of Diamond Bar
Landscaping Assessment District No. 39
Prepared By:
ASL Consultants, Inc.
55 E. Huntington Drive, Suite 200
Arcadia, California 91006
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR REPORT
This report is prepared under the authority and
direction of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar pursuant to their
Resolution No. and in compliance with the requirements of Article 4,
Chapter 1, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
SECTION 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The plans and specifications for the improvements
within the district are on file in the City Hall of the City of Diamond Bar
and are available for public inspection. Reference is hereby made to said
plans and specification for the exact location and nature of the improvements
and is hereby made a part of this report.
SECTION 3. ESTIMATE OF COSTS OF IMPROVEMENTS
The total estimated costs for the maintenance of
improvements within the district are as follows:
Approp. Fund Balance
Prop. Tax & Assessments
Interest Revenue
TOTAL
APPROPRIATIONS:
Personal Services
Operating Expenses
Grounds & Building Maint.
Professional Services
Contract Services
Capital Improvements
Transfer out - CIP
Insurance
Reserves
TOTAL
1991-92 1992-93
Adiusted Budget Adopted Budget
175,513 134,119
98,306 91,781
$273,819 !225,900
33,200
31,500
43,200
53,200
2,800
0
2,500
2,500
84,800
75,000
17,000
57,500
50,000
0
6,200
6,200
34,119
0
$273,819 $225,900
* Note Capital Projects Include:
Development of TOT lot at mini park located at Sumnitridge Drive and Softwind Drive (40,000)
Landscaping and irrigation improvements at various locations (17,500).
SECTION 4. DIAGRAM FOR DISTRICT
Landscaping Assessment District No. 39 consists of
all assessable parcels located within the boundaries shown on the Assessment
Diagram labeled "Exhibit A-2" attached hereto.
SECTION 5. ASSESSMENT
The landscape and open space improvements have been
established and are maintained for the safety- and enjoyment of all the
properties within the assessment district boundaries, and all parcels within
the district benefit from the improvements.
The amount estimated to be assessed upon the lands
within the district and the amount apportioned- to each assessable parcel
within the district is shown in the table below.
Estimated Estimated Estimated
Assessment No of Assessment
Requirements Parcels Per Parcel
$91,781 1,250 $73.50
1991-92 1992-93
Assessment Assessment
Per Parcel Per Parcel Difference
$77.00 $73.50 $(-3.50)
Respectfully s mitted
Ernest Ha ' ton
Assessment Engineer
CITY Or DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992 REPORT DATE: April 28, 1992
FROM: David G. Liu, Associate Engineer
TITLE: Landscaping Assessment District Number 41
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the City Council's direction of April 7, 1992, staff has prepared the Engineer's
Report for District Number 41 for the 1992-93 Fiscal Year. Said report has been prepared pursuant to the
provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highway
Code of the State of California.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's Report, adopt the
attached Resolution to declare the City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District Number 41 and
direct the City Clerk to advertise the public hearing before the Council at the regular meeting of May 19, 1992.
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)
X Other: Engineer's Rert
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4l5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager
Terrence L. Belanger
Assistant City Manager
9 0 15-0-
/ I
1.41
Associate Engineer
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Landscaping Assessment District Number 41
ISSUE STATEMENT
Pursuant to the City Council's direction of April 7, 1992, staff
has prepared the Engineer's Report for District Number 41 for the
1992-93 Fiscal Year. A copy of this report is attached for your
review.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's
Report; adopt the attached Resolution to declare City's intention
to levy and collect assessments for District Number 41; and direct
the City Clerk to advertise the public hearing before the Council
on the question of the levy of the proposed assessments on
assessable lots within District Number 41.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
The revenues generated by the District are proposed to pay for it.
There will be no impact on the City's General Funds.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The attached Engineer's Report for the City's Landscaping
Assessment District Number 41, which is prepared pursuant to
provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of
Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of
California, includes authority for the report, plan and
specifications, estimated costs of improvements, a diagram for the
District and the assessments.
The estimated number of parcels within the existing District is 550
parcels. The amount assessed upon the lands within District Number
41 for Fiscal Year 1991-92 was $228.00 per parcel. The amount
estimated to be assessed for Fiscal Year 1992-93 is $220.50 per
parcel. This reflects approximately a 4% reduction in the
assessment amount per parcel for Fiscal Year 1992-93. Also, it
reflects the landscape and irrigation improvements at various
locations within the District.
Prepared By:
David G. Liu
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623
OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41; AND
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR
CERTAIN LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1992-93; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OF
OBJECTIONS HEREON.
A. RECITALS.
(i) Heretofore, City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment
District No. 41 was created pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the
California Streets and Highway Code (§§ 22500, et. seq).
(ii) The City Engineer has prepared, filed with the City Clerk
and presented to this Council a report relating to said assessment district
pursuant to the provisions of the California Streets and Highways Code §
22623.
(iii) New improvements include addtional landscaping and
irrigation at various locations with no substantial changes in existing
landscaping within said Landscaping of Assessment District No. 41.
(iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution
have occured.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does
hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:
41 Levy 4/30
1. In all respects as set fourth in the Recitals, Part A, of
this Resolution.
2. The above-described report submitted by the City Engineer
relating to City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 41 is
hereby approved as filed.
3. This Council hereby declares its intention to levy and
collect assessments during fiscal year 1992-93 pursuant to Part 2 of Division
15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, known as the
"Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972," on that area designated "City of
Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 41," as shown on Exhibit "A-3"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
4. A general description of the improvements proposed for the
aforementioned district is as follows:
(a) New improvements include additional landscaping and
irrigation at various locations.
(b) The maintenance and possible future replacement of
landscaping and any facilities which are appurtenant thereto or which are
necessary or convenient for the maintenance and servicing thereof, including
grading, clearing, removal of debris, pruning, fertilization, pest control,
weed control, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters walls,
sidewalks or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities.
Said maintenance, servicing, landscaping and related work shall be within the
area of Landscaping Assessment District No. 41 as shown on Exhibit "A-3".
5. Reference is hereby made to the report of the City Engineer
relating to the said assessment district hereinabove approved. Said report
41 Levy 4/30
is on file with the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar and contains a full
and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the assessment
district and contains the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and
parcels of land within City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No.
41 for fiscal year 1992-93. Said proposed assessment per lot is the amount
of $220.50
6. This council hereby fixes 7:00 p.m. on May 19, 1992 in
the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar,This council hereby fixes 7:00 p.m. on Diamond Bar, California,
as the time and place for a hearing before this council on this question of
the levy of the proposed assessments on assessable lots within City of Diamond
Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 41 for fiscal year 1992-93 and hereby
gives notice of said hearing.
7. The City Clerk shall:
a. Certify to the adoption of this resolution; and
b. Cause a true and correct copy of this Resolution to
be published pursuant to California Government Code § 6066.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of , 1992.
Mayor
41 levy 4/30
I, LYNDA BURGESS, the City Clerk 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
, 1992 by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
MISC088.LSS
41 Levy 4/30
1992 - 93
ENGINEER'S REPORT
for the City of Diamond Bar
Landscaping Assessment District No. 41
Prepared By:
ASL Consultants, Inc.
55 E. Huntington Drive, Suite 200
Arcadia, California 91006
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR REPORT
This report is prepared under the authority and
direction of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar pursuant to their
Resolution No. and in compliance with the requirements of Article 4,
Chapter 1, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
SECTION 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The plans and specifications for the improvements
within the district are on file in the City Hall of the City of Diamond Bar
and are available for public inspection. Reference is hereby made to said
plans and specification for the exact location and nature of the improvements
and is hereby made a part of this report.
SECTION 3. ESTIMATE OF COSTS OF IMPROVEMENTS
The total estimated costs for the maintenance of
improvements within the district are as follows:
REVENUE:
Approp. Fund Balance
Prop. Tax & Assessments
Interest Revenue
TOTAL
APPROPRIATIONS:
Personal Services
Operating Expenses
Grounds & Building Maint.
Professional Services
Contract Services
Capital Improvements
Reserves
TOTAL
• Note Capital Projects Include:
1991-92 1992-93
Adjusted Budget Adopted Budget
71,178 44,546
126,768 121,154
$197,946 $165,700
32,400
25,800
49,000
53,000
2,800
0
1,900
1,900
63,800
60,000
3,500
25,000
44,546
0
$197,946 $165,700
Landscape and irrigation improvements at various locations (25,000).
SECTION 4. DIAGRAM FOR DISTRICT
Landscaping Assessment District No. 41 consists of
all assessable parcels located within the boundaries shown on the Assessment
Diagram labeled "Exhibit A-3" attached hereto.
SECTION 5. ASSESSMENT
The landscape and open space improvements have been
established and are maintained for the safety and enjoyment of all the
properties within the assessment district boundaries, and all parcels within
the district benefit from the improvements.
The amount estimated to be assessed upon the lands
within the district and the amount apportioned to each assessable parcel
within the district is shown in the table below.
Estimated Estimated Estimated
Assessment No of Assessment
Requirements Parcels Per Parcel
$121,154 550 $220.50
1991-92 1992-93
Assessment Assessment
Per Parcel Per Parcel Difference
$228.00 $220.50 $(-7.50)
R pectfully subm't ed,
Ernest Ham' on
Assessmen Engineer
rpt4l.lss
CITY Or 1:)1AN10241>DA n
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. S, I
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992 REPORT DATE: April 28, 1992
FROM: Charles Janiel, Director of Parks and Maintenance
TITLE: Award of contract for Citywide Street Tree Service.
SUMMARY: On April 7, 1992 the City Council authorized staff to solicit bids for Citywide Street Tree
Service. Staff advertised for bids and received bids from three qualified contractors. Bids were opened and
publicly read on April 27, 1992.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council award the contract for Citywide Street Tree
Service to West Coast Arborist, the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $36,590.00.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
Ordinances(s)
X Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
Other:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed 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? N/A _ Yes _ No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? N/A _ Yes _ No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
1..1Ly 1viLail Lr'Gl
llaalO Q11L %—LLy 1V1Q11Q6L/1
Charles
of Parks & Maintenance
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Citywide Tree Service Contract
ISSUE STATEMENT
On April 7th, 1992 the Diamond Bar City Council authorized staff to
solicit bids for Citywide Street Tree Maintenance Services. Staff
advertised for bids and received bids from three qualified
contractors.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Diamond Bar City Council award the
contract for Citywide Tree Maintenance Services to West Coast
Arborist, the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of
$36,590.00.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
In Fiscal Year 1990-91 the City Council budgeted $100,000 for Tree
Maintenance. Approximately $50,000 of this has been expended thus
far. The amount of this contract is $36,590.00.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City desires to provide the highest level of service in the
most cost efficient method to the residents of Diamond Bar. To
this end, staff had prepared plans and specifications for tree
maintenance services, to include trimming, removals and stump
grinding. The specifications call for trimming of 633 trees
initially and for additional trimming or removals as needed
throughout the year. The additional trees will be trimmed in
accordance with the price schedule submitted by the bidder.
On April 7th, 1992 the City Council authorized staff to solicit
bids for Citywide Street Tree Maintenance Services. The City
received bids from three qualified bidders and opened those bids on
April 27, 1992. The bid amounts are as follows:
1. West Coast Arborists $36,590.00
2. Golden Bear Arborists, Inc. $39,219.00
3. Arbor Care, Inc. $49,159.00
After analysis of the bids, and a check of references, it is
recommended that the contract be awarded to West Coast Arborist.
Prepared By:
Charles Janiel
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992
FROM: David G. Liu, Associate Engineer
TITLE: Brea Canyon Road No Parking Zone
AGENDA NO. S l f
REPORT DATE: April 27, 1992
SUMMARY: The Department of Public Works has received a request from Caltrans to create a no parking
zone on the easterly side of Brea Canyon Road from Colima Road/Golden Springs Drive to 310 feet north of
westbound Route 60 off -ramp. The request is a result of the purposed improvements for the westbound
Pomona Freeway ramps at Brea Canyon Road. Caltrans and the City executed a cooperative agreement on
September 3, 1991 to improve and upgrade the aforementioned ramps.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution to install "No
Parking Any Time" signs along the easterly side of Brea Canyon Road from Colima Road/Golden Springs
Drive to 310 feet north of westbound Route 60 off -ramp.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
X Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
_ Ordinances(s) X Other: Location Map
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
T
4m,
2=
Robert L. Van Nort Terrence L. Belanger David G. Liu
City Manager Assistant City Manager Associate Engineer
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: NO PARKING ON EASTERLY SIDE OF BREA CANYON ROAD FROM
COLIMA ROAD/GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE TO 310 FEET NORTH
OF WESTBOUND ROUTE 60 OFF -RAMP.
ISSUE STATEMENT
The Department of Public Works has received a request from Caltrans
to create a no parking zone along the easterly side of Brea Canyon
Road.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
Resolution to install "No Parking Any Time" signs along the
easterly side of Brea Canyon Road from Colima Road/Golden Springs
Drive to 310 feet north of westbound Route 60 off -ramp.
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/DISCUSSION
On September 3, 1991, Caltrans and the City of Diamond Bar executed
a cooperative agreement to improve and upgrade the westbound Pomona
Freeway ramps at Brea Canyon Road. This project consists of
restriping northbound Brea Canyon Road to provide for a double
left -turn pocket, adding protected left -turn phase, and modifying
the existing on-ramp.
As a result of these proposed improvements, the existing shoulder
width on northbound Brea Canyon Road will no longer be adequate for
parking. No parking zone will be necessary on easterly side of
Brea Canyon Road from Colima Road/Golden Springs Drive to 310 feet
north of westbound Route 60 off -ramp. A copy of the location map
is attached herewith for your use.
Caltrans is currently preparing the plans and specifications. It
is anticipated that the design will be completed by August of 1992
and construction should commence after the first of the year.
Prepared By:
David G. Liu
i
CL
i SfX� 1 - Z 1. -yam yJn 1
4�;`p
1f
�Yr
i
CL
i SfX� 1 - Z 1. -yam yJn 1
4�;`p
79 ly :.• ..,
��U
14,,,.,1..1— r,; r
� .
1
g;
O
¢"
5N
"
t
O
aY
•0'
a
RESOLUTION NO. 92 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
INSTALLATION OF NO PARKING SIGNS ON EASTERLY
SIDE OF BREA CANYON ROAD FROM COLIMA
ROAD/GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE TO 310 FEET NORTH OF
WESTBOUND ROUTE 60 OFF -RAMP.
A. Recitals
(i) Section 15.20.030 of the Los Angeles County Code, as
heretofore adopted, by reference by the City Council,
provides for the installation of traffic control devices,
upon approval of the City Council.
(ii) Staff has prepared and presented to the City Council a
report indicating the need for the installation of traffic
control devices at certain locations more particularly
specified herein below.
(iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:
1. In all respects, as set forth in the Recitals, Part A. of
this Resolution.
2. Based upon information provided to the City Council, the
City Manager hereby is directed and authorized to cause the
installation of NO PARKING ANY TIME signs on easterly side of
Brea Canyon Road from Colima Road/Golden Springs Drive to 310
feet north of westbound Route 60 off ramp.
3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of the
Resolution.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of , 1992.
MAYOR
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was
duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Council of the City of
Diamond Bar, California, at its regular meeting held on the
day of , 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS -
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS -
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS -
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS -
City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.
TO: Mayor and City Council
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992 REPORT DATE: May 1, 1992
FROM: Council Personnel Committee
Councilmen Miller and Werner
TITLE: Acting City Manager Employment Agreement.
SUMMARY: The City Manager's position will be vacated due to the
recent appointment of Robert Van Nort accepting the
position of City Manager for the City of Chino Hills.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the appointment of Terrence L. Belanger,
currently the City of Diamond Bar's Assistant City
Manager, be appointed to Acting City Manager, effective
May 18, 1992, to September 18, 1992.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: _Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification
Ordinances(s)
X Agreement(s)
_ Other
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? N/A
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report? N/A
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
R 4W6W/.
Obert L. Van Nort errence L. Belanger
City Manager Assistant City Manager
1
Majority
_Yes —No
Yes No
Yes No
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL �JRAFT
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
APRIL 7, 1992
1. CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 P.M.
Personnel - Section 54957.6
Litigation - Section 54956.9
No reportable action taken.
2. CALL TO ORDER: M/Kim called the meeting to order at
6:00 p.m. in the Council chambers,
AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
The audience was led in the Pledge
of Allegiance by C/Werner.
Mayor Kim, Councilmen Forbing,
Miller and Werner. Mayor Pro Tem
Papen arrived at 6:50 p.m.
Also present were Terrence L.
Belanger, Assistant City Manager;
Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney;
James DeStefano, Director of
Community Development; Sid Mousavi,
Public Works Director/City Engineer
and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
3. COUNCIL COMMENTS:
C/Miller reported that he had heard from a number of local
business owners requesting that the City consider changing the
Sign Ordinance due to difficulties they were having promoting
their businesses. Concern was also expressed regarding what
they perceive as a lack of uniform enforcement.
M/Kim responded to concerns expressed by several citizens that
the City held "secret" meetings in January. The two meetings
mentioned were the retreat sponsored by the Chamber held in
Escondido which was open to the public and the other meeting
was a personnel session for evaluation of the City Manager's
performance.
CA/Arczynski stated that the Council adjourned its January 7
meeting to January 9 to attend a joint meeting in Escondido
with the Chamber of Commerce, the Diamond Bar Improvement
Association and others and was open to the public. The other
meeting was a closed session, as provided by law, held on
January 18 for the purpose of evaluating the City Manager.
Notices for both meetings were properly given.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
William George, 378 N. Prospectors Rd., suggested that the
Council put the solid waste matter out to bid.
Lydia Plunk, 1522 S. Deerfoot Dr., asked the Council to
consider the oak as the "city tree". In addition, she
suggested that the solid waste matter be sent to bid to take
it out of the political arena.
APRIL 7, 1992 PAGE 2
Tom Ortiz, 3308 Hawkwood, stated that there should be free
enterprise and that there should be a team of haulers to serve
our community.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., asked whether or not closing
of the golf course is still being considered in the General
Plan and expressed confusion over direction for wording in the
General Plan given to GPAC in a memo by the City Manager.
C/Miller stated that recommendations made by GPAC will not
necessarily become part of the final General Plan. He
explained that the GPAC's recommendations will be discussed at
public hearings held by the Planning Commission. The
Commission's recommendations, as well as GPAC's, will be
discussed during City Council public hearings before final
adoption of the General Plan by the Council.
CDD/DeStefano stated that GPAC, the Planning Commission and
the Council wanted any reference to the golf course removal,
or reuse as a mixed-use commercial development project,
removed from the General Plan. He explained that of the six
references to the golf course in the draft document, five were
removed. The sixth reference was intended for removal but was
inadvertently overlooked. He verified that a memo was sent to
the GPAC from the City Manager directing that the Committee
discuss the issue of Tonner Canyon. He announced that GPAC
will hold another public hearing on April 9, 1992 to review
the General Plan and the final directions and comments that
have been provided in the document.
Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs Dr., complained about the
installation of political signs by M/Kim prior to the 30 -day
limit required by the Sign Ordinance.
M/Kim reported that all his signs are on private property
which are not bound by the Sign Ordinance.
Bruce Black, 4842 Rodeo St., Ontario, a teacher at Chaparral
Middle School, invited the Council to attend the first
Chaparral Environmental Share Fair on April 28, 1992 from 2 to
5 p.m.
Clair Harmony, 24139 Afamado, stated that the City had
authorized a study costing approximately $3,500 for the first
phase regarding a golf course development in the City some
time ago. He asked the purpose of the study and what the
results were. He expressed the opinion that the City should
pick the lowest bidder for negotiating with on the trash issue
rather than negotiating with the highest bidder. He further
stated that approximately four of the Mayor's signs are in
violation of the Sign Ordinance in that they extend over
public right-of-way.
M/Kim stated that if Mr. Harmony can give the exact location
of the signs, he will make sure they are removed.
APRIL 7, 1992 PAGE 3
ACM/Belanger stated that the study referred to by Mr. Harmony
was performed by a local economist whose responsibility was to
evaluate the market in terms of prospective locations for a
golf course in the City. The study took into consideration
that the D.B. golf course would remain, that a preliminary
proposal for a course in the Phillips ranch area was being
considered and a 36 hole course was were being proposed in
Tonner Canyon. The report is not yet complete. He further
explained that there is no proposal for a golf course in the
Sandstone Canyon area.
Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., requested that three trees
indigenous to D.B. (the California Pepper, Black Walnut and
Sycamore), be included in the existing County Tree Ordinance.
He further asked that the Tree Ordinance be sent back to staff
for revision or modification.
Bob Velker, 22060 Cedardale Dr., asked if the General Plan
would be approved prior to Tonner Canyon being developed.
ACM/Belanger stated that the GPAC will be meeting on April 9
for their final review of the General Plan. The Planning
Commission will hold its first public hearing on April 13 and
there will be a series of additional hearings to consider the
Plan in its entirety. There will be an additional series of
public hearings by the City Council to discuss the plan.
Development of Tonner Canyon would take place after adoption
of the General Plan as the area would have to be annexed to
the City.
Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr., asked if M/Kim had
permission to place his signs on private property.
M/Kim stated that he has contracted with a professional sign
company who has a copy of the Sign Ordinance.
Ed Littel, 1511 Deer Crossing, complained about the lack of
maintenance of the trees along Grand Ave. as well as other
areas requiring maintenance throughout the City. He further
stated that residents should be allowed the freedom to choose
the trash hauler of their choice.
Ramona Runkel , 23422 E . Wagon Trail Rd . , spoke against the
trash issue.
Bruce Farnsworth, 536 W. Witcomb, Glendora requested that
Council reconsider the Tree Ordinance.
ACM/Belanger stated that, at this time, the City has a tree
ordinance adopted as part of L.A. County Codes. He further
stated that even without an Ordinance, the City can govern the
removal of trees through conditions.
APRIL 7, 1992 PAGE 4
5. CONSENT CALENDAR:
C/Forbing moved, C/Miller seconded to approve the Consent
Calendar with the exception of Item 5.18. With the following
Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Miller, Werner, MPT/Papen,
M/Kim
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1.1 GPAC - April 9, 1992 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Room
CC -2, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.1.2 Parks & Recreation Commission - April 9, 1992
- 7:00 p.m., City Hall, 21660 E. Copley Dr.,
Ste. 100
5.1.3 Traffic & Transportation Commission - April 9,
1992 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E.
Copley Dr.
5.1.4 Planning Commission - April 13, 1992 - 7:00
p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
First General Plan Public Hearing
5.1.5 Planning Commission - April 20, 1992 - 7:00
p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.,
General Plan Public Hearing
5.1.6 City Council Meeting - April 21, 1992 - 6:00
p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.1.7 Planning Commission - April 27, 1992 - 7:00
p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
General Plan Public Hearing
5.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of March 17, 1992
- Approved as submitted.
5.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Warrant Register dated April 7, 1992
in the amount of $585,449.41 - Approved as submitted.
5.4 TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of February, 1992 - Received
and filed.
5.5 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES
5.5.1
Regular Meeting of
February
13,
1992 -
Received and filed.
5.5.2
Study Session of February 20, 1992 -
Received
and filed.
5.5.3
Regular Meeting of
February
27,
1992 -
Received and filed.
5.6 PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES -
5.6.1
Regular Meeting of
February
10,
1992 -
Received and filed.
5.6.2
Regular Meeting of
February
24,
1992 -
Received and filed.
5.6.3
Regular Meeting of March 9, 1992
-
Received
and filed.
APRIL 7, 1992
PAGE 5
5.7 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Adjourned
Regular Meeting of February 27, 1992 - Received and
filed.
5.8 BI -WEEKLY STREET SWEEPING EVALUATION - Received and
filed.
5.9 DENIED RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 22102, A REQUEST TO DIVIDE A 4.39 ACRE
PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS AT 1575 VALLEY VISTA DRIVE WITHIN
THE CM-BE-U/C ZONE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - Returned to Planning Commission for preparation
of Development Agreement and revised map at request of
applicant.
5.10 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 92-09: A RESOLUTION OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE/SYLVAN GLEN
ROAD DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS.
5.11 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 92-10: A RESOLUTION OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CITYWIDE STREET TREE SERVICE IN SAID
CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS.
5.12 STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT - Approved participation as
Co -Permittee under the current L.A. County NPDES Permit
No. CA0061654.
5.13 EXONERATED GRADING BOND CASH DEPOSIT - 23504 Ridgeline
Rd., Tract No. 30091, in the amount of $1,610 posted for
grading.
5.14 ADOPTED ANNUAL LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT
RESOLUTIONS:
5.14.1 NO. 92-11: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDERING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND TO FILE A REPORT
RELATED TO MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 AND ANY ASSESSMENTS
THEREON FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93.
5.14.2 NO. 92-12: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDERING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND TO FILE A REPORT
RELATED TO MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 AND ANY ASSESSMENTS
THEREON FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93.
APRIL 7, 1992 PAGE 6
5.14.3 NO. 92-13: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDERING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND TO FILE A REPORT
RELATED TO MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 AND ANY ASSESSMENTS
THEREON FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93.
5.15 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 92-14: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR OPPOSING THE LOSS OF
PROPERTY TAX REVENUE - AB 3214.
5.16 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 92-15: A RESOLUTION OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE FURNISHING OF CONCESSION STAND
ADDITION AT THE CARLTON J. PETERSON PARK, LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SYLVAN GLEN DRIVE AND GOLDEN SPRINGS
DRIVE IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS.
5.17 CALLED FOR REVIEW REGARDING AMENDMENT TO CUP 89-551 FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 800 S. GRAND AVENUE (54 -UNIT
APARTMENT COMPLEX).
MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
5.18 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CODIFICATION OF CITY'S ORDINANCES
- Following discussion, staff was directed to obtain
further information regarding prospective costs for
freight, sales tax and software and to obtain more
details regarding the proposed software purchase and time
for completion of the Code.
6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC.
6.1 CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION - C/Werner presented a
Certificate of Recognition to Evan Ray for participation
in the regional competition for the 1992 U.S. Jr.
Olympics.
6.2 PRESENTATION - Anne Stephens, representing Supervisor
Deane Dana and the Board of Supervisors, presented a
Certificate of Appreciation for the City's involvement in
the East San Gabriel Valley Anti -Gang Advisory Task
Force. She further stated week April 6 - 10, 1992 is
"Safe Communities Week" and that T-shirts would be
delivered to the Council the next day.
MPT/Papen advised that votes were secured to approve
SB1718, a bill carried by Senator Hill for the Cities of
D.B. and Industry, for acquisition of land to build the
high school in the Pomona Unified School District. It is
expected to pass through the Assembly by June 30 and the
land for the high school could then be transferred to the
School District for $1.00. She further reported that
APRIL 7, 1992 PAGE 7
approximately 1 1/2 years ago, the City hired the
Claremont McKenna Clinics to survey and assess how LAFCO
applied the law regarding distribution of property taxes
to new cities. The study stated that LAFCO had
underestimated the City's share by about 74%. The City
filed a lawsuit on the matter and has been working with
Senator Davis on SB1406, which will go before the Senate
Local Government Committee on April 8. She and the City
Manager had been in Sacramento to discuss the matter with
members of the Committee. If the Bill does not pass, the
City is estimated to lose approximately $18.9 million
over the next ten years.
RECESS: M/Kim recessed the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
RECONVENE: M/Kim reconvened the meeting at 7:48 p.m.
7. OLD BUSINESS:
7.1 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION, DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING
SERVICES CONTRACT - C/Forbing excused himself from
discussion of this matter due to a potential conflict of
interest.
ACM/Belanger stated that Council previously directed
staff to evaluate data provided by Community Disposal,
Waste Management and Western Waste regarding their
capabilities. At the meeting of March 17, staff was
asked to better clarify a matrix of the data. Following
clarification of the data, he recommended that staff be
authorized to enter into negotiations with Western Waste
Industries for an exclusive franchise. He further
recommended that the negotiated rates be lower than those
currently charged.
C/Werner felt that the rate and service data should each
rank 50% rather than the 10% and 5% listed on the matrix.
ACM/Belanger stated that although the rate factor is
important, it was not considered a primary factor in
evaluating the companies.
The following members of the public spoke in opposition
to the recommendations and expressed a desire for freedom
to choose their hauler:
Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr.
Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs Dr.
Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr.
Ed Knowles, 22818 Beaverhead Dr.
Sue Sisk, 1087 Flintlock
Chilly Borromeo, 150 Cottonwood Cove
Jack Katowski, 1856 Kiowa Crest Dr.
APRIL 7, 1992 PAGE 8
Nancy Villalobos, 23910 Decorah Rd., representing Diamond
Point I Swim/Racquet Club, felt that the City should have
open bids with consideration of: 1) number of years in
service and the dollar amount; 2) willingness to sign a
contract that a) regulates the monthly dollar amount with
discounts for seniors and handicapped; b) services to be
provided, including hard to handle items and number of
bins available; c) a cap on the rate increase during the
contract term; d) reasonable length of time; e)
compliance with AB939. There should also be an
understanding that if 40% of the community is
dissatisfied, the contract will be discontinued and the
second runner-up will continue for the remainder of the
term. Consideration should also be given to award of a
second contract for recycling.
Lloyd E. Duncan, Montefino Homeowners Assn., opposed the
franchise and suggested that the rate be adjusted down to
$5.50 and tied to tonnage rates as an exact pass through
with no precentage increases. If it is done through cost
of living, it should be done through Federal District 11
funds.
Sally Littel, 1511 Deercrossing, asked for an open public
hearing on this issue.
Richard Smiley, management agent for 8 homeowners'
associations in the area, asked that the bidding continue
to be open.
George Wheelwright, 23433 Stirrup Dr. stated that he had
received a flyer regarding the haulers involved in this
process and that he had changed from Waste Management to
Western Waste due to poor service.
C/Miller gave the correct figures that the Council is
considering for residential pick-up and recycling:
Community Disposal $9.75; Waste Management $9.50, and
Western Waste Ind., $10.81.
ACM/Belanger reiterated that the recommendation of the
staff is to establish a rate that is lower than currently
charged.
Following discussion, C/Werner moved to enter into an
non-exclusive franchise arrangement with the three waste
haulers with staff to negotiate the level of service and
bring it back to Council for final approval. Motion died
for lack of a second.
Following further discussion, C/Werner moved to authorize
staff to negotiate with the three companies listed and
come back with the best contract. Motion died for lack
of a second.
APRIL 7, 1992 PAGE 9
C/Werner moved to negotiate with the low bidder,
Community Disposal. Motion died for lack of a second.
C/Werner moved to authorize staff to negotiate with the
second low bidder, Waste Management. Motion died for
lack of a second.
MPT/Papen moved, M/Kim seconded to direct staff to enter
into negotiations with Western Waste Industries and that
C/Werner and C/Miller serve as part of the negotiating
team. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, MPT/Papen, M/Kim
NOES: COUNCILMEN - Werner
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
RECESS: M/Kim recessed the meeting at 9:22 p.m.
RECONVENE: M/Kim reconvened the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
7.2 AMENDMENT TO COMMISSION -ESTABLISHMENT ORDINANCES
CONCERNING THE TIME FOR SELECTION OF A CHAIR AND OTHER
OFFICERS:
7.2.1 ORDINANCE NO. 24C (1989): AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMEND-
ING ORDINANCE NO. 24 (1989), AS HERETOFORE
AMENDED, CONCERNING THE SELECTION OF A CHAIR
AND OTHER OFFICES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION - C/Werner moved, seconded by C/
Forbing to read by title only, waive full
reading and pass to second reading. With the
following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, Werner,
Forbing, MPT/Papen,
M/Kim
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
7.2.2 ORDINANCE NO. 25D (1989): AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMEND-
ING ORDINANCE NO. 25 (1989), AS HERETOFORE
AMENDED, CONCERNING THE SELECTION OF A CHAIR
AND OTHER OFFICES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION -
C/Werner moved, C/Forbing seconded to read by
title only, waive full reading and pass to
second reading. With the following Roll Call
vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, Werner,
Forbing, MPT/Papen,
M/Kim
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
APRIL 7, 1992
8.
PAGE 10
7.2.3 ORDINANCE NO. 28C (1989): AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMEND-
ING ORDINANCE NO. 28 (1989), AS HERETOFORE
AMENDED, CONCERNING THE SELECTION OF A CHAIR
AND OTHER OFFICES OF THE TRAFFIC AND
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - C/Werner moved, C/
Forbing seconded to read by title only, waive
full reading and pass to second reading. With
the following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, Werner,
Forbing, MPT/Papen,
M/Kim
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
NEW BUSINESS:
8.1 AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS, LOCAL STREETS & ROADS BRANCH,
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM -
C/Forbing moved, C/Werner seconded to enter into an
agreement with Caltrans for administration of the
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program.
Bill Nagle, Landscape Architect for CalTrans, responded
to MPT/Papen's question regarding use of reclaimed water
by stating that it would be used wherever available.
M/Kim expressed concern regarding indemnification
requirements in the contract and requested clarification
of whether the City would actually be required to assume
full responsibility under any circumstances if the State
is named as a defendant in a lawsuit.
With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Miller, Werner, MPT/
Papen, M/Kim
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
8.2 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE
FOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DESIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM ALONG STATE ROUTE 60
- ACM/Belanger stated that the City and CalTrans
requested proposals for landscape architecture from firms
with previous CalTrans experience. The firm recommended
by both City and CalTrans staff was Kobata and Assoc.
C/Werner requested that the contract be amended to
indemnify the City should litigation take place.
C/Werner moved, MPT/Papen seconded to amend the proposed
APRIL 7, 1992
PAGE 11
agreement and award the contract to Kobata and Assoc. for
landscape and irrigation design in an amount not to
exceed $19,200. With the following Roll Call vote,
motion carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, Werner, Forbing, MPT/
Papen, M/Kim
NOES: COUNCILMEN - None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None
8.3 ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION OF CITY MANAGER AND APPOINTMENT
OF ACTING CITY MANAGER - M/Kira stated that CM/Van Nort
had recently accepted the position of City Manager for
the City of Chino Hills and would resign his position as
Diamond Bar City Manager effective May 15, 1992. He
further announced that the Council had agreed to appoint
ACM/Belanger as Acting City Manager.
CA/Arczynski stated that the Council Personnel
subcommittee had worked out the details of an agreement
with ACM/Belanger for Council approval on May 5, 1992.
C/Werner moved, MPT/Papen seconded to accept Mr. Van
Nort's resignation, with regret. Motion carried
unanimously.
9. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters
can be heard.
9.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF
MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 91-2 AND APPROVAL OF
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 47850, 47851 AND 48487 -
M/Kim removed himself from taking part in discussion of
this item due to a potential conflict of interest.
CDD/DeStefano reported that this matter involved three
vesting tract maps for 120 dwelling units on 160 acres
located on the back side of The Country at the terminus
of Hawkwood, Sugarpine or Steeplechase and generally
incorporating property located on Wagon Train at Dot
Hill. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the project on November 25, 1991. Following three Public
Hearings, Council directed staff to respond to issues
ranging from architectural design standards, CC&Rs,
geotechnical concerns, environmental issues and others.
He further stated that the School District advised that
they will seek full development fee entitlements on every
development in the District. Further, Walnut Valley
Water indicated that there are no future plans for
reclaimed water systems in the area and it is not
recommended to be incorporated in this project.
Tony Loccacia, Manager of Environmental Services, Michael
Brandman Assoc., indicated that his firm had been
retained by the City to review the applicant's EIR as
APRIL 7, 1992 PAGE 12
well as to prepare responses to the comments generated.
He further indicated that his firm's revegetation
specialist worked with the applicant's landscape
architect to add performance standards for mitigation
monitoring.
Apichart Phukunhaphan, geotechnical engineer with
Leighton & Associates, reviewed the project and reported
that the geotechnical investigation was determined to be
satisfactory for the present stage of the project. In
response to C/Werner Is question as to whether any portion
of the fill or grading on Tract 47850 would extend beyond
the confines of the developer's property or to a grading
easement that the developer acquired on adjoining
properties, Mr. Phukunhaphan indicated that it is not
expected to.
C/Werner also questioned whether the City would be in a
position of risk if there were future failures arising
out of the developer's design or review by any of the
firms. Mr. Phukunhaphan stated there would be no risk to
the City.
CDD/DeStefano reported that, based upon the documents
contained in the EIR, the canyon west of subdivision
47850 would need to be partially filled as a result of
the necessary buttressing and grading work. The fill of
the canyon crosses over the property line and would need
grading easements and authority from those adjacent
property owners in order to satisfy the requirements of
the City before any grading work would be permitted.
MPT/Papen opened the Public Hearing.
The following spoke in opposition to the project:
Bruce Farnsworth, 536 W. Whitcomb, Glendora
James R. Roberts, 23627 Bower Cascade
William Gross, 21637 Highbluff Rd.
Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd.
Franklin Fong, 3253 Falcon Ridge Rd.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln.
Mary Harmon, 1815 Cliffbranch Dr.
David Arajo, 3206 Falcon Ridge Rd.
Jack Katowski, 1856 Kiowa Crest
Virginia Fong, 3253 Falcon Ridge Rd.
Blanca McKye, 3411 Bent Twig Ln.
Eileen Ansari, 1823 S. Cliffbranch Dr., suggested that a
guarantee of proper soil compaction be provided for the
new development due to her experience with slippage at
her own home.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., requested a response to
concerns he had previously raised.
APRIL 7, 1992 PAGE 13
The following spoke in favor of the project:
Keith Correia, 1187 N. Diamond Bar Blvd.
Jim Flynn, 22790 E. Lakeway Dr., #460
S.K. Agrawal, 2614 Indian Creek Rd. (did not speak)
Tinamarie Evans, 1176 Pebblewood Dr.
Bill Palmer, 23422 Wagon Trail (did not speak)
Lydia Cruz, 2635 Indian Creek Rd.
Ramona Runkel, 23422 E. Wagon Trail (did not speak)
Norma A. Eustaquio, 24411 St. Ives Ct.
Floyd E. McKeehan, 1595 Diamond Bar Blvd. (did not speak)
Nina O. Samonte, 21824 Santaquin Dr., (did not speak)
Mario Bonaventura, 1655 Bronze Knoll Rd.
Dr. Ken Machado, D.C. (letter received)
Robert Tomlin, 23721 Meadow Falls Dr.
Ed Hilden
With no further testimony offered, MPT/Papen closed the
Public Hearing for the evening.
CA/Arczynski suggested that the hearing be closed for the
evening and continue the matter to a date certain to
provide staff an opportunity to respond to Council
questions --possibly on April 21st.
C/Miller moved, C/Werner second to continue the hearing
to April 21st. Motion carried unanimously.
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
MPT/Papen announced that the City's 3rd Anniversary
Celebration would be held April 25, 1992 at Sycamore Canyon
Park from 12 to 4 p.m. Entertainment, games and refreshments
will be available.
11. ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business to conduct, MPT/Papen adjourned the
meeting at 11:56 p.m.
ATTEST:
Mayor
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
CITU OP DIAMOND RAR
AGENDA REPORT
AUENDA NU. V f }
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992 REPORT DATE: April 30, 1992
FROM: David G. Liu, Associate Engineer
TITLE: Exoneration of Surety Bond posted for water system for Montefino Condominiums in Tract Number
42533, in Diamond Bar.
SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar desires to exonerate the surety bond posted for the water system for
Montefino Condominiums, located on Tract No. 42533, in Diamond Bar in an amount of $114,000.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept work and exonerate the surety bond
posted for the water system on Tract No. 42533, Montefino Condominiums, in an amount of $114,000 and
instruct the City Clerk to notify Presley of Southern California and the Fremont Indemnity Company of the City
Council's action.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report
Resolution(s)
Ordinances(s)
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
X Other WVWD Letter and Faithful Performance
Bond
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
REV ED BY:
Robert L. Van Nort errence L. Belanger 4iv�idG.7Li
City Manager Assistant City Manager Associate Engineer
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Exoneration of Bond for Water System on Tract
Number 42533
ISSUE STATEMENT
This report requests the exoneration of a faithful performance surety bond
posted for the Water System on Tract Number 42533 in an amount of $114,000.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the exoneration of bond
posted for the Water System on Tract Number 42533 in an amount of $114,000.
Further, it is recommended that the City Council instruct the City Clerk to
notify Presley of Southern California and Fremont Indemnity Company of the
Council's action.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
This action has no impact on the City's 1991-92 budget.
BACKGROUND
The Walnut Valley Water District has accepted and placed into operation the
water distribution system which serves Montefino Condominiums. The water
system was installed in accordance with the approved plans.
DISCUSSION
The following listed surety bond needs to be exonerated:
Tract No.: 42533
Bond Number: OC 300851
Principal: Presley of Southern California
Surety: Fremont Indemnity Company
Amount: $114,000
PREPARED BY:
Anne Garvey
WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS: 271 South Brea Canyon Road a P.O. Box 508
William G. Wentworth Walnut California 91789-3002 • (714) 595-1268 • (818) 964-6551
President FAX 714
Election Division I ( ) 594-9532
John E. Fisher
Vice President
Election Division IV
Richard C. Engdahl
Vice President
Election Division II
Keith K. Gunn January 29, 1992
Assistant Treasurer
Election Division V
Edward N. Layton
Director
Election Division III
Ms. Anne Garvey
STAFF: City of Diamond Bar
Edmund M. Biederman 21660 East Copley Dr. #190
General Manager
Secretary Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Norman R. Miyake
Treasurer Re: Tracts 36741, 41305, 42534A, 42535, &
LEGAL COUNSEL: 42536
H. Jess Senecal Work Orders 81-1324, 82-1436 & 83-1459
Dear Ms. Garvey:
The District has accepted and placed into operation
the water distribution system which serves the above
referenced projects. The water system was installed
according to the plans.
If you have any questions, or require additional
information, please feel free to contact me.
very truly yours,
WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
i
W i�
&A�LEWIS
Projects Administrator
BL/an
cc: Jamie Jarvis, Presley of Southern California
flo
DEPARTMLST OF COUNTY ENGINEER-FAC..ITIES
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND I�
VOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: 1J
That we, PRESLEY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Name
p - 17991 Mitchell South; Irvine, California 92714-6095 ,
Address
as Principal and FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY
as Surety, are firmly bound unto the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES in e
Sim of ONE HUNDRED FOURTEEN THOUSAND dollars
($114,000.00 ) , for the payment of which sum, we hereby
bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors
o^ assignees, jointly and severally.
The condition of the foregoing obligation is such that where-
as said Principal has entered into or is about to enter into the
annexed contract(s) with the County of Los Angeles, pursuant to
the authority of an act of the Legislature of the State of Cal-
ifornia, known as the "Subdivision Map Act" (Division 2, Title 7,
of the Government Code) and any amendments thereto, and pur-
suant to the authority of Title 21 of the Los Angeles County
Code, and any amendments thereto, which said contract(s), dated
September 14 , 19 84 , are hereby referred to and
made a part hereof, or the folding work:
Water System
all for Tract No./Akaaxse1xl5agxJbo(x 42533 in accordance with
the attached contract(s) and is required by -said County to give
this bond in connection with the execution of said contract(s).
If the annexed contracts listed above include an agreement
for monumentation, then a further condition of the foregoing
obligation is for the payment of the amount of the Bond to the
County for the benefit of the authorized surveyor or engineer who
has performed the work and has not been paid by the contractor as
provided for in Division 2, Title T, of the Government Code.
Now therefore, if the said Principal shall completely perform
all of the covenants and obligations of said contracts) and any
alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his part to be
performed at the times and in the manner specified therein, and
in all respects according to its true intent and meaning, and
shall indemnify and save harmless the County of Los Angeles, its
officers, agents, and employees, as therein stipulated, then this
obligation shall be null and void; otherwise it shall be and re-
main in full force and effect. The Surety hereby expressly con-
sents to, and waives any prior notice of, the granting, from time
to time by the County, to the Principal, of any extensions of
time to perform and complete the work under the annexed con-
tract(s), and to any changes or alterations to the terms of the
contract(s) or to the work or to the specifications, ordered by
the County pursuant to the provisions of said contract(s). The
Surety further expressly agrees that any such extensions of time
or any such changes or alterations shall not in any way affect
its obligation on this bond. The provisions of Section 2845 of
the Cigil Code are not a condition precedent to the Surety's
CO FP (2-83)
- 1 -
h.reunder and are waived by the Surety. As a part of
ti n secured hereby and in addition to the face amount
:th,refor, there shall be included costs and reasonable
'and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred
" it successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be
t costs and included in any judgment rendered.
rthermc -e, the Surety expressly agrees as follows:
��) If he Principal fails to complete any work hereinabove
led wiIf the time specified in the annexed contract(s), the
Unty may, pon written notice to the Principal, served in the
iaa and man er provided in the applicable Code, determine that
said work or any part thereof is uncompleted, and may cause to be
forfeited to the County such portion of this obligation as may be
necessary to complete such work.
(2) If the Principal shall fail to complete more than one of
the requirements her listed within the specified time,
the County s all not be required to declare a forfeiture of this
obligation o to prosecute an action under this bond as to all
such uncompl-ted requirements and may subsequently, from time to
time, declar additional forfeitures or prosecute additional ac-
tions under his bond as to any one or more of the remaining un-
completed re,.uirements, even though the County knows or has rea-
son to know, at the time of the initial forfeiture, that the re-
quirements t� which the subsequent forfeitures or prosecutions of
action perta.n were not, as of the time of the initial forfei-
ture, comple°ed within the time specified for completion.
(3) Tht, County may expressly exonerate the Surety with
respect to <;ny one or more of the annexed contract(s) without
waiving any 3f its rights against the Principal or the Surety
under any ot.er such contract(s).
In witne!s thereof, the Principal and Surety caused this bond
to be exeeut -d on this 14th day of September , 19 84 .
(Seal)
No riders, endorsements,
or attachments have been made
hereto by the Surety except
as noted hereon to the right.
Principal (��__,a----)
ALAN D.-UMAN, VICE PRESIDENT
P r i n a i p /�`
LINDA L. POSTM, SECRETARY
Surety FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY
Address 4262 Campus Drive, Newport Beach,
By lij� %h . � .
Attorney—In—Fact
Note: All signatures must be
acknowledged before a notary public.
(Attach appropriate acknowledgments)
Accepted on behalf of the
County'of Los Angeles.
By COUNTY ENGINEER
By
Deputy
Date:
Approved as to form
COUNTY COUNSEL
By
Deputy
" I HEREBY CERTIFY;
1. That
has been certified y the State Insurance Commissioner
as an admitted surety insurer and that such authority
is in full force and effect.
2. That the person executing the within bond on
' behalf of the surety is authorized to do so under a
• power of attorney on file with this office.
3. That there is on file in this office the
financial statement of the surety for the period ending
showing capital and surplus
not less than ten times the amount of this bond."
COUNTY CLERK
By
Deputy
Dated
p vic, "u iti i INULMNI 1 Y C' MPANI
Ilt err, )r r l :r -I W; At IG I rs, CAI N OItW1A
I'fl`1'F.It (11' AI IORNLY
kNOW A1.1.nn.N ItV 1IIl:' r.rlliIS�
ilial, F'r1FF10N1'IhI)f.MNII'YCUMI'/1Y It, G. 11. .IA11LC{l
lop Senior Vice rtrc,dral, in .111<1 no, r ,l anlhntilc (�fstilla by Ilr.nh,li,m ill il< Il..a„I ill llirrrtnla at a nn.1i„ L, a16d
soli 6rld nn lift,I Ah t1v pl F'e4mty, 1912. w) i It mi,Ilr�ilulinn tins roll hero flows d of +r"1 "-'1' 11 and al whir h Ile filth, tilt, i. a
boor. In1I and romI.Iii rolls i,:
•'Itl.slll.%I.n: lhisl list 1'.raidrot u+ w 1y ,' r N, .61-1 ...at I..nn liu,r Ir. Iinu• wePainl All -ii -11- 1'ul , tyle r.rr.I n..l
arl fill sell un Isi fit Illy I;nml.n+y, silt ii lu r list 1'tt•:idrnt .n env \'i..• Tyroid, M. 11,r Hnrf.ill Ilirr.lr.r••.rs I.ar...1i..
(irn,rnillrr avy al oily limr If-irl rr low” AI ill +rya in 1 art n,rl tr...Ar Iht roar, ill •�Ill.rflft' Firs, biro .+1 11rr, and b. i1
hostiles
46 "111s111.YI.11: '11,.l the Altn+o. I- h+ F. A w it �,r ytr. n lull I., +.. 1.. r. r. nt.- 6.r ....1 i , Ili,.'lanir ..1 ilei n.. h. hell ..1 AL.
1
oud•
..1 ..nyny any and .111 1 1. and on.1,-.1"1 6,1 ..• 11.. 1...• ia.:, Ill.-..
1 ... l% nu% r..Ini.. , nil nwa -w h head•: rn
ar
Ia4lr.ppa ►%eyelet) ha ani am h All ons^y m 1 �.r 1 shall hr .. hinJn,g u1^a1 Il.r /.omen,.. w- it .yno rl Iry Ihr I'ry .i•I•.,1 well
aralyd and alle"Irti I,y Ihr 4rlelan. '
dnsso hnehy nnmioalr, rnn"lilulr aml aPpninv SHARON It, LANGAN
ht Itttr still lawlid Austin ) in l sit, In makr, r to n1, , ,ral and ill li%t l fill and un il< Lrhall, a. dill 1, and a- it, as 1 anal drrrl
ANYAtli) ALL 111A 1) i ANU till l)I:R'1'AY,UIGS U1 Sllltl:l'Y:illl.l'
a -
IN U11M.Cg 1l'11V,111,111- 11,, "aid !;r ill tit' Vi cr I'm.idl ill has hen unln rttlrlliLr.l hi. nano' stili A,1 t , P11
pn 9t11 d.. ..I .lnrtuary
—' nor vat of Ihr said ritcmoN 1' INbr:K+t-11 I t CVKII•AN V , ILia
r111':KIU111' INUI:1,I141'1'Y COMPANY
t'
r7, tPlINI1' Or 1,05 A } wa
Off Mit 91,11 day ill ,I'llw ry A.I 1., 19f1�1, hrinlr Ihr "uhcrlil,rl, a Nt,taly 1'ubtir At lir f�atr
Calilntn{a, in and Ion Ihr (;ntutly ill IAta AnRrlra, duly ronnnieeintirtl and iIualilird, A amt 1Lr ahnve named Sen 1.Ur
Prttitlrnl, ill 1'II�:M11N'1' INUI4tIN1'{'Y (:(1M1'ANY , lu illy rlyinall Rltnwti lit hr Ihr iodiridnal and nllirrt drenihrtl ill and .
raradrd Ihr I,trrrdin� intlrnnirnl, and hr ark no�drd5rd Ihr rlrrutiml ill Ilio saint. and h611r by tae duly twolll, drl.ncrlh sett as
O,al 11t is lilt said nllirrt ill list Coo ntalitut -11111 Gill, also, Ilial Ihr Kral Wised lu Ihr Ytrrrdfit inclrilLell1111rs it Ihr (:nrl,ota., iso
Ihr "aid I:ntl.ot inn, and Ilial Ihr #Atli Co'I'mis)e Seal milli hit iiRaahnr a% "urh nllirrt wrtr dilly allisrd amt %uhertihrd le Ihr
inaltnmenl by Ihr sullii ily and rliitelinn ill ILr "aid Lilt lit lralion.
IN wi mms win.ilr,(Ir, l have hrtelnila sort illy band amt otlisord o,y tlllirial 4a1, a1 11'r Lily of Luc n� rso, lilt dac and
lifat ahfl.r *tit rll.-VT i,E���?�':�'
VI I WAAI. SLAT. I
i p . IIAI ICY L. UKAIAU I U I — •—)
(SF:A1,) � oiliest rumtc.rnlnnmun _ L ----
ons nrtcnle ruunlr " f n rn,� r 11nr
Mt Cnmrnhliert Ispl,rl sort. 1, 19At
'r:K10rNof INUrKNils,tt
- 1111
I. 1h. nddnrce•;`'•"iIulllost neff"I.-
11,.1 theorj�tit ()IF ATIORNMof -1101111, na...l thy
Srrrelary , soli .1
IN wl I li wiwi1r.11f , I It.., hrrrunlo auhrrsihrd n,)
name •a
Ills UV'rmalt stall ilwn
l lilt Ili,", Ilii% 14th day oh September I'1 84
1
..Srcrrinr `----'-
`thx1j"J )
1:DWARII J. IrII,RF.R ,
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. -�, I_
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992 REPORT DATE: April 30, 1992
FROM: David G. Liu, Associate Engineer
TITLE: Reduction of Surety Bond posted for drainage, sewer, road, and water system improvements at
Montefino Condominiums in Tract Number 36741, in Diamond Bar.
SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar desires to reduce the section of the surety bond posted for drainage,
sewer, road and water system improvements located in Tract No. 36741, Montefino Condominiums, in
Diamond Bar by an amount of $94,000.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept water system improvement work and
reduce the surety bond posted for Tract No. 36741, Montefino Condominiums, by an amount of $94,000.
Further, it is recommended that the City Council instruct the City Clerk to notify Presley of Southern California
and Safeco Insurance Company.
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 WVWD Letter, Faithful Performance Bond
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
VED BY:
R ert L. VanNort Terrence L. Belanger David G. Liu
City Manager Assistant City Manager Associate Engineer
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Reduction of Bond for improvements on Tract
Number 36741 (Montefino Condominiums), in Diamond Bar
ISSUE STATEMENT
This report requests the reduction of a faithful performance surety bond
posted for drainage, sewer, road, and water system improvement on Tract
Number 36741 (Montefino Condominiums) by an amount of $94,000.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the reduction of faithful
performance bond posted for improvements on Tract Number 36741 by an amount
of $94,000. Further, it is recommended that the City Council instruct the
City Clerk to notify Presley of Southern California and Safeco Insurance
Company of the Council's action.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
This action has no impact on the City's 1991-92 budget.
BACKGROUND
Walnut Valley Water District has accepted and placed into operation, the
water distribution system which serves the Montefino Condominium project.
The water system was installed in accordance with the approved plans.
DISCUSSION
The following listed surety bond needs to be reduced by:
Tract No.: 36741
Bond Number: 5293514
Principal: Presley of Southern California
Surety: Safeco Insurance Company of America
Amount: $94,000 (As of 12/31/91, Bond Amount $253,000)
PREPARED BY:
Anne Garvey
Ms. Anne Garvey
STAFF: City of Diamond Bar
Edmund M. Biederman 21660 East Copley D r . #190
General Manager
Secretary Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Norman R. Miyake
Treasurer Re: Tracts, 41305,
LEGAL COUNSEL: 42536
H. Jess Senecal Work Orders 81-1324,
Dear Ms. Garvey:
42534A, 42535, &
82-1436 & 83-1459
The District has accepted and placed into operation
the water distribution system which serves the above
referenced projects. The water system was installed
according to the plans.
If you have any questions, or require additional
information, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
I
!�(1(,n
BRYA LEWIS
Projects Administrator
BL/an
cc: Jamie Jarvis, Presley of Southern California
WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD of DIRECTORS: 271 South Brea Canyon Road • P.O. Box 508
VAIliam G. Wentworth
President
Walnut California 91789-3002 • (714) 595-1268 • (818) 964-6551
Election Division I
FAX (714) 594-9532
John E. Fisher
Vice President
Election Division IV
Richard C. Engdahl
Vice President
Election Division 11
Keith K. Gunn
Assistant Treasurer
January 29, 1992
Election Division V
Edward N. Layton
Director
Election Division III
Ms. Anne Garvey
STAFF: City of Diamond Bar
Edmund M. Biederman 21660 East Copley D r . #190
General Manager
Secretary Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Norman R. Miyake
Treasurer Re: Tracts, 41305,
LEGAL COUNSEL: 42536
H. Jess Senecal Work Orders 81-1324,
Dear Ms. Garvey:
42534A, 42535, &
82-1436 & 83-1459
The District has accepted and placed into operation
the water distribution system which serves the above
referenced projects. The water system was installed
according to the plans.
If you have any questions, or require additional
information, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
I
!�(1(,n
BRYA LEWIS
Projects Administrator
BL/an
cc: Jamie Jarvis, Presley of Southern California
,
40
�BONVNO: 5293514
_.-:OTED IN TRIPLICATE
IUM: S3,066.00
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That we, PRESLEY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Name
of 17991 Mitchell South; Irvine, California 92714 ,
Address
as PRINCIPAL and SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
as SURETY, are f irmly bound unto the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and
each officer and employee thereof, hereinafter called the COUNTY,
in the sum{s) indicated below, for the payment of which sum(s),
we hereby bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators,
successors or assignees, jointly and severally.
The condition of the foregoing obligation is such that
whereas said PRINCIPAL has entered into or is about to enter into
the annexed contracts) with the COUNTY, pursuant to the
authority of an act of the Legislature of the State of
California, known as the *Subdivision Map Act" (Division 2, Title
7, of the Government Code) and any amendments thereto, and
pursuant to the authority of Title 21 of the Los Angeles County
Code, and any amendments thereto, which said contract(s), dated
September 25 , 19-86, are hereby referred to and
made a part hereof, for the following work checked below, to wit:
[ i A 5 -foot CHAIN LINK FENCE improvement in the sum of
dollars (S ).
[ J A COMBINATION MASONRY WALL AND CHAIN LINK FENCE
improvement in_the sum of
dollars ($ ).
[ ) A 5 -foot MASONRY WALL improvement in the sum of
dollars ($ ).
[-I CORRECTIVE GEOLOGIC improvements in the sum of
dollars (S
P:D 20Z1
[XJ DRAINAGE FACILITIES in the sum of ONE HUNDRED TWO
THOUSAND DOLLARS AND 00/100
dollars (5102.000.00-- ---------- a.
[XJ SANITARY SEWER improvement, under Private Contract
No. 10475 , in the sum of FIFTY-FOUR THOUSAND
DOLLARS AND 00/100
dollars (S $54;000.00-----).
CO FP (1-85)
-1-
4
��t93514
f
E J STORM DRAIN improvement under Private Drain No.
in the sum of
dollars
L J MONUMENTATION in the sum of
dollars _ ).
LXJ WATER SYSTEM improvements in the sum of NINETY-FOUR
THOUSAND DOLLARS AND 00/100
dollars (;`)4,000.00-----------j,
LXJ ROAD improvements in the sum .of FIF7_7EN THOUSAND THREE
HUNDRED DOLLARS AND 00/100 (Spruce 'tree Drive)
dollars (;15,300.00---------- ),
L J INSPECTION of road improvements in the sum of
dollars ($ ),
I J STREET TREE improvements in the sum of
dollars (; J.
L XJ PAVING, CURB S GUTTER FOR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS
improvements in the sum of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND AND
N01100----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------- dollars (; 118,000.00 -------------- ).
all for Tract No./RNXXNXXXX p No. 36741 in accordance with
the attached contract(3) and is required by -said COUNTY to give
this bond in connection with the execution of said contract(s).
If the annexed contracts listed above include an agreement
for monumentation, then a further condition of the foregoing
obligation is for the payment of the amount of the bond to the
COUNTY for the benefit of the authorized surveyor or engineer who
has performed the work and has not been paid by the contractor as
provided for in Division 2, Title 7, of the Government Code.
Now therefore, if the said PRINCIPAL shall completely perform
all of the covenants and obligations of said contracts) and any
alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his part to be
performed at the times and in the manner specified therein, and
in all respects according to its true intent and meaning, and
shall indemnify and save harmless COUNTY, its officers, agents,
and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall
be null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force
and effect. The SURETY hereby expressly consents to, and waives
any prior notice of, the granting, from time to time by the
COUNTY, to the PRINCIPAL, of any extensions of time to perform
and complete the work under the annexed contracts) or to the
work or to the specifications, ordered by the COUNTY pursuant to
the provisions of said contract(s). The SURETY further expressly
agrees that any such extensions of time or any such changes or
alterations shall not in any way affect its obligation on this
CO FP (1-85) -2-
46
acf t any laLch extensions of time or ny such changes or
-at ons shall not in any way affect its obligation on this
nd. The provisions of Section 2845 of the ivil Code are not a
condition precedent to the SURETY's obligatici hereunder and are
waived by the SURETY. As a part of the oblig,tion secured hereby
and in addition to the face amount specifi-d therefore, there
shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees,
Including •reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by COUNTY in
successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs
and included in any judgment rendered.
Furthermore, the SURETY expressly agrees is follows:
(1) If the PRINCIPAL fails to complete my work hereinabove
.listed within the time specified in the annexed contract(s), the
COUNTY may, upon written notice to the PRINCIPAL, served in the
time and manner provided in the applicable Code, determine that
said work or any part thereof is uncompleted, and may cause to be
forfeited to the COUNTY such portion of this obligation as may be
necessary to complete such work.
(2) If the PRINCIPAL shall fail to complete more than one of
the requirements hereinabove listed within the specified time,
the COUNTY shall not be required to declare a forfeiture of this
obligation or to prosecute an action under this bond as to all
such uncompleted requirements and may subsequently, from time to
time, declare additional forfeitures or prosecute additional
actions under this bond as to any one or more of the remaining
uncompleted requirements, even though the COUNTY knows or has
reason to know, at the time of the initial forfeiture, that the
requirements to which the subsequent forfeitures or prosecutions
of action pertain were not, as of the time of the initial
forfeiture, completed within the time specified for completion.
(3) The COUNTY may expressly exonerate the SURETY with
respect to any one or more of the annexed contract(s) without
waiving any of its rights against the PRINCIPAL or the SURETY
under any other such contract(s).
In witness thereof, the PRINCIPAL and SURETY caused this bond
to be executed on this 29th day of September , 1986
(Seal)
No riders, endorsements,
or attachments have been made
hereto by the Surety except
as noted hereon to the right.
Note: All signatures must be
acknowledged before a notary
public. (Attach appropriate
acknowledgements)
ACCEPTED on behalf of the
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
By DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
By
Deputy
Date:
rn Fp (1-85)
-3-
PRESLEY OF SOUTRERN CAT?FORNIA
Principal
Vice President M
Principal B'
e retary
Surety QAFF.[`O TNR[1RANCF. COMPAAr7C OF MERCIA
17570 Brookhurst Street
Address Fountain Valley. CA 92708
By �M" Q
Mf5y A. efm:ny�torney-in-Fact
Approved as to form
COUNTY COUNSEL
By
Deputy
CITY OF DIAMOND IIAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992 REPORT DATE: April 30, 1992
FROM: David G. Liu, Associate Engineer
TITLE: Exoneration of Surety Bond posted for Water System Improvements for Montefino Condominiums
in Tract Number 42533, in Diamond Bar.
SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar desires to exonerate the surety bond posted for water system
improvements for Montefino Condominiums located in Tract No. 42533, in Diamond Bar in an amount of
$120,000.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept work and exonerate the surety bond
posted for Montefino Condominiums, in Tract No. 42533 in an amount of $120,000 and instruct the City Clerk
to notify Presley of Southen California and Safeco Insurance Company of the City Council's action.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
Ordinances(s)
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
X Other WVWD Letter and Faithful Performance
Bond
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
t%bbUU1dLC r'lig nim-
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
SUBJECT: Exoneration of Bond for Water System Improvements on Tract
Number 42533 in Diamond Bar
ISSUE STATEMENT
This report requests the exoneration of a faithful performance surety bond
posted for Water Systems Improvements on Tract Number 42533 in an amount of
$120,000.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the exoneration of bond
Posted for Water System Improvements on Tract Number 42533 in an amount of
$120,000. Further, it is recommended that the City Council instruct the City
Clerk to notify Presley of Southern California and Safeco Insurance Company
of the Councils action.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
This action has no impact on the City,s 1991-92 budget.
BACKGROUND
The Walnut Valley Water District has accepted and placed into operation the
water distribution system which served Montefino Condominiums. The water
system was installed in accordance with the approved plans.
DISCUSSION
The following listed surety bond needs to be exonerated:
Tract No.: 42533
Bond Number: 5293537
Principal: Presley of Southern California
Surety: Safeco Insurance Company
Amount: ,$120,000 (Bond amount as of 12/31/91:
$120,000)
PREPARED BY:
Anne Garvey
WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS: 271 South Brea Canyon Road • P.O. Box 508
William G. Wentworth Walnut California 91789-3002 • (714) 595-1268 • (818) 964-6551
President 714
Election Division I FAX ( ) 594-9532
John E. Fisher
Vice President
Election Division IV
Richard C.Engdahl
Vice President
Election Division II
Keith K. Gunn January 29, 1992
Assistant Treasurer
Election Division V
Edward N. Layton
Director
Election Division III
Ms. Anne Garvey
STAFF: City of Diamond Bar
Edmund M. Biederman 21660 East Copley Dr. ##190
General Manager
Secretary Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Norman R. Miyake
Treasurer Re: Tracts 36741, 41305, 42534A, 42535, &
LEGAL COUNSEL: 42536
H. Jess Senecal Work Orders 81-1324, 82-1436 & 83-1459
Dear Ms. Garvey:
The District has accepted and placed into operation
the water distribution system which serves the above
referenced projects. The water system was installed
according to the plans.
If you have any questions, or require additional
information, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
I
BRYA LEWIS
Projects Administrator
BL/an
cc: Jamie Jarvis, Presley of Southern California
BOND NO: 5293537
LOS ANGELES COUNTY idtla1 Pnanium
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1a bond B
FAITHFUL PSRFORKANCE BOND $1.696.00 _„bid to
aria bnw t UPM 0-4*tlon o1 contract at
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: applkat W r&W d rmt fact priaL
That we, rRESi.t?y nt: gnnT1 r N PAT TFnDNTe
Name
0 of 17991 Mitchell South: vIfornia ()77140
dress
as PRINCIPAL and
as SURETY, are f irmly bound unto the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and
each officer and employee thereof, hereinafter called the COUNTY,
in the sums) indicated .below, for the payment of which sum(s),
we hereby bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators,
successors or assignees, jointly and severally.
The condition of the foregoing obligation is such that
whereas said PRINCIPAL has entered into or is about to enter into
the annexed contract(s) with the COUNTY, pursuant to the
authority of an act of the Legislature of the State of
California, known as the "Subdivision Map Act" (Division 2, Title
7, of the Government Code) and any amendments thereto, and
pursuant to the authority of Title 21 of the Los Angeles County
Code, and any amendments thereto, which said contract(s), dated
October 27 19 86 , are hereby referred to and
made a part hereof, for the following work checked below, to wit:
[ J A 5 -foot CHAIN LINK FENCE improvement in the sum of
dollars (S )•
[ ) A COMBINATION MASONRY WALL AND CHAIN LINK FENCE
improvement in.the sum of
dollars ($ )-
[ ) A 5 -foot MASONRY WALL improvement in the sum of
dollars ($ )•
[] CORRECTIVE GEOLOGIC improvements in the sum of
dollars ($ )•
[ ) DRAINAGE FACILITIES in the sum of
dollars ($)•
J()Q SANITARY SEWER improvement, under Private Contract
No. PC10290 in the sum of Ninety-two thousand
and 00/100-----------------------------------------------
------------------------------dollars ($ 92.000.00******)•
a7U„o
CO FP ( 1-85) L;,,t7,
.ten improvement under Private Drain No.
in the sum of
dollars ($ )•
[ ] MONUMENTATION in the sum of
dollars (� )•
DCX] WATER SYSTEM improvements in the sum of One hundred twenty
thousand and 001100-------------------------------------
-------------------------dollars ($120,000.00**
C ] ROAD improvements in the sum of
dollars ($ )•
[ ] INSPECTION of road improvements in the sum of
dollars ($ )•
[ ] STREET TREE improvements in the sum of
dollars ($ )•
C ]
improvements in the sum of
dollars ($ )•
all for Tract No./A=MkX?XKXXX91•in accordance with
the attached contract(3) and is requ re by said COUNTY to give
this bond in connection with the execution of said contract(s).
If the annexed contracts listed above include an agreement
for monumentation, then a further condition of the foregoing
obligation is for the payment of the amount of the bond to the
COUNTY for the benefit of the authorized surveyor or engineer who
has performed the work and has not been paid by the contractor as
provided for in Division 2, Title 7, of the Government Code.
Now therefore, if the said PRINCIPAL shall completely perform
all of the covenants and obligations of said contract(s) and any
alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his part to be
performed at the times and in the manner specified therein, and
in all respects according to its true intent and meaning, and
shall indemnify and save harmless COUNTY, its officers, agents,
and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall
be null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force
and effect. The SURETY hereby expressly consents to, and waives
aqy prior notice of, the granting, from time to time by the
and completetitheRworkPA under they annexed extensions
cont act(s) or perform
to the
worOUNTY
kr to the provisions of saidccontract(s . The SURETY ations, ordered by the Cfurtheru
rsuant to
theexpressly
agrees that any such extensions of time or any such changes or
alterations shall not in any way affect its obligation on this
CO FP (1-85) -2-
-rT
_..et any such extensions of time or any such changes or
_„orations shall not in any way affect its obligation on this
bond. The provisions of Section 2845 of the Civil Code are not a
condition precedent to the SURETY's obligation hereunder and are
waived by the SURETY. As a part of the obligation secured hereby
and in addition to the face amount specified therefore, there
shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees,
including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by COUNTY in
successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs
and included in any judgment rendered.
Furthermore, the SURETY expressly agrees as follows:
(1) If the PRINCIPAL fails to complete any work hereinabove
listed within the time specified in the annexed contract(s), the
COUNTY may, upon written notice to the PRINCIPAL, served in the
time and manner provided in the applicable Code, determine that
said work or any part thereof is uncompleted, and may cause to be
forfeited to the COUNTY such portion of this obligation as may be
necessary to complete such work.
(2) If the PRINCIPAL shall fail to complete more than one of
the requirements hereinabove listed within the specified time,
the COUNTY shall not be required to declare a forfeiture of this
obligation or to prosecute an action under this bond as to all
such uncompleted requirements and may subsequently, from time to
time, declare additional forfeitures or prosecute additional
actions under this bond as to any one or more of the remaining
uncompleted requirements, even though the COUNTY knows or has
reason to know, at the time of the initial forfeiture, that the
requirements to which the subsequent forfeitures or prosecutions
of action pertain were not, as of the time of the initial
forfeiture, completed within the time specified for completion.
(3) The COUNTY may expressly exonerate the SURETY with
respect to any one or more of the annexed contract(s) without
waiving any of its rights against the PRINCIPAL or the SURETY
under any other such contract(s).
In witness thereof, the PRINCIPAL and SURETY caused this bond
to be executed on this 28th day of October , 19 86 .
(Seal)
No riders, endorsements,
or attachments have been made
hereto by the Surety except
as noted hereon to the right.
Note: All signatures must be
acknowledged before a notary
public. (Attach appropriate
acknowledgements)
ACCEPTED on behalf of the
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
By DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
By
Deputy
Date:
PRESLEY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
a California corporation,
Principal
By: Vice President
Principal
By; Secretary
Surety SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
Address 17570 Brookhurst Street
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
By
Mary A. enny, At orney n -Fact
Approved as to form
COUNTY COUNSEL
By
Deputy
.r
_c any such extensions of time or any such changes or
_mations shall not in any way affect its obligation on this
bond. The provisions of Section 2845 of the Civil Code are not a
condition precedent to the SURETY'S obligation hereunder and are
waived by the SURETY. As a part of the obligation secured hereby
and in addition to the face amount specified therefore, there
shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees,
including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by COUNTY in
successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs
and included in any judgment rendered.
Furthermore, the SURETY expressly agrees as follows:
(1) If the PRINCIPAL fails to complete any work hereinabove
.listed within the time specified in the annexed contract(s), the
COUNTY may, upon written notice to the PRINCIPAL, served in the
time and manner provided in the applicable Code, determine that
said work or any part thereof is uncompleted, and may cause to be
forfeited to the COUNTY such portion of this obligation as may be
necessary to complete such work.
(2) If the PRINCIPAL shall fail to complete more than one of
the requirements hereinabove listed within the specified time,
the COUNTY shall not be required to declare a forfeiture of this
obligation or to prosecute an action under this bond as to all
such uncompleted requirements and may subsequently, from time to
time, declare additional forfeitures or prosecute additional
actions under this bond as to any one or more of the remaining
uncompleted requirements, even though the COUNTY knows or has
reason to know, at the time bf the initial forfeiture, that the
requirements to which the subsequent forfeitures or prosecutions
of action pertain were not, as of the time of the initial
forfeiture, completed within the time specified for completion.
(3) The COUNTY may expressly exonerate the SURETY with
respect to any one or more of the annexed contract(s) without
waiving any of its rights against the PRINCIPAL or the SURETY
under any other such contract(s).
In witness thereof, the PRINCIPAL and SURETY caused this bond
to be executed on this 26tt, day of October r 19 B6 .
PRESLEY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
a Californ> corp�or�ati/on'. -
Principal��_✓
By: Vice President
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Iss.
COUNTYOF Cramp ,
On October 28, 1986 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for
said State, personally appeared Alan D. Uman and
L. L. Foster
,personally known to me (or proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who executed the within instrument as
Vice President and —Secretary, on behalf of PTesIef
Southern California
the corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that
such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its
by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors -
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
,�I, // //
OFFICIAL SEAL
JUDITH'I CUNNINGHAM
I.CiAkY PUBLIC -CALIFORNIA
I ? t PRINCIPAI OFFICE IN
ORANGE COUNTY
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEP. 30. 1988
LINDA M. LEE
NOTARY PJK C - MVONNll1
IRMCIPALOFM IN
ORANGE CO<Nm
• yT Cmatttisfilll Ea. SWL 1, 1988
(This area for official notarial seat)
PAN
i
Secretary
COMPANY OF AMERICA
3t Street
y, C
me, the undersigned,
personally appeared
r
,y -in -Fact of
the Corporation that executed the within instrument, and known
to we to be the person who executed the said instrument on
behalf of the Corporation therein named, and acknowledged to
me that such Corporation executed the same.
" I HEREBY CERTIFY;
1. That
• has been certified by the State Insurance Commissioner
as an admitted surety insurer and that such authority
is in full force and effect.
2. That the person executing the within bond on
behalf of the surety is authorized to do so under a
power of attorney on file with this office.
3. That there is on file in this office the
financial statement of the surety for the period ending
showing capital and surplus
not less than ten times the amount of this bond."
COUNTY CLERK
By
.Deputy
Dated
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY
TO SCJPIA DIRECTOR
C/O CITY CLERK, SCJPIA MEMBER CITY
FROM THOMAS M. BUTCH, GENERAL MANAGE
DATE APRIL 23, 1992
SUBJECT APPROVAL OF MEMBERSHIP OF THE CITY OF CHINO HILLS
The SCJPIA Executive Committee at their Regular Meeting of April 22, 1992 recommended the
approval of the new city of Chino Hills as member of the Authority, subject to the following:
(1) That all claims related to land movement be excluded.
(2) That their premium deposits is based on a pro forma, utilizing the individual loss
history for the previous four years, and .97% of annual payroll figures
for establishing initial deposits as approved and adopted by the SCJPIA Executive
Committee.
Chino Hills
Primary Deposit $151,000
Excess Pool Deposit 49.000
Total Annual Liability $200,000
Deposit
Enclosed is a Membership Consent Form for the admission of the City of Chino Hills along with
the report of Physical Survey and Underwriting Information.
We are requesting that each City Clerk deliver the enclosed material to the SCJPIA Director
appointed by their Council, and expedite returning the form to this office as soon as possible. If
the Director is unavailable, the duly appointed Alternate may execute the Consent.
The SCJPIA Bylaws permit the independent judgment and action of your City's Director (or
Alternate) on this matter, so that Admissions may be accomplished in a timely manner. If your
City's procedures require Council action on .the matter, please arrange that this item be given
special handling at your next Council Meeting.
Thank you in advance for your assistance in expediting the return of the consent Form by May
15, 1992. Please feel free to call this office if you have any questions.
Enclosures
/db
SO. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
CAL O JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY
4952 La Palma Avenue, La Palma, California 90623
(310) 402-6372 (714) 827-3361 FAX (310) 860-4992
MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION
REPORT OF PHYSICAL SURVEY
Of
CITY OF CHINO HILLS
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Date of Survey: March 3, 1992
B. Participants in Survey:
1. For SCJPIA: Thomas Butch, General Manager
Patricia France, Risk Manager
David Jones, Risk Manager
Joanne Rennie, Sr. Risk Manager
2. For City: Gwenn Norton -Peng, Mayor
Jim Thalman, Mayor Pro Tem
Gary Larson, Coundimember
Ed Graham, Councilmen-ber
Mike Wickman, Councilmember
Dan Miller, Interim City Manager
Ed Henderson, Director of Finance
Phil Chinn, Acting Utility Engineer
Bill Holly, Deputy Director of Finance and Administration
Chris Vogt, City Engineer
Kathy Gotch, Director Parks and Recreation
C. Description of Applicant:
The newly incorporated City of Chino Hills has grown from an agricultural and dairy
production area into a thriving suburban community of modem residences, open rolling
hillsides and commercial development.
Typical of many California communities, Chino Hills developed from a land grant. Chino
Valley in the early 19th century, was called Rancho Santa Ana del Chino, grazing lands for
the Mission San Gabriel. The first Inhabitants were Serrano Indians. Later populated by
Spaniards, Portugese, Basque and Dutch, the Chino Ranch was the first California battle site
of the Mexican American war in 1846. The area remained an agricultural community through
Page -1-
two world wars; sugar beets gave way to field crops, walnuts to poultry, until the early sixties
when the dairy Industry moved from los Angeles and Orange counties to the Chino Valley,
making it the largest concentrated dairy center in the world.
Chino Hills is located on the south western tip of San Bernardino County bordering Los
Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties. Chino Hills was incorporated November 5, 1991,
from the County's Waterworks District #8. It encompasses a population of 42,000 in an area
of 46 square miles. Chino Hills is a general law city with a council manager form of
government. The five member City Council is elected at large for staggered four-year terms..
The City is approximately 50% developed.
The City has 94 full-time employees with a payroll of $4,263,157. The current budget is
$121,177,598. The City prides itself on the image of the last of the rural communities In an
urban area.
If. CURRENT INSURANCE PROGRAM
The City is currently covered by the County of San Bernardino's Program. The County is sell insured
up to $1,000,000 per claim; a lability pool covers those losses between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000.
Excess coverage is in place up to $10,000,000.
III. EXPERIENCE AND LOSS DATA
A. General and Automobile Liability:
The County has supplied a Nsting of claims from 1986 to the present date; but because the
County system was set up prior to incorporation of the City of Chino Hills, the list may not
Identify every claim that originated within the boundaries of the city.
The majority of claims noted are not of great significance. There have been a number of
minor property damage claims arising from the operation of the Water Department, which
are the result of excessive water pressure.
One claim from June 1987 was closed for approximately $107,000, which included
defense costs. An employee of a developer sub -contractor, in the process of
testing a newly installed water meter, was badly injured. He was attempting to fix a defective
water meter. There were no witnesses to the injury, and some doubt as to the total extent of
Injuries due to the incident. The County resisted the claim, but rather than go to trial, they
contributed to a settlement with other defendants.
In discussion with the City of Chino Hills, we understand that they have been well aware of
the water pressure problem for a considerable time. Prior to December 1991, all water
storage tanks were in the hills, at higher elevations than the majority of residences in the
city. Because of the difference in height, delivery of the water supply was occasionally
adversely affected by high pressure. However, in December 1991 a two million gallon
water tank at the lower elevation was brought into operation, thus enabling water pressure to
be consistent in all areas.
IV. APPLICATION FEE AND DEPOSIT COMPUTATIONS
A. Application Fee:
The City has paid an application fee of $1,500.
-2-
B. General Liability Deposit:
The Initial primary deposit was established at $151,000. The development of the deposit was
based upon 3% of the projected annual payroll for 1992/1993.
The excess general liability annual deposit was established at $49,000, based upon .97% of
the annual payroll.
Both percentage figures of annual payroll used for establishing initial deposits were approved
and adopted by the SCJPIA Executive Committee.
C. Workers' Compensation Deposit:
City participation in the SCJPIA Workers' Compensation Program may be appropriate for
consideration at some future point. The SCJPIA's overall composite "deposit rate' for
workers' compensation is approximately $2.50 per 100 of payroll.
V. PHYSICAL INSPECTION AND COMMENTS
A. Civic Center/City Hall Complex:
None: The City offices are currently housed in trailers at the corporate yard. The City plans
to move the trailers onto their future City Hall site, which is currently City owned property.
City offices will continue to function out of the trailers while development of the City Hall site Is
underway.
B. Corporation Yard:
The City corporation yard was large, well maintained and completely enclosed by fencing.
Vehicles and equipment were noted to be in good condition and housekeeping was good. NO
hazards or deficiencies were observed.
C. Parks and Playgrounds:
The City owns 23 park sites with approximately 186 acres; the majority of which are small
passive use neighborhood parks. Many of the "pocket" parks have been developed by the
residential community developer and are maintained by the landscaping and lighting district.
English Springs Park, a flagship in the park system, features gracefully terraced and
landscaped recreational areas and has at its center a small man-made pond which serves as
a collection basin for runoff from the adjacent hillsides. Signs adjacent to the water area
specified no swimming or other useage. Four of the park sites are "natural" sites with
maintained riparian trails and eucalyptus groves.
All facilities observed by the survey team were found to be well maintained and attractive.
D. Streets and Sidewalks:
1. Streets appear to be well maintained with adequate pavement markings and signs.
Curb and gutters appear throughout the main portion of the city. Some residential
areas have foregone curbs and gutters in pursuit of a rural atmosphere.
During the course of our investigation no evidence of roadway undermining caused
-3-
by surface drainage was observed. Some roads in the community have varying
grades. Crosswalks and lanes of travel are well marked with sufficient warning cigns-
The city has 113 miies of streets within its 46 square miles. Approximately 13 miles
of state controlled highway pass through the city. Finally, 9 fully automatic traffic
signals, maintained by contract, operate within the city.
2. Sidewalks are adjacent to curbs, leaving walkways clear and offering additional line
of sight for motorists and pedestrians at Intersections. Sidewalks throughout the city
were observed to be in good condition and well maintained.
VI. WATER AND OTHER UTILITIES
Water service is provided by the City of Chino Hills Water Department through the Metropolitan Water
District and ground water welts. The city maintains 15 water storage tanks, both above and In ground
types.
The Chino Basin Waste Water District services the area providing collection and treatment for the 46
square miles of the city.
Electrical power is provided by Southern California Edison. Natural gas is available from Southern
California Gas Company, and GTE and Pao Bell provide telephone service to the City. Solid waste
disposal is provided by Western Waste, Rancho Disposal, Webster's Refuse, Duran & Son and L&L
Trash and Suburban.
VII. FIRE DEPARTMENT
Fire protection and paramedic service is provided through contract with the Chino Valley Independent
Fire District. Two Fire District substations are located within the City limits which are owned by the
City and leased to the Fire District. One additional substation, owned by the Fire District, is located
adjacent to the City boundries.
Vill. POLICE DEPARTMENT
Police protection is provided through a contract with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
substation located in Chino Hills. Approximately 32 deputies are assigned specifically to the City of
Chino Hills consisting of 24-hour per day patrol and detective units.
IX. PUBLIC AND STAFF ATTITUDES
A. Public:
The City of Chino Hills fosters the small town feeling of accessibility and service to its
residents. Incorporation was pursued to preserve the open and rural nature of the area while
providing all the conveniences of a modem and grooving community. The City serves a
diverse population with its nationally recognized private golf courses and large new
residential tracts, attracting familes from Orange and Los Angeles counties. There are also
the older more established areas, canyon dwellers and equestrian areas. The citizens appear
to be satisitied with the activities and services provided and planned by the new city.
B. Staff :
The inspection team met with all members of the Council and department heads, and were
favorably impressed with the knowledge, courtesy and enthusiasm of city personnel. They
were fully and completely responsive to our many questions and requests for information.
X. SUMMARY AND EVALUATION
The city leadership understands and is committed to the concept of risk management and is very
aware that hazardous conditions need to be closely evaluated and addressed to reduce the city's
exposure to ifsk/loss.
It is the SCJPIA staff's conclusion that the loss experience and interest expressed by the City
Council and city staff qualify the City of Chino Hills for consideration for membership in the SCJPIA.
We also find that membership will be of advantage to the city by providing economical coverage
and will be advantageous to the SCJPIA by expanding its ability to spread pooled losses and
costs.
XI. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the application of the City of Chino Hills, for membership in the Southern
California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, be approved, excluding coverage for soils or slope
movement, with an initial annual general liability primary deposit of $151,000 and an excess liability
deposit of $49,000 for a total annual liability deposit of $200,000.
tWeurM-chino hats
Page -5-
5. CURRENT INSURANCE PROGRAM: (Or last insured year)
In addition, please submit the face sheets of all current policies.
A. GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE:
I . Pdrnary Coverage:
Carrier.
Policy Period:
Occurrence Limit::
S
Premium:
S
Deduc.31e'Reten1ion:
$
Clams Adrnitistralor.
2. EXCESS�L:ASILITYCOVERAGE:
S Excess of S
Carrier:
Policy Period:
Preis rim:
g
S Excess of S
Carrier:
Policy Period:
Premium:
S
S Excess of S
Carrier:
Polcy Period:
Premium:
S
B. WORKERS COIAPENSATION COVERAGE:
1. Primary Coverage:
Carrier:
Policy Period:
Premium:
S
Employers Liability Limit:
S
DedualledRelention:
S
Claims Adrninisiralor:
2. Excess Compensation Coverage:
S Excess of S
Carrier:
Policy Period:
Premium:
S
2OFI
CITY OF CHINO HILLS
C. PROPERTY INSURANCE:
1. Coverage: (replacement cost or other, please specify) _
Insured values:
Buildings,
Conterds:
Vehicles:
Other:
Total Values
Carrier:
Policy Period:
Premium:
D. HEALTH BENEFITS:
S
1. Medical Coverage: SEE ♦TTACHIMNT C
Type of plan: Indemnity. PPO, EPO. HMO, or other
Number of participants:
Carrier.
Policy Period:
Premium:
$
Deducible/co-pay-
$
Claims Administator.
2. Dental Coverage:
Type of plan: indemnity or Pre -paid
Number of participants:
Carrier:
Policy Period:
Premium:
$
Deductible/co-pay:
$
Claims Administator,
3. Other Benefits Offered:
yes no
Z
Vision:
Life:
S
Long Term Disability
Z
Flex Benefits
Z '
Orthodontia
Z
Deterred Compensation
Z
Other: (please specify)
City's contribution to the Employee's benefit Package
S_ _.
3 OF 7
6. LOSS EXPERIENCE: (past live completed years)
In addition, please submit a current loss run with summary information.
A. GENERAL LIABILITY INCURRED LOSSES:
Year
Number of
Amount of
losses
losses
1989-90
26
$165,352
1988-89
19
86,832
1987-88
39
243,040
1986.87
10109,172
1,740
1985-86
13
8.882
B. WORKERS COMPENSATION INCURRED LOSSES:
Year
Number of
Amount of
losses
losses
1989-90
13
$ 77,765
1988.89
11
3,445
1987-88
14
26,960
1986-87
3
1,740
1985-86
7
101,915
C. INSURED PROPERTY INCURRED LOSSES:
Year
Number of
Amount of
losses
losses
1989.90
22
$ 9,947
1988-89
5
73,026
1987-88
2
2,283
1986-87
Not Available
Not Available
1985-86
Not A;allot
ilable
Available
Complete
Loss Report is
found in .
4OF7
i
ITY OF CHINO HILLS
7.
8.
9.
GENERAL EXPOSURES:
A. Waterfront Property:
B. City -owned Cemeteries:
C. City Housing Projects:
D. Libraries and/or Museums:
E. City Parks and Playgrounds:
F. City Stadiums andror Grandstands:
G. Swimming Pools:
H. Goll Courses:
I. Auditoriums and/or Exhibition Halls:
J. Community Centers:
K. City -owned Buildings Leased to Others:
L. City -owned Land Leased to Others:
M. Leased Buildings andror Land:
N. City -owned Hospitals:
O. City -owned Airports:
P. Permits:
Construction:
Demordion:
VEHICLE EXPOSURES:
A. General City Vehicles:
Passenger:
P'rdcupsNans.:
Constuctiori'Heavy Equipment:
Other.
B. Emergency Vehicles:
Police:
Passenger.
Motorcycles:
P;ckupsNans:
Fre:
Passenger.
PickupsNans:
Apparatus:
C. Public Transit Vehicles:
Passenger:
Mini BusesNans:
Buses:
ROADWAY AND TRAFFIC EXPOSURES:
A.
City Streets: (miles)
B.
County Roads: (miles)
C.
State Highway: (miles)
D.
Traffic Signals: (number)
E.
City -owned Parking Lots: (number)
F.
Parking Meters: (number)
G.
Sidewalks: (miles)
soF7
Number Area
1
0
0
1440 g P ft.
-
0
23
0
-
-
185.613 acres
-
0
0
—
0
—
1.
_ 990 sa, ft.
2
12,100 sq,_ft.
3
3.5 acres
5
5,700 so, ft'.
0
—
0
—
1.289 for a period from 10/26/91
1/1/92
Number
6
47
32
0
CONTRACT WITH San Bernardino County
Sheriff's Department
CONTRACT WITH Chino Valley Independent
Fire District
NONE
113.18 Miles
—0-
13 Niles
9(So-
9
—0-
132
e9-0-
132 miles
rY OF CHINO HILLS
10. POLICE SERVICES EXPOSURES:
A. Number of Sworn Officers: CONTRACT WITH San Bernardino County Sher:
Full-time: Department
Part-time:
B. Number of Reserves:
Level l: —
Level If:
C. Number of Police Stations: —
D. Number of AN Facilities: —
Number of Cells: —
E. is there a Policy and Procedures Manual?
F. is there a written Pursuit Policy? —
G. Is theree-a written Policy on the use of Firearms? -
11. FIRE SERVICES EXPOSURES: CONTRACT WITH Chino Valley Independent
Fire District
A. Number of Sworn Fre Personnel:
Full-time: -
Part-time:
Volunteers:
Paramedics:
B. Number of Fire Stations: -
12. UTILITY SERVICES EXPOSURES:
A. Water Department:
Please submit an inundation map showing location and describe each dam.
1. Number of Employees:
2. Average Capacdy/day:
Domestic: 10,000,000 Callous
Industrial: N/A
3. Source of supply: Metropolitan hater District & Ground Water
4. Dams:
Number:
N/A
Capacity:
—
Type:
S. Reservoirs:
Number:
N/A
Capacity:
-
Type:
-
6. Storage tanks:
Number:
15
Capacity:
_
Type:
7. Source of water supply:
Metropolitan Water District
and Ground Water
6OF7
.a
CITY OF CHINO HILLS
13.
e. Sanitary Sewer Service:
Number of employees:
Average capacity/day:
Level of treatment:
Effluent discharged to:
C. Service Suppliers:
Electrical Power.
Natural Gas:
Telephone:
Cable Television:
Water. (If private)
Solid Waste Disposal:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
CONTRACT WITH CHINO BASIN MORICIPAL
L'— MA 11111 -DISTBICT
Southern CaLlfo
Southern California Gas Com++
GTS and PAC Bell
Chino_ Valley Cable TV
City of Chino Bills
Vestern.Vaste, Rancho Disposal.
Webster's Refuse, Duran & Son,
L & L Trash, Suburban
The City agrees that all of the above information, Including attachments, are deemed matefiai
and that all pertinent information has been fully disclosed. SCJPIA will rely on these
answers.ftWing attachments, when considering this application for membership.
NAME Edward P. Henderson 40,E
TITLE:
DATE:
SIGNATURE:
Finance officer
7OF7
REV. 11-21.90
CITY OF _ . Cep HJILLS
CLASSIFICATION
1. Clerical Gffice (8810)
2. Municipal lion-l+anual (9410)
3. All Other Municipal (9420)
4. Firemen (7706)
S. policemen (7720)
S. Sus Operators (7382)
7. Other (Designate Classj ( )
NUMBER OF
FULL TIME EMPLOYEES
17
51
26
PAYROLL FIGURES
1991-92 1992-93
$ 521,751 S QA,A27
2,716,749 -4,19697A
900.257 sRA,aSi
TOTAL NOMST.R OF rU`U TIME F.MPLOi'EES 94 4,138,157 4,759,558
9. TOTAL PAYROLL ••* 94,138,157 54.759,558
••• - COPY OF 1989 IRS FORM N- OR FO1
k-3 or FORK 6560 DOES NOT_RCRU WITH TOTAL
9. Total amount withheld under employee Deferred
Compensation Plan. .$ 27,506 ; 27,506
1 0. Compensation included in Item 8 paid to employees
Assigned exclusively to operations excluded from
SCJPIA general liability coverage (i.e. hospital,
eirpbrte, etc.) $ N/A $ N/A
1 1. CENEP.4L L1A•_ILITY PAYROLL
(iteRs 8 + 9 - 10) $4,165,663 $4,787,064
12. Imputel payroll for volunteer Workers Covered for
Workers Compensation by Resolution of Council
No. 25 X 55,000 each. $ 125,000 $ 125,000
13. ROPY -ERS COMPENSATION PAYROLL
11tem 9 + 12) $4,263,157 94,884,558
14. POLICE PAYROLL (COMPensation included in Item 8
for all sworn Police Officers plus any deferred _
compensation inciudea in Item 9.) $ — $
Completed by Christine Ure Ti t i e PexwOrmel T6chnj@jh*( 714)* 597-1784
NME - CbPY Of N-3 or Ftmn 6560 n City is ctaientl3r oontractitg with
Payr: pt/dsk5/irsdl/60 oto fos PaY=u serv3oes.
49S2 !A Palma Avenue, La Palma, CA 90623 0 1213) 402-6372 or (714) 827-3361
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.1
NO DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.2
NO DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992 REPORT DATE: April 28, 1992
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director
TITLE: Tentative Tract Map 51079 and an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-551
SUMMARY: The application requests approval of the Tentative Tract Map and an amendment
to the CUP for conversion of a 54 unit apartment complex, currently under
construction at 800 S. Grand Avenue, to condominiums for the purpose of
individual unit ownership.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map 51079
and the amendment to CUP 89-551 via_ the attached Resolutions No. 92-07 and
No. 92-08.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
_X Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
_ Ordinances(s)
_ Agreement(s)
Other
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
Los Angeles County Sheriff Department
Los Angeles County Fire Department
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
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? XYes _ No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? —k -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 and Building Departments
7 D BY:
Robert 4 Yan Terrence L. Belanger
City ManYger 1, Assistant City Manager
fafties DeStefano
Community Development Dir.
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 51079 and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-551.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The applicant is requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map 51079 and an amendment to Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) 89-551 for a condominium conversion of a 54 unit apartment complex currently under
construction.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map 51079 and the amendment to CUP
89-551 via the attached Resolutions No. 92-07 and No. 92-08.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
This project will provide all required public improvements as a part of the development and is required to pay
all necessary impact fees including but not limited to school fees, traffic mitigation fees, parks and recreation
contributions, and Department of Fish and Game fees.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Diamond Brothers One Partnership, has requested approval of a Tentative Tract Map and an
amendment CUP 89-551 for approval of a condominium conversion.
The following is a brief chronology on the 54 unit apartment project currently under construction at 800 S.
Grand Ave. The chronology follows the project from submission to the County of Los Angeles, through the
processing within the City and finally to the status as of this date.
The project was submitted to the County of Los Angeles as a conditional use permit (11/14/89) after having
received approval via plot plan review from the County. The City of Diamond Bar had passed an interim
ordinance (Ord. No.15, 1989) which compelled all commercial, multi -family, and multi -unit developments
2
within the City to apply for entitlements via a CUP
The County of Los Angeles transferred the project to the City in late January of 1990 for processing. The
project was heard before the Planning Commission on July 9, 1990 and the public hearing was continued to
the following meeting for lack of information (the applicant's architect missed the hearing).
The project was approved with conditions on July 23, 1990 in a joint session of the Traffic and Transportation
Committee and the Planning Commission with direction to staff bring a Resolution of Approval back to the
Commission at the following meeting. The two reviewing bodies addressed the traffic impacts and
ingress/egress to the site and the necessity of requiring a coordinated signalized access. The Planning
Commission also reviewed the site plan and architectural renderings via a design review. The project was
approved by the Planning Commission with conditions that addressed architectural features, parking, pedestrian
circulation, signalizing the project access, landscaping and maintenance, traffic impact mitigation fees, safety
issues, and direction to prepare a resolution for final consideration on August 13, 1990. The resolution was
approved 4-0-1.
The applicant, Diamond Brothers, obtained grading permits from the City and began grading on the project
in October of 1991. The Building Division approved all building plans in accordance with the Planning
Commission approval. The Engineering Department reviewed the soils and geological reports as well as the
road plans to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval.
The applicant submitted the current condominium conversion application in late November 1991. The Planning
Commission held public hearings on the project on February 24, March 9, and March 28, 1992. The
Commission adopted Resolutions recommending the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 51079 and the
approval of the amendment to CUP 89-551.
DISCUSSION:
The application is for the subdivision of the 4.5 acre site into one (1) lot and the conversion of the 54
apartment units to condominiums for the purpose of ownership. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to
amend CUP 89-551 in order to upgrade the amenities of the project. These requested alterations include
interior and exterior changes in addition to providing additional parking spaces and a security gate at the
entrance of the project.
Tentative Tract Map
The project as approved by the Planning Commission has a density of 12 units per acre and will not change
as a part of the subdivision application. The site is zoned R-4-(40) U which allows a maximum of 40 units
per acre. The Community General Plan designation is Urban 3, which allows a density that can vary from 6.1
to 12 units per acre. The project is consistent with or below most of the existing multi -family residential
projects developed within the City.
The approval of the tentative map will allow the air space subdivision of the units and each unit will then have
a legal description. Additionally, the applicant submitted a draft set of Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions
(CC&R's) to the City for review. Final approval of the CC&R's by the City staff is required and the CC&R's
will be recorded with the final map. A Home Owners Association with a description of their responsibilities
is included within the document. A major function of the HOA will be the responsibility for the maintenance
of all landscape areas.
3
Conditional Use Permit
The project was approved with 54 two bedroom units. The project complies with the City's parking
requirements (122 total, 81 covered, 27 uncovered, 14 guest). The Planning Commission has additionally
required the applicant to provide a minimum of four additional parking spaces outside the secured gate at the
entrance to the project. The purpose of these spaces is to provide additional guest parking and to provide a
turn around area for cars not entering the site.
In reviewing the site plan with the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, once again the issue of the carport
provision was raised. This issue was raised during the original project review. The Commission opted for
carports because of the concern for storage in the garages and tenants parking in the guest and exterior resident
spaces. The Commission cited this situation as creating parking deficiencies.
The Sheriff Department remains concerned about the frequency of auto theft at multi -family residential projects
that provide little or no enclosed parking. The Sheriff Department identified the extensive use of enclosed
parking where possible and also the utilization of controlled access to the site via electric gate as appropriate
detours. The Commission opted for this measure.
The upgrades to the units proposed by the developer are not required by code. The upgrades are primarily for
noise suppression between units and to reduce sound impacts related to traffic noise. The additions include
increased second subflooring, insulation between 1st. & 2nd floor, use resilient channel through out all 1st floor
ceilings and insulation of all plumbing chases.
Landscaping
The project will provide approximately 170,283 sq. ft (87 percent of site) as landscaped/open space area. The
Parking area is provided with trees, shrubs, and ground cover that comprise approximately 10.4 percent of the
total area. The sloped hillside at the southern portion of the property will be irrigated and landscaped as a part
of the approved landscape/irrigation plans.
The landscape pallet includes heavy application of trees and shrubs within the development and also along the
exterior elevations. The development will provide the City's street trees along the sidewalk on Grand Avenue
in addition to trees and shrubs at the back of the sidewalk placed to conceal the block wall. The Commission
additionally required that the block wall be landscaped with ivy so as to mitigate the visual impacts until such
time that the landscaping which borders the wall matures.
Traffic
The City Engineer has received an updated traffic report from the applicant and has determined that the
proposed project will not have a significant impact over the approved project. The traffic mitigation measures
placed on the project when approved as apartments have been deemed appropriate although the City Engineer
has conditioned a deceleration lane, minimum 100 ft in length, into the project design. The lane will provide
for right turns into the site for north bound traffic.
The City Engineer is currently involved in a determination of the cost of installation of the traffic signal at the
entrance to the project site. The Commission had conditioned the applicant to install the signal at his expense
and to be reimbursed, the fair share contribution, by ensuing development at the time construction.
0
Park Fees
The project is required to mitigate the impacts that residential developments have on the existing park facilities.
The City code requires that subdivisions of both single family and multi -family projects contribute either land
or in -lieu fees to the City to help offset the impacts on the existing facilities.
The contribution is based on the type of units within the project and the number of units being developed. The
proposed condominium project site will provide 54 multi -family attached units. The park contribution required
for this development is .34 acres or an in -lieu fee of $164,333. The Commission recommends that the City
Council condition the project to contribute the in -lieu fee.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Based on the nature of this proposed project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for CUP 89-551 has
been determined to be adequate for this project, in that no additional negative impacts will be created by the
condominium proposal.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
The public notice was advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on
April 13, 1992. Mailers were sent to 195 property owners within the required 500 ft. radius of the property
on April 13, 1992.
PREPARED BY:
Robert Searcy, Associate Planner
Attachments:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-07 and No. 92-08
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Public Works Department
Fire Department
Tentative Tract Map 51079
Vicinity Map
Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Staff Reports
City Council Resolutions of Approval
&:CUP89551.PRM
5
RESOLUTION NO. 92-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89551 LOCATED ON A 4.5 ACRE
SITE LOCATED AT 800 SOUTH GRAND AVE., DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
(i) Diamond Brothers One, Partnership, City of
Industry, California, has heretofore filed an application for
approval of a Conditional Use Permit 89551 as described in the
title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Conditional Use Permit shall be referred to as "the Appli-
cation".
(ii) On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State
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.
14, 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 contains the Development Code of the County of Los
Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, in-
cluding 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.
(iv) On February 24, 1992, the Planning Commission of
the City of Diamond Bar continued a duly noticed public hearing on
the application, and concluded said public hearing on March 23,
1992.
(v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Plan-
ning 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.
1
be materially detrimental to the use,
enjoyment, or valuation of property of other
persons located in the vicinity of the site,
and will not jeopardize, endanger, or other-
wise constitute a menace to the public
health, safety or general welfare.
4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in
paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission
hereby approves the application subject to the
following conditions:
1. This permit shall not be effective for any
purpose until a duly authorized
representative of the owner of the property
involved has filed at the office of Planning
Division of the Community Development
Department the Affidavit of Acceptance and
accepts all the conditions of this permit;
2. That all requirements of this Resolution, the
applicable Zoning District, the City Codes,
City departmental policies, rules and
regulations and applicable law, policies and
regulations of any local agency with
jurisdiction shall be complied with by the
permittee, unless set forth in the permit or
shown on the approved plan;
3. That three copies each of the new site plan,
irrigation plan, and landscape plan including
an ivy plan for walls fronting upon Grand
Avenue, all in conformance to that presented
at the public hearing and marked Exhibit "A"
and conforming to such of the following
conditions as can shown on a plan, shall be
submitted to and shall obtain written
approval of the Community Development
Director. The property affected by this
permit shall thereafter be developed and
maintained in substantial compliance with
such approved plans.
4. Landscaping along the perimeter of each ele-
vation shall be year round in nature. All
landscaping approved shall be installed prior
to issuance of any certificate of occupancy.
5. No construction shall occur within the 50'
easement shown on the site plan along the
north elevation of the building.
6. No construction shall occur within setbacks
as delineated on the approved site plan.
3
RESOLUTION NO. 92-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE
DIAMOND BAR, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 51079, FOR A ONE (1) LOT
SUBDIVISION AND CREATION OF 54 AIR SPACE UNITS LOCATED AT
800 S. GRAND AVENUE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
(i) Diamond Brothers One, Partnership,
Avenue #205, City of Industry, California, has heret18645 E. Gale
ofore filed an
application for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, as described in
the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution
referred to as "the application".
(ii) On April 1841 19891 the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State
of California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the
California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 221 the
City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No.
14, 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 contains the Development Code of the County of Los
Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, in-
cluding 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
proposed General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of
California Government Code Section 65360.
(iv) On February 24, 1992, the Planning Commission of
the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the application and concluded said public hearing on March 231
1992.
(v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Plan-
ning 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.
1
89-551 (1990), not superseded by this
amendment, are hereby incorporated herein by
reference.
17. The applicant shall satisfy the Park
obligation fee by contributing .34 acres of
land or the in -lieu fee of $164,333 prior to
the recordation of the final map.
18. 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 appli-
cant prior to the issuance of any building
permit or any other entitlement.
19. The applicant shall provide eight (8)
additional parking spaces for a total of four
(4) and an electronic security gate at the
entrance of the project which shall be
designed and located to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
20. Conditions, covenants, and restrictions
(CC&R's) shall be provided to the Community
Development Director and the City attorney
for review and approval prior to recordation
of tke final map.
A clause shall be incorporated into the
CC&R's which requires disputes involving
interpretation or application of the
agreement (between private parties), to be
referred to a neutral third party mediation
service (name of service may be included).
The cost of such mediation shall be borne
equally by the parties. In the event
mediation is unsuccessful, the parties shall
agree to submit the dispute to binding
arbitration under the laws of the State of
California.
21. The applicant shall incorporate the following
list of items into the interior design and
construction of the units:
a. Increase second subflooring from 5/6
inch plywood to 3/4 inch plywood.
b. Add insllation between 1st. & 2nd floor.
C. Use resilient channel through out all
1st floor ceilings.
5
(f) There is a reasonable probability that the
subdivision proposed in the application will
be consistent with the proposed General Plan;
(g) There is little or no probability that the
subdivision of said real property, as
proposed in the application will be a
substantial detriment to, and interfere with,
the proposed General Plan for the area of the
project of the site; and
(h) The application, as proposed will and
conditioned herein, complies with all other
applicable requirements of state and local
ordinances.
5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in
paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission
hereby recommends that the City Council approve
the application subject to the restrictions and
conditions listed on the attached Exhibits
"A-2" and "A-3"
6. The recommendation of this Commission is
conditioned upon the approval and existence of
Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-07, which
amended -Conditional Use Permit No. 89-551,
converting an apartment complex to a condominium
subdivision.
7. The Planning Commission Secretary shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Transmit this recommendation to the City Clerk for
submittal to the City Council.
(c) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Reso-
lution, to Diamond Brothers One, Partnership at
the address as set forth on the application.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 1992 BY
THE PLANNING COMMIYSION OF HE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
'Jack Grothe, Chairman
ATTEST
James DeStefano,, Secretary
3
Community Development Department
EXHIBIT "A-1"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. This permit shall not be effective for any purpose until a
duly authorized representative of the owner of the property
involved has filed at the office of Planning Division of the
Community Development Department the Affidavit of Acceptance
and accepts all the conditions of this permit;
2. That all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the
underlying zoning of the subject property must be complied
with, unless set forth in the permit or shown on the approved
plan;
3. That three copies of the new site plan, irrigation plan, and
landscape plan including ivy plan for walls located on Grand
Avenue, similar to that presented at the public hearing and
marked Exhibit "A" and conforming to such of the following
conditions as can shown on a plan, shall be submitted for
approval of the Community Development Director. The property
shall thereafter be developed and maintained in substantial
compliance with approved plans.
4. Landscaping along the pgrimeter of each elevation shall be
year round in nature. All landscaping approved shall be
installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
5. No construction shall occur within the 50' easement shown on
the site plan along the north elevation of the building.
6. No construction shall occur within setbacks as delineated on
the approved site plan.
7. Street trees with year round foliage shall be planted along
western elevation of Grand Avenue per the approved landscape
plans.
8. Recreation areas adjacent to Grand Avenue shall be landscaped
to provide a visual buffer from off-site access.
9. Provide wrought iron fencing around recreation areas to insure
the security of the children.
10. That all exterior lights above wall height be shielded and be
directed away from adjacent development;
11. Maneuvers through the median opening will not be allowed until
a traffic signal is installed and becomes operational at 800
S. Grand. The traffic signal, due to its Is close proximity to
the Grand/Golden Springs intersection, will need to be
interconnected to the latter to provide coordination of signal
phasings at these two intersections. Prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Final Occupancy, the design and construction
costs associated with this traffic signal shall be borne by
the developer (Diamond Brothers Inc.) initially. When the lot
located at 887 Grand Avenue becomes approved, a fair share
cost will be developed for said signal, based upon
confirmation of the generated traffic data for each project.
At such time, the property owner of 800 S. Grand will receive
a refund based proportionally on each project's traffic shares
in accordance with the City approved reimbursement agreement.
12. Shielded trash enclosures shall be located as shown on the
approved site plan.
13. Sidewalks shall be provided along Grand Avenue for the length
of the property per City Standards.
14. The project shall comply with all State and local ordinances
for noise level standards.
15. All air conditioning units will be ground mounted and screened
from street level view.
16. All conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-551 (1990),
not superseded by this amendment, shall be incorporated herein
by reference.
17. The applicant shall satisfy the Park Obligation fee by
contributing .34 acres of land or the in -lieu fee of $164,333
prior to the recordation of the final map.
18. 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.
19. The applicant shall provide four (4) additional parking spaces
and an electronic security gate at the entrance of the project
which shall be designed and located to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
20. Conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) shall be
provided to the Community Development Director and the City
attorney for review and approval prior to recordation of the
final map.
21. A clause shall be incorporated into the CC&R's which requires
disputes involving interpretation or application of the
agreement (between private parties), to be referred to a
neutral third party mediation service (name of service may be
included). The cost of such mediation shall be borne equally
by the parties. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, the
parties shall agree to submit the dispute to binding
arbitration under the laws of the State of California.
22. The applicant shall incorporate the following list of items
into the interior design and construction of the units:
a. Increase second subflooring from 5/8 inch plywood
to 3/4 inch plywood.
b. Add insulation between 1st. & 2nd floor.
C. Use resilient channel through out all 1st floor
ceilings.
d. Install recessed lights in kitchens and bathrooms.
e. Add dulted kitchen fans to improve air flow.
f. Insulate all plumbing chases to decrease sound
transmission.
g. Add additional telephone and TV outlets.
h. Add 32 oz. carpet over 1/2" rebound pad to increase
sound control and cushion.
Ewiait N -z
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS - INCORPORATED AREAS
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRACT 51079
1. Provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by County Forester and Fire
Warden for all land shown on the map to be recorded.
2. Provide Fire Department and City approved street signs, building address numbers prior to
occupancy.
Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any portion of structure
to be built.
4. Access shall comply with Section 10.207 of the Fire Code which requires all weather access.
All weather access may require paving.
5. Where driveways extend further than 300 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds
suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map.
Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire
Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways which
extend over 150 feet. •
6. The private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "FIRE LANE" and shall be
maintained in accordance with the Los Angeles County Fire Code.
7. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular
access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction.
8. Show and label fire lanes and turnaround fully on final map.
9. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 3500 gallons per minute at 20
psi for a duration of three (3) hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand.
10. The required on-site fire flow for private on-site hydrants is 1250 gallons per minute at 20 psi.
Each private on-site hydrant must be capable of flowing 1250 gallons per minute at 20 psi with
any two hydrants flowing simultaneously.
11. Fire Hydrant requirements as follows:
Existing three (3) Public Fire Hydrants. Install one (1) private on-site Fire Hydrant.
12. All -hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA
standard C503 or approved equal. All hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25' from a
structure or protected by a two (2) hour fire wall.
Location: As per map on file with this office
e, _.
74 �3
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR "- -- -
77
I N T E R O F F I C E M
DATE:
May 1, 1992
TO: Department of Community Development _Planning
FROM: Department of Public Works, Engineering Y
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.51079 DATE NOVEMBER 22,._1991
Tentative Tract Map No. 51079 has been recommended for approval by
the office of the City Engineer subject to the following
conditions:
SUBDIVISION
1. The final map must be prepared in accordance with Title 21 of
the Los Angeles County Code and the Subdivision Map Act.
2• A preliminary title report, dated no more than 30 days, mylar
copies of all referenced record maps, copies of all referenced
documents and five (5) prints of the most recent Assessor Map
with book page or pages covering the proposed division of land
must be submitted for review prior to approval of the final
map.
3• 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 approval of the final map.
4 • The developer shall submit to the City Engineer the total cost
estimate of all off-site improvements, prior to approval of
the final map.
5. The tract shall be annexed to the Landscape Assessment
District 38; and the City-wide assessment lighting district.
6. The developer shall submit to the City Engineer the total cost
estimate and a monumentation bond for this amount for the new
boundary monuments which must be set in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act requirements, City standards and subject
to approval by the City Engineer.
7. If any required public improvements have not been completed by
the developer and accepted by the City prior to the approval
of the final map , the developer shall enter into a
subdivision agreement with the City and shall post the
appropriate security.
8. All site grading, landscaping, irrigation, street
improvements, sewer and storm drain improvement plans shall be
coordinated for consistency prior to final map approval.
9. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permit.
Such plan shall indicate style,
height. illumination, location,
10. House numbering clearance is required by the City Engineer,
prior to approval of the final map.
11. The construction notes shown on the submitted plan are
conceptual only and the approval of this map does not
constitute approval of these notes.
12. The following documents must be submitted to the City prior to
recordation of the final map:
a) Original Mylar
b) 2 Blueline prints
C) $4,350.00 outstanding plan check fees
d) 5 Year Tax History Supplied by Owner
Title Company.
e) Title Report Supplied by Owner
f) 2 Full -Size Copies of Assessor's Map
and Obtained from Assessor's office.
g) SBA13 Affidavit Obtained from Los
Department of Public Works and Signed
Owner.
h) $325 Tax Clearance Fee Paid By Owner.
i) $75 City Recordation Fee.
j) $6 Los Angeles County Recordation Fee
GRADING GBOLOdy SOILS
payable to City
and obtained from
Supplied by Owner
Angeles County
and notarized by
13. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer
licensed by the State of California to perform such work.
14. 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.
DRAINAGE
15. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of
any storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature
tree trunk.
SEWER
16. Each building must have a separate and independent connection
to the sewer mainline. The minimum lateral size is a 6" VCP
and it must be connected to an 8" diameter mainline. This
main line must be a public sewer with a 10' wide easement
granted to the City. This easement needs to be depicted on
the final map.
17. 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 for all sewer main lines must be
provided and accepted by the County of Los Angeles Public
Works Department, prior to approval of the final map.
18. The sanitary sewer system serving the tract shall be connected
to city sewer system. Said system shall be of the size, grade
and depth approved by toe City Engineer, County Sanitation
District and Los Angeles County Public Works Department, prior
to approval of the final map.
19. Subdivider, at his sole cost and expense, must construct the
sewer system in accordance with the City, Los Angeles County
Public Works Department and County Sanitation District
Standards.
TRAFFIC
20. Manoeuvers through the median opening will not be allowed
until a traffic signal is installed and becomes operational at
800 S.Grand. The traffic signal, due to it's close proximity
to the signal at Grand/Golden Springs intersection, will need
to be interconnected to the latter to provide coordination of
signal phasings at these two intersections. Prior to issuance
of a Certificate of Final Occupancy, the design and
construction costs associated with this traffic signal shall
be borne by the developer (Diamond Brothers Inc.) initially.
When the lot located at 887 Grand Avenue becomes approved, a
fair share cost will be developed for said signal, based upon
confirmation of the generated traffic data for each project.
At such time, the property owner of 800 S.Grand will receive
a refund based proportionally on each project's traffic shares
and in accordance with the City approved reimbursement
agreement.
21. Because of the northbound downgrade on Grand Avenue and high
speed, a right turn deceleration lane is required. This lane
could be 12 feet wide for a length of approximately 100 feet
with a 60 -foot transition. A signing and striping plan,
prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Engineer.
22. Pavement striping and marking shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
23. The proposed sliding gate shall remain opened during 7:00a.m.
to 9:00a.m. and 4:00p.m. to 6:00p.m. to ensure safe and
efficient movement between Grand Avenue and the gate.
UTILITIES
24. Provide separate utility services to each unit including
water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all
underground) in accordance with the respective utility
companies standards, unless other common meters are approved
by utility companies and indicated in the CC&R's. Easements
shall be provided as required.
25. Prior to recordation of the final map, a written certification
from Walnut Valley Water District, GTE, 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 90 days prior to final map approval.
FIRE
26. Prior to recordation of the final map, a written certification
from the Fire Department stating that their conditions have
been met shall be submitted to the City. Such letter must be
issued by the Fire Department at least 90 days prior to final
map approval.
.cryel�l�6 � pK .
7
x
I U11111"!
CHENG & ASSOCIATES "J"T'�`""'T""'
'MOB I -.F
AL �WRA,RCAL FORFIELD MA 911001 ��o.haND 6�Ic Y �rteHT p�
eolJvalesioN ��� eco ^�F4 i�
TEL U761 262 - 216f
"iT �r HG.•T �T �'1�11f
March 9, 1992 Page 3 U�7►m��
this particular case, the project should be
approved because the applicant did not receive
adequate notice, regarding the Commission's
feelings on massiveness, prior to his submittal of
the plans. In future projects, staff will notify
all applicants of the Commission's viewpoint.
DCA/Curlie advised C/Li that, unless he feels
adequately familiar with all the issues and prior
testimony, he should not participate in the vote.
C/Li stated that he -will not participate in the
vote. However, he did comment that the important
key issue is that there are no clear guidelines for
the Commission to follow on this particular issue.
The Commission voted on
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
The Motion CARRIED.
C/Flamenbaum's Motion.
Flamenbaum and MacBride.
Chair/Grothe.
Li.
Meyer.
TT 51079 & AP/Searcy reported that the Commission, at the
Amendment to February 24, 1992 meeting, directed the applicant
CUP 89551 to provide staff with information related to
landscape plans and a draft of the conditions,
covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's). The
applicant has provided the requested information.
Upon reviewing the landscape pallet, staff would
concur with the landscape plan as approved.
AP/Searcy then reviewed the information, as
indicated in the staff report. He further stated
that staff supports the addition of garages at the
project, or a security gate at the entrance of the
site, in accordance with the comments forwarded
from the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department.
However, constructing garages would require a lot
of architectural work so that it would not be
massive. The use of the proposed carports would
drastically reduce that massiveness. Staff could
make either issue, garages or a security gate,- a
condition of approval upon the Commission's
recommendation. Staff has prepared Resolutions of
Approval and Conditions of Approval.
Chair/Grothe requested that the City Engineer
rewrite section 5.11 of the Resolution to include a
Reimbursement Agreement, instead of naming all the
entities for consideration by the commission.
C/Li suggested that the lot number be given instead
of naming the Diamond Bar Medical Plaza. He
March 9, 1992 page 4
DRAFT
inquired how the park contribution amount was
derived.
CD/DeStefano explained the Quimby Fee process,
within the Subdivision Code of the Los Angeles
County, to C/Li. Subsequent to the adoption of the
County's code and ordinances in April of 1989, the
City Council adopted an ordinance, in mid 1990,
which changed the amount per acre in terms of
formulating the total Quimby Fee. The price
inserted in the County Code formula will change
depending upon where the property is located, and
what the value of the land is.
AP/Searcy, in response to C/Flamenbaum, stated that
the existing structure has been approved with
carports. Constructing garages would decrease the
availability of parking area, and reduce the
availability of landscaping. The gate can be
located where it does not directly impact the
availability of open space.
CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Flamenbaum's inquiry
regarding the location of the gate, stated that the
gate should be located at least So feet from the
pavement in order to stack 3 cars from the curb.
There needs to be at least 3 parking spaces for
guests, as well. There is adequate space to
accommodate different alternative gate designs.
AP/Searcy confirmed that the gate could be located
at the end of the first building by the entrance.
C/Flamenbaum recommended that section 4.9 of the
CC&R's be amended to include a mediation
arbitration clause so that alternate dispute
resolutions are provided.
The Public Hearing was declared open
Ricky Chang, applicant, residing at 24250 Barker
Dr., made the following comments: they intend to
increase their recreation area, and request that
the area be deducted from the park contribution
formula; if the parking structure is increased,
then the parking area is decreased, therefore, only
54 parking spaces can be implemented; he requested
that they just pay their share of the signal, or
perhaps not use a signal until the others start
development; and he requested that the gate be
omitted if the 54 garages are implemented.
Karo% 9
1992
Page 5
Chair/Grothe pointed out that the existing
condition states that the signal be installed prior
to the completion of the project.
C/Flamenbaum, noting that garages are often used
for storage rather than parking, suggested that a
security gate be installed and that carports be
implemented.
CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Li, stated that, to
his understanding, a traffic signal was a condition
for the approval of the apartment building. since
the number of units remain the same, and the
traffic generation for apartments and condominiums
are very similar, then the need for the signal
would remain.
C/Li asked the applicant which would be better for
the project, garages or carports.
Ricky Chang stated that they would be satisfied
With implementing the garages, if they are allowed
to consttNict only 54 garages.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 8:36 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 8:45 P.M.
Chair/Grothe stated that since most
used for storage rather thangarages are
recommend the use of carports with parking, eurit would
However, the project should also incorporatetea
minimal size storage facility, and a lockable bike
rake. The Commission concurred.
CD/DeStefano, in response to the Commissions
inquiry regarding the appropriate location for the
gate, stated that, subject to review by the City
Engineer, it would appear that the gate would be 80
to 90 feet from the street right-of-way. If the
project is approved, it should be conditioned to
incorporate as many quest parking spaces on the
"public side" of the gate, as possible.
Chair/Grothe suggested that the Resolution be
amended to include the following: items 1-8 of
interior additions, and item 1 of exterior
additions from the staff report from the February
24th meeting; carports; a security gate; and omit
garages.
CE/Mousavi read the revision to the second portion
Of condition 120 of the traffic section. "Tame„ +.1_
March 9, 1992 AP6 J 7 A ~ �
lot, located at 887 Grand Ave., becomes approved, a
fair share cost will be developed for said signal
based upon confirmation of the generated traffic
data, in proportion to each projects traffic share
at such time the property owner of s00 S. Grand
would receive refunds in accordance with the City
approved reimbursement agreement.".
CD/DeStefano stated that, based upon the
Commission's discussion, it would appear the
following changes to the CUP Resolution would be
appropriate for consideration: -page 2, subsection
B.2 should be reworded to indicate, "...that the
environmental analysis conducted previously,
specifically the Negative Declaration prepared for
CUP 89-5510, and previously certified, does not
require supplementation, amendment, or subsequent
analysis in compliance with the ..."•
subsection 5, be amended to indicate, "...subject
to the following restrictions as to use, subject to
the conditions set forth in section 6, hereafter;
page 4, subsection 5.11 should be reworded as
outlined by the City Engineer; condition 16 should
be restated to indicate, "...CUP 89-551, not
superseded by this Resolution, shall be
incorporated herein by reference."; condition 17
should be amended to read, "...or the in -lieu fee
Of $164,333 prior to the recordation of the final
map."; add condition 19 to state, "The applicant
shall prepare and provide a new site plan
reflecting a vehicular and pedestrian gate at the
front entrance to the site, and approximately 8
parking spaces located near said front gate.";
condition 20, "The applicant shall provide draft
CC&R's to the City for review and approval by the
City Attorney prior recordation of the map.";
condition 21, "The applicant shall incorporate the
interior and exterior improvements as listed in the
February 24, 1992 staff report." (those issues will
be specifically listed if the Commission concurs
With the additional conditions); subsection 6
should be renumbered subsection 7; the new
subsection 6 should read, "This Resolution shall be
null, void, and of no effect, if the Council of the
City of Diamond Bar fails to approve Tentative
Tract Map 51079, as described in the Resolution of
the City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission and
Resolution 89-551 shall remain in full force and
effect.".
C/Flamenbaum requested that the Planning Director
also review the CC&R's for a consistency with the
draft, as presented tonight. He would also like to
March 9, 1992 Page 7 � �Il
'
see the inclusion of some alternative resolution
dispute in subsection 4.9 of the CC&Rfs.
Chair/Grothe requested that the Resolution also
include a condition requesting some planting of ivy
along the walls.
C/Flamenbaum requested that the Resolution be
drafted and returned to the Commission, at the next
meeting, without public comment.
Motion was made by. Chair/Grothe, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff
to prepare a Resolution incorporating the changes,
as outlined, for the Commissions consideration,
for the next meeting.
CD/DeStefano indicated that Tentative Tract Map
51079 has similar changes needing to be made within
the Resolution: subsection 6 should be renumbered
to subsection 7; subsection 6 should read, "The
recommendation of this Commission is conditioned on
the approval and existence of Planning Commission
Resolution No. XX, which amended CUP 89551,
converting an apartment complex to a condominium
subdivision."; and change condition # 11, of the
Planning staff condition, and condition #20, from
the Director of Public Works, to reflect the
language as previously outlined by the Director of
Public Works regarding said condition ill and 020.
Motion was made by Chair/Grothe, seconded by
C/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to and direct
staff to redraft the resolution and recommendation
to the City Council for approval of Tract Map
51079, as directed and bring the matter to the
commission on March 23, 1992.
Tentative Parcel AP/Searcy reported that the applicant has requested
Map 22986/Devel. an additional continuance to the March 23,, 1992
review 92-1 Planning Commission meeting in order that the
previously requested information can be provided to
staff in a timely fashion for review and comments
prior to the hearing.
DCA/Curley, in response to Chair/Grothe, stated
that the commission may either consent to the
request of the applicant, or alternatively take an
action on the application
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Fred Janz, residing at 2486 Shady Ridge, applicant,
stated that the proposed building is lower than the
March 9 1992
Page 8
��
neighboring house. If necessary,
hrubs
could be planted to hide the bildings thoughts andsthere
are no windows on that side of the house.
indicated that he has He
continuance. no objection to a
Elizabeth Mejia, residing at 23513 Sunset Crossing,
requested that the appthe proposed be required to
Photos indicating how it would look inprovide
slope area.
Roger Mejia, residing at 23513 Sunset Crossing,
stated that though there are no windows on that
side of the house, the proposed building will block
the view from the front of the house.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 9:25 p.m.
meeting was called back to order at 9:31 p.m. The
The Public hearing was declared open.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum,
Chair/Grothe and CARRIED to continue seconded by
the matter to
the March 23, 1992 meeting, to allow the applicant
time to submit the requested renderings.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: F 1 a m e n b a u m, a n d
NOES:COMMISSIONERS: None'/Grothe.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Li a n d
MacBride.
INFORMATIONAL CD/DeStefano informed the Commission that the
ITS' "White Paper" has been finalized and forwarded to
the City Council in preparation for the joint study
session scheduled for March 24, 1992'.
CD/DeStefano distributed a copy of the
p
Resource Management, a component of theGeneral
Plan, which outlines the style that will be
utilized for the development of the final General
Plan. The document has been approved by the Parks
and Recreation Commission, but not, as yet, by
GPAC.
CD/DeStefano recommended that the meeting be
adjourned to March 23, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. for the
Purpose of conducting a study session
General Plan. on the
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 3
REPORT DATE: March 3, 1992
r
MEETING DATE: March 9, 1992
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Tentative Tract No. 51079 and Amendment to
Conditional Use Permit No. 89551
APPLICATION REQUEST: A request to convert a 54 unit apartment
complex to condominiums for the purpose of
ownership of individual units and common
open space. An amendment to CUP 89-551 to
revise the site plan and exterior
materials.
PROPERTY LOCATION: 800 S. Grand Ave.
APPLICANT: Ricky Chang
18645 E. Gale Ave. 1205
City of Industry, CA 91748
PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Brothers One Ownership
18645 E. Gale Ave. #205
City of Industry, CA 91748
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission continued this item from the February 24, 1992
Planning Commission meeting. The Commission directed the applicant to
provide staff with information related to landscape plans and a draft
of the conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's). The applicant
has provided the information as requested.
ANALYSIS:
Landscaping:
The landscape plans for the project were amended and approved by the
Planning Commission as a part of the original conditional use
permit/development review process. The landscape plan exhibits heavy
ground cover in the form of trees, shrubs and bushes, and sod.
Street trees were conditioned for the Grand Ave. street scape and
extend the length of the property. Trees, shrubs and bushes have also
r
been incorporated into the interior of the project. Numerous bushes
and shrubs are displayed in the parking area as well as in the passive
open space areas.
Reviewing the landscape pallet, staff would concur with the landscape
plan as approved.
CC&R's:
The Commission directed the applicant to draft the CC&R's for the
project and to submit them. The review of the submitted document
indicates standard inclusions and references the Home Owners
Association (HOA) and areas of responsibility.
Park Contribution:
The park contribution required by this development is .34 acres or an
in -lieu fee of $164,333.
Conclusion:
Staff has reviewed the application and the applicant has provided
information to address the issues raised at the initial hearing on this
item. The application as submitted meets the development standards and
conditions of approval on the previously approved conditional use
permit.
Staff supports the addition of garages to the project in accord with
the comments forwarded from the Los Angles County Sheriff Department.
Additionally, the applicant's request to add the amenities to the
project are also found to increase the overall quality of the project
and not to conflict with the intent of the existing conditions of
approval.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
The public notice was advertised in
the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
Highlander on February 5, 1992.
owners within the required 500 ft.
RECOMMENDATION:
the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and
on February 3, 1992 and in the
Mailers were sent to 195 property
radius of the property.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider all the
information submitted at the public hearings and that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 51079 and the
approve the amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89551.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Conditional Use Permit:
Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Conditional
Use Permit will:
(a) The proposed. use will not be in substantial conflict with the
community plan and the proposed General Plan.
(b) The requested project, at the location proposed, will not
adversely affect the health, peace, comfort of welfare of the
persons residing or working in the surrounding area, and will not be
materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of the
property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, and
will not jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to
the public health, safety or general welfare.
(c) The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities,
landscaping and other development features prescribed in the zoning
ordinance, and as is otherwise required in order to integrate the
use with the uses in the surrounding area.
(d) The proposed site has adequate traffic access and the site is
adequately served by other .public or private service facilities
which it requires.
Tentative Tract Map:
Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds as follows:
(a) There is a reasonable probability that the subdivision proposed
in the application will be consistent with the proposed General
Plan;
(b) There is little or no probability that the subdivision of said
real property, as proposed in the application will be a substantial
detriment to, and interfere with, the proposed General Plan for the
area of the project of the site; and
(c) The application, as proposed will and conditioned herein,
complies with all other applicable requirements of state and local
ordinances.
Report Prepared By:
Robert Searcy, Associate Planner
Attachments:
Conditions of Approval
Resolution 92-xx for the Approval to Amend Conditional Use Permit s9-
551
Resolution 92-xx Recommending Approval of Tentative Tract 51079
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 5
REPORT DATE: February 19, 1992
MEETING DATE: February 24, 1992
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Tentative Tract No. 51079 and
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
No. 89551
APPLICATION REQUEST: A request to convert a 54 unit
apartment complex to condominiums for
the purpose of ownership of
individual units and common open
space. An amendment to CUP 89-551 to
revise the site plan and exterior
materials.
PROPERTY LOCATION: • 800 S. Grand Ave.
APPLICANT: Ricky Chang
18645 E. Gale Ave. 0205
City of Industry, CA 91748
PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Brothers One Ownership
18645 E. Gale Ave. 1205
City of Industry, CA 91748
BACKGROUND:
The following is a brief chronology on the 54 unit apartment project
currently under construction at 800 S. Grand Ave. The chronology
follows the project from submission to the County of Los Angeles,
through the processing within the City and finally to the status as of
this date.
The project was submitted to the County of Los Angeles as a conditional
use permit (11/14/89) after having received approval via plot plan
review from the County. The City of Diamond Bar had passed an interim
ordinance (Ord. No.151 1989) which compelled all commercial, multi-
family, and multi -unit developments within the City to apply for
entitlements via a CUP.
The County of Los Angeles transferred the project to the City in late
January of 1990 for processing. The project was heard before the
Planning Commission on July 9, 1990 and the public hearing was
continued to the following meeting for lack of information (the
applicant's architect missed the hearing).
The project was approved with conditions on July 23, 1990 in a joint
session of the Traffic and Transportation Committee and the Planning
Commission with direction to staff bring a Resolution of Approval back
to the Commission at the following meeting. The two reviewing bodies
addressed the traffic impacts and ingress/egress to the site and the
necessity of requiring a coordinated signalized access. The Planning
Commission also reviewed the site plan and architectural renderings via
a design review. The project was approved by the Planning Commission
with conditions that addressed architectural features, parking,
pedestrian circulation, signalizing the project access, landscaping and
maintenance, traffic impact mitigation fees, safety issues, and
direction to prepare a resolution for final consideration on August 13,
1990.
Motion: Commissioner Grothe
Second: Commissioner MacBride
Vote: 4-0-1
Absent: Commissioner Harmony
The Planning Commission Resolution of Approval on August 13, 1990
with the following votes:
Vote: 4-0-1
.Abstention: Commissioner Harmony
The applicant resolved the parking condition by revising the floor
plans to remove all of the three bedroom units and redesigning the
affected units to preclude alterations back to three bedroom units at a
later date.
The applicant obtained grading permits from the City and began grading
on the project in October of 1991. The Building Division approved all
building plans in accordance with the Planning Commission approval.
r The Engineering Department reviewed the soils and geological reports as
i well as the road plans to guarantee compliance.
Presently, the City has placed conditions on the maintenance of the
construction within the public right of way. The applicant has paid
the traffic mitigation fees and posted all applicable bonds as required
by the City. The City and the applicant are currently involved in
finalizing plans for the installation of the median cut and the signal
at the site, the cost of which is to be borne by the developer until
such time that ensuing development will contribute a subsequent pro
The City is actively inspecting the project site to ensure ongoing
compliance to all conditions of approval.
APPLICATION ANALYSIS:
The application is for the subdivision of the 4.5 acre site into one
(1) lot and conversion of the 54 apartment units to condominiums for
the purpose of ownership. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to
amend CUP 89-551 in order to upgrade the amenities of the project.
These requested alterations include interior and exterior changes in
addition to providing eight (8) additional parking spaces.
Tentative Tract Map
The project as approved by the Planning Commission has a density of 12
units per acre and will not change as• a part of the subdivision
application. The site is zoned R-4-(40) U which allows a maximum of 40
units per acre. The Community General Plan designation is Urban 3,
which allows a density that can vary from 6.1 to 12 units per acre.
The project is consistent with or below most of the existing multi-
family residential projects developed within the City.
The approval of the tentative map will- require the air space
subdivision of the units and each unit will then have a legal
description. Additionally, the applicant would be required to create
Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and submit a copy to
the City for review prior to the recordation of the final map.
Included in the CC&Rs, the creation of a Home Owners Association and a
description of their responsibilities should be included. The HOA will
be responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping and any
additional responsibilities deemed appropriate.
As of this writing, no comments have been received from the Engineering
Department.
Conditional Use Permit
The project was proposed with two and three bedroom floor plans. In
order to comply with the parking requirements (122 total, 81 covered,
27 uncovered, 14 guest), the applicant had to revise the floor plans to
provide only two bed room units. Additionally, the Commission deleted
the applicant's requested garage plan in lieu of car ports. The
f applicant has submitted a tentative plan for the addition of eight (8)
parking stalls at the southern portion of the site adjacent to the
entrance.
In reviewing the site plan with the Los Angeles County Sheriff
Department, once again the issue of the carport provision was raised.
The Sheriff Department remains concerned about the frequency of auto
theft at multi -family residential projects that provide little or no
enclosed parking. This issue was raised during the previous project
review and the Commission opted for carports because of the concern for
storage in the garages and tenants parking in the open spaces thus
creating parking deficiencies.
Staff however would recommend that garages be incorporated into the
design of the project from the standpoint that ownership units are
systematically designed with private enclosed parking. The absence of
this amenity would severely impair the owners ability to market the
project.
The Sheriff Department would like to see extensive use of enclosed
parking where possible and also the utilization of controlled access to
the site via electric gate. Staff concurs with these recommendations.
The upgrades to the units proposed by the developer and not required by
code. Code does not distinguish between condominiums and apartments
for required construction materials. The applicant is including the
following upgrades as added amenities:
Interior Additions
1. Increase second subflooring from 5/8 inch plywood to 3/4 inch
Plywood. Increase strength: sound control
2. Add insulation between 1st. & 2nd floor. Decreases sound
transmission.
3. Use resilient channel through out all 1st floor ceilings.
Decreases sound transmission and absorbs impact/movement awareness
between floors.
4. Install recessed lights in kitchens and bathrooms.
5. Add dulted kitchen fans to improve air flow.
6. Insulate all plumbing chases to decrease sound transmission.
7. Add additional telephone and TV outlets.
8. Add 32 oz. carpet over 1/2" rebound pad to increase sound
control and cushion.
Exterior Additions
1. Redesign parking at the entrance of the
parking spaces. site to provide 8
r
Landscaping
In reviewing the landscape plan, staff has not identified any
deficiencies in the type or quantity of shrubs or trees that were
approved within the project or the street trees on Grand Avenue.
The project -will provide approximately 170,283 sq. .ft (87 percent of
site) as landscaped/open space area. The parking area is provided with
trees, shrubs, and ground cover that comprise approximately 10.4
percent of the total area. The landscape/irrigation plan complies with
the Planning Commission approval.
Traffic
The City Engineer has received an updated traffic report from the
applicant and has determined that the proposed project will not have a
significant impact over the approved project. The mitigation measures
Placed on the project when approved as apartments have been deemed
appropriate and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. The
report does not however, discuss the addition of the eight proposed
parking spaces.
The City Engineer is currently involved in a determination of the cost
of installation of the traffic- signal at the entrance to the project
site. The Commission had conditioned the applicant to install the
signal at his expense and to be reimbursed, the fair share
contribution, by ensuing development at the time construction.
Park Fees
The project is required to mitigate the impacts that residential
developments have on the existing park facilities. The City code
requires that subdivisions of both single, family and multi -family
projects contribute either land or in -lieu fees to the City to help
offset the impacts on existing facilities.
The contribution is based on the type of units within the project and
the number of units being developed. The proposed condominium project
site will provide 54 multi -family attached units. The required
contribution of park area is .47 acres. The City may decide that an
in -lieu fee can be substituted for the acreage. That fee is based on
the value of the required acreage.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Based on the nature of this proposed project, the Mitigated Negative
Declaration prepared for CUP 89-551 has been determined to be adequate
for this project, in that no additional negative impacts will be
created by this proposal.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
The public notice was advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and
r the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on February 3, 1992 and in the
Highlander on February 5, 1992. Mailers were sent to 195 property
owners within the required 500 ft. radius of the property.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public
hearing on this project to the March 9, 1992 Planning Commission
meeting pending receipt of comments from the City Engineer.
PREPARED BY:
Robert Searcy, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Application Tentative Map
Initial Study Site Plan
X
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
21660 E. -Copley Drive Suite 190
(714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-3117
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
Record Owner(s)
Name DIAM:M BROTFRS CTE 0%jgERSHIP
Address 994 . Gale Ave. #205
City OF INDUSTRY /Z --
Applicant Applicant
RICKY CHANG
Same
Case#t :L � . :!T
Filed
Fee $_.�TC�'. AGR%sir
Receipt
Applicant's Agent
CE11M & ASSOCL T S
1108 South Garfield Ave.
Alhambra
zip 91748
91Ini
Phone (818) 912-0123 ( )
(818) 9821-916R
(Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures
of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.)
CONSENT: I consent to the submission of the application accompanying this
request.
Signed
Date
(All recor owners)
11-25-91
CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned, hereby certify underpenalty of perjury that
the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge.
4.
Printed Name RICKY CHANG
X Signed
cane or Agent)
cant or
Location 800 South Grand Ave. Diamond Bar, CA. 91765
(Street address or tract and lot number)
between GULDEN SARIN( --j,,- ng
Date 11-25-91
and HILL PLAGE
(Street) (Street)
Zoning R-4
HNM
Previous cases None
Present Use of Site Apartment under construction
Use applied for To convert anartmn nt to condominium
Domestic Water Source
Company/District
Method of Sewage Disposal Public Sanitation District L. A. County
Grading of Lots by Applicant? YES _ I/ NO Amount See approved grading
(Show necessary grading design on site plan or tent. map) plan for apartment
under construction
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (All ownership comprising the proposed lots/project) If
petitioning for zone change, attach legal description of exterior boundaries of
area subject to the change.)
Project Site: t igtingn F Tentative Map Number TR. 51079
Gross Area
Lots: Existing 1
Proposed 1
Area devoted to Structures 2%I 1 51 Open Space 0 283
Residential project A. r;, PC- and 2
Gross Area No. of floors
Proposed Density 12 units per acre
Units/Acre
Number and types of Un i t s Condarsiniu m,
Residential Parking:Type Required
Total
Provided
122
THOSE PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 9, 10 AND 15, IN TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 9
WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL , STATE OF PLAT THEREOF, INCLUDED WITHIN
THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIESt
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LIMB OF
LOT 41 OF TRACT NO. 277590 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 724 PAGES 70 THROUGH 82 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS,
IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID
NORTHWESTERLY LINE IS SHOWN AS HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 36 DEGREES 48
MINUTES 04 SECONDS EAST AND A LENGTH OF 39.00 FEET ON SAID MAP; THENCE
NORTH 36 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 04 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY
LINE 39.00 FEET] THENCE NORTH 30 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 58 SECONDS WEST,
ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINES OF LOTS 41 AND 85 OF SAID TRACT, 322.18
FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
COMPANYPS RIGHT OF WAY AS SAID RIGHT OF WAY.IS SHOWN 80 FEET WIDE ON
SAID MAP ON TRACT NO. 27759, SAID POINT BEING SOUTH 30 DEGREES 48
MINUTES 08 SECONDS EAST 77.65 FEET, MEASURED ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY
LINE OF'LOT 85 FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 85, THENCE
NORTH 87 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 38 SECONDS W$ST, ALONG THE WESTERLY
PROLONGATION OF SAID NORTHERLY LINE, 568.17 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE
CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,950.00 FEET, A RADIAL
LINE OF SAID CURVE TO SAID POINT BEARS BOOTH 50 DEGREES Zb MINUTES 38
SECONDS WEST] THENCE 30UTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 15 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 06 SECONDS A DISTANCE OF 782.69 FEET,
THENCE NORTH 35 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST, RADIAL TO SAID
CURVE, 237.26 FEET TO THE POINT. OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THEREFROM AN AGGREGATE OF ONE-FOURTH OF ALL OIL, GAS AND
CASINGHEAD GAS AND OTHEYt XyDROCAMN w"TANCEB AND MINERALS IN, ON OR
UNDER THE SURFACE OF SAID 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, A6 RESERVED IN
THE DEED FROM UNIVERSITY OF REDLANDS, A CORPORATION ET AL., TO
HARTHOLOMAE CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, RECORDED DECEMBER 28, 1950 IN
BOOK 35179 PAGE 74, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, $ETROLEUM AND OTHER MINERAL OR
HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN AND CINDER OR WHICH MAY HE PRODUCED FROM SAID
LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO USE THAT PORTION ONLY OF SAID LAND
WHICH UNDERLIES A PLANE PARALLEL TO AND S00 FEET BELOW THE PRESENT
STORING,
SURFACE OF SAID LAND, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROSPECTING FOR, DEVELOPING,
AND/OR EXTRACTING SAID OIL, GAS, PETROLEUM AND OTHER MINERAL
OR HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES FROM SAID LAND BY MEANS OF WELLS DRILLED
INTO SAID SUBSURFACE OF SAID LAND FROM DRILL. SITES LOCATED ON OTHER
LANDS, IT BEING EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT TRANSAMERICA
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS SHALL HAVE NO RIGHT TO
ENTER UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND,
PORTION THEREOF TO SAID DEPTH OF OR TO USE RAID LAND OR ANY
500 FEET, FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER,
AS RESERVED BY TRANSAMERICA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN DEED RECORDED
DECEMBER 101 2965 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 994 IN BOOK D3142 PAGE 233,
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
(staff use)
PROJECT NU BER(s):
------------------
------------------
INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
Project Applicant (Owner): Project Representative:
RICKY CHANG CHE1G & ASSOCIATES
18645 E. Gale Ave. #205 NAIVE 1108 South Garfield Avenue pipes
OfIndustry 91748 ADDRESS Alhambra•91801 ADDRESS
(818) 912-0123 (818) 282-2168
PHONE # PHONE #
1. Action requested and project description: mn convert
an aparI7 nt(iinrlar Cnnctnirtirm) to e-- nc1 minimn
2. Street location of pproject: 800 South Grand Avenue,
Diamond Bar, CA.
3a. Present use of site: Vacant
3b. Previous use of site or structures: Vacant
4. Please list all previous cases
(if any) related to this project: None
5. Other related permit/approvals require$
Specify type and granting agency. `tele
6. Are you planning future phases of this project? Y (N,
If yes, explain: Not Applicable �--
s
7. Project Area:
Covered by structures, paving: 25737
Landscaping, open space: 170283
Total Area: 196020
8. Number of floors: 2
9. Present zoning: R-4
10. Water and sewer service: Yes Yes
Domestic Public
Water Sewers
Does service exist at site?
O
N
O N
If yes, do purveyors have
capacity to meet demand of
project and all other approved
projects?
O N
O N
If domestic water or public sewers
services be provided?_ Not A=1Jnahle
are not
available,
how will these
Residential Projects:
11. Number and type of units:_ 54 Unit CondMiniinn
12. Schools:
What school district(s) serves the property?_ Diamond Bar Schnol Districts
Are exisAing school facilities adequate to meet project needs?
NO
If not, what provisions will be made for additional
classrooms?
Non -Residential projects: Not Applicable
13. Distance to nearest residential use or sensitive use (school, hospital,
etc.)
14. Number and floor area of buildings:
15. Number of employees and shifts:
16. Maximum employees per shift:
17. Operating hours:
18. Identify any: End products
Waste products
Means of disposal
19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as
Oil. pesticides, chemicals, paints, or radioactive materials?
YES NO
If yes, explain rant Arn,l irahlP
20• Do your operations require any pressurized tanks?
YES NO
If yes, explain Not APPlicable
21. Identify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on-
site.
22• Will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach
the nearest highway?
YES NO
If yes, explain Not Applicable
3. Are there any major trees on the site, including oak trees?
YES O
If yes. type and number: N�,P
4. Will any natural watercourses, surface flow patterns, etc., be changed
through project development?:
NO
If yes. explain: See aopraved grading olan
S• Grading:
Will the project require grading? NO
If yes. how many cubic yards?
Will it be balanced on site? NO
If not balanced, where will dirt be obtained or deposited?
6. Are there any identifiable landslides or other major geologic hazards on
the property (including uncompacted fill)?
YES O
If yes. explain: No
7• Is the property located within a high fire hazard area (hillsides with
moderately dense vegetation)?
YES NO
Distance to nearest fire station: (l'L nti►
$• Noise:
Existing noise sources at site: Traffic
Noise to be generated by project: None
9• Fumes:
Odors generated by project: None
Could toxic fumes be generated? None
10. What energy -conserving designs or material will be used? R-19
& R-11 for insulation, meet state title 24 Energy Requirement
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements 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 knowl ge and belief.
Date Signature
For:
21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE - SUITE 100
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-4177
714-860-2489- FAX 714-861-3117
1. Background:
1. Name of.AppGcant: b 1 A.WLo "h T*05 . Q F' O w Kjtt,{JA J P
2. Address and Phone Number °:2Propo�ne�nt: 1 �j �Og S Gmf, Nve, 4,Z06
4. Date- off Eltviro mental Information Submittal:
C
5. Date of JE�qv, mnmental Checklist Submittal:
6, leadrC ArmP1��,r�'Ag Requiring CheI1.cklipt):
1
7. Name of Pro if applicable (T ract No. if Subdivision):
TM Mi F1�1 G
S. Re! ed plicati ns (under the authority of this environmental determination):
Tm i fr%
Yes No
Varianca:
Conditional Use Permit:
Zone Change: ---j
General Plan Amendment:
(Attach Completed Environmental Informatlon Fane)
cny of Diamond Barinitfa! Study Form
Page 3
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)?
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?
e. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result In:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic oGganisms and insects)?
b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to 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?
Yes No Possibly
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels
7. LIght and Glare. Will the proposal result in:
a. Signi ficant new light and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of light and glare?
8. Land Use. W1II 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. Risk 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 emergency evacuation plan? _ 1L
Y
-r Gty of Diamond Bar!nitW Study Form
Page 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)? LIZ
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? a Z
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.)
19. Recreation. Will 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? /
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric of 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.,.
OAR TREE STATEMENT
I x ) The subject property contains no oak trees.
The subject property contains one or more oak trees, however the
applicant anticipates that no activity (grading and/or
construction) will take place within five (5) feet of the outer
dripline of any oak tree.
7 The subject property contains one or more oak trees and the
applicant states that activity (grading and/or construction) will
take place within five (5) feet of the outer dripline of any oak
tree. an Oak Tree Permit has been or will be applied for prior to
any activity taking place on the property.
(Applicant's S' nature) / 2 `r/ Cfl
Date)
DIAMOND BROTHERS
DEVELOPER BUILDER
Tel: (818) 912-0123 Fax: (818) 912-7045
January 8, 1992
Mr. Robert Searcy
Planning Department
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-417
Re: Tentative Tract Map 51079
Dear Rob:
As per our phone conversation, I have listed all items which we are
trying to upgrade this project. since the original design is
already meeting the condominium requirement, we are just trying to
make it better.
I. Item: Upgrade second floor subflooring from 5/8 inch
Plywood to 3/4 inch plywood. Increases strength: sound control
"2. Item: Add insulation between 1st & 2nd floor. Decreases
sound transmission.
3. Item: Use resilient channel through out all 1st floor
ceilings. Decreases sound transmission and absorbs impact/movement
awareness between 1st & 2nd floor units
4. Item: Increase roof insulation from R-19 to R-30. Improves
2nd floor heating and air conditioning efficiently . Decreases
noise levels within 2nd floor units.
5. Item: Frame for. and install recessed lights in kitchens, &
bathrooms. Decorative and functional lighting improvements
6. Item: Add dulted kitchen fans in all units. Provides higher
quality air flow
7. Item: Added backing at entry doors. Decreases impact to
adjoining units.
8. Item: insulate all plumbing chases. Decreases sound
transmission within units and between units.
9. Item: Redesign parking at entry provides added 8 parking
spaces.
18645 East Gale Ave., Suite 205 City of Industry, CA 91748
DIAMOND BROTHERS
DEVELOPER BUILDER
Tel: (818) 912-0123 Fax: (818) 912-7045
Mr. Searcy
Page 2
January 8, 1992
10. Item: Redesign patio screen fences/walls. Provides more
spacious feeling for units.
11. Item: Add additional telephone and T.V. outlets. Improves
life style.
12. Item: Offer 32 oz carpet over 1/2" rebound pad. Provides
better sound control and cushion.
Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Truly yours,
icky Chang
Vice President
RC/cc
18645 East Gale Ave., Suite 205 City of Industry, CA 91748
24 January 1992
Mr. Dale Kerlin (via Facsimile)
Diamond Brothers, Inc.
1864.5 Gale Avenue, Suite 205
City of Industry, California 91748
Wayne C. Siu, Architects
Architecture and Planning
Re: Meeting with Mr. Rob Searcy of Planning Department
Apartments at 800 South Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar, Calltornia
Mr. Kerlin:
Per your request earlier this week, we met with Mr, Rob Searcy of the Diamond Bar
Planning Department regarding the following elevation revisions:
-- Replacing entry trellises with roof,.
-- Reduce center recess at each end of building to six inches (6) to add
window seat on the First Floor and floor space on the Second;
-- To replace exterior plaster on the front decorative roof with concrete
tiles.
Mr. Searcy told us that while he has no problem with any of the revisions, zoning
ordinance requires that each revision to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
He suggested that these changes to be incorporated with the previous additions so
that they could be heard at the same public hearing.
If you have any questions, please feel free to us.
Very truly yours,
Wayn C. Slu, Architects and Associates
Wayne C. Siu, AIA
Principal
WCS/id
14S WEST FIRST STREET, SUITE 0, TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680-3204 0 TELEPHONE (714) 838-6215 • FACSIMILE (714) 838-1701
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. < <
TO: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992 REPORT DATE: April 28, 1992
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director
TITLE: Tentative Tract Map 51079 and an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-551
SUMMARY: The application requests approval of the Tentative Tract Map and an amendment
to the CUP for conversion of a 54 unit apartment complex, currently under
construction at 800 S. Grand Avenue, to condominiums for the purpose of
individual unit ownership.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map 51079
and the amendment to CUP 89-551 via the attached Resolutions No. 92-07 and
No. 92-08.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report
X Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
_ Agreement(s)
Other
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
Los Angeles County Sheriff Department
Los Angeles County Fire Department
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
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? _-k-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 and Building Departments
D BY:
Robert . an
City M ger
4ws� /,
Terrence L. Belanger
Assistant City Manager
J�mAes DeStefano
Community Develo ment Dir.
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: May 5, 1992
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 51079 and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-551.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The applicant is requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map 51079 and an amendment to Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) 89-551 for a condominium conversion of a 54 unit apartment complex currently under
construction.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map 51079 and the amendment to CUP
89-551 via the attached Resolutions No. 92-07 and No. 92-08.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
This project will provide all required public improvements as a part of the development and is required to pay
all necessary impact fees including but not limited to school fees, traffic mitigation fees, parks and recreation
contributions, and Department of Fish and Game fees.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Diamond Brothers One Partnership, has requested approval of a Tentative Tract Map and an
amendment CUP 89-551 for approval of a condominium conversion.
The following is a brief chronology on the 54 unit apartment project currently under construction at 800 S.
Grand Ave. The chronology follows the project from submission to the County of Los Angeles, through the
processing within the City and finally to the status as of this date.
The project was submitted to the County of Los Angeles as a conditional use permit (11/14/89) after having
received approval via plot plan review from the County. The City of Diamond Bar had passed an interim
ordinance (Ord. No.15, 1989) which compelled all commercial, multi -family, and multi -unit developments
2
within the City to apply for entitlements via a CUP.
The County of Los Angeles transferred the project to the City in late January of 1990 for processing. The
project was heard before the Planning Commission on July 9, 1990 and the public hearing was continued to
the following meeting for lack of information (the applicant's architect missed the hearing).
The project was approved with conditions on July 23, 1990 in a joint session of the Traffic and Transportation
Committee and the Planning Commission with direction to staff bring a Resolution of Approval back to the
Commission at the following meeting. The two reviewing bodies addressed the traffic impacts and
ingress/egress to the site and the necessity of requiring a coordinated signalized access. The Planning
Commission also reviewed the site plan and architectural renderings via a design review. The project was
approved by the Planning Commission with conditions that addressed architectural features, parking, pedestrian
circulation, signalizing the project access, landscaping and maintenance, traffic impact mitigation fees, safety
issues, and direction to prepare a resolution for final consideration on August 13, 1990. The resolution was
approved 4-0-1.
The applicant, Diamond Brothers, obtained grading permits from the City and began grading on the project
in October of 1991. The Building Division approved all building plans in accordance with the Planning
Commission approval. The Engineering Department reviewed the soils and geological reports as well as the
road plans to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval.
The applicant submitted the current condominium conversion application in late November 1991. The Planning
Commission held public hearings on the project on February 24, March 9, and March 28, 1992. The
Commission adopted Resolutions recommending the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 51079 and the
approval of the amendment to CUP 89-551.
DISCUSSION:
The application is for the subdivision of the 4.5 acre site into one (1) lot and the conversion of the 54
apartment units to condominiums for the purpose of ownership. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to
amend CUP 89-551 in order to upgrade the amenities of the project. These requested alterations include
interior and exterior changes in addition to providing additional parking spaces and a security gate at the
entrance of the project.
Tentative Tract Map
The project as approved by the Planning Commission has a density of 12 units per acre and will not change
as a part of the subdivision application. The site is zoned R-4-(40) U which allows a maximum of 40 units
per acre. The Community General Plan designation is Urban 3, which allows a density that can vary from 6.1
to 12 units per acre. The project is consistent with or below most of the existing multi -family residential
projects developed within the City.
The approval of the tentative map will allow the air space subdivision of the units and each unit will then have
a legal description. Additionally, the applicant submitted a draft set of Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions
(CC&R's) to the City for review. Final approval of the CC&R's by the City staff is required and the CC&R's
will be recorded with the final map. A Home Owners Association with a description of their responsibilities
is included within the document. A major function of the HOA will be the responsibility for the maintenance
of all landscape areas.
3
Conditional Use Permit
The project was approved with 54 two bedroom units. The project complies with the City's parking
requirements (122 total, 81 covered, 27 uncovered, 14 guest). The Planning Commission has additionally
required the applicant to provide a minimum of four additional parking spaces outside the secured gate at the
entrance to the project. The purpose of these spaces is to provide additional guest parking and to provide a
turn around area for cars not entering the site.
In reviewing the site plan with the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, once again the issue of the carport
provision was raised. This issue was raised during the original project review. The Commission opted for
carports because of the concern for storage in the garages and tenants parking in the guest and exterior resident
spaces. The Commission cited this situation as creating parking deficiencies.
The Sheriff Department remains concerned about the frequency of auto theft at multi -family residential projects
that provide little or no enclosed parking. The Sheriff Department identified the extensive use of enclosed
parking where possible and also the utilization of controlled access to the site via electric gate as appropriate
detours. The Commission opted for this measure.
The upgrades to the units proposed by the developer are not required by code. The upgrades are primarily for
noise suppression between units and to reduce sound impacts related to traffic noise. The additions include
increased second subflooring, insulation between 1st. & 2nd floor, use resilient channel through out all 1st floor
ceilings and insulation of all plumbing chases.
Landscaping
The project will provide approximately 170,283 sq. ft (87 percent of site) as landscaped/open space area. The
parking area is provided with trees, shrubs, and ground cover that comprise approximately 10.4 percent of the
total area. The sloped hillside at the southern portion of the property will be irrigated and landscaped as a part
of the approved landscape/irrigation plans.
The landscape pallet includes heavy application of trees and shrubs within the development and also along the
exterior elevations. The development will provide the City's street trees along the sidewalk on Grand Avenue
in addition to trees and shrubs at the back of the sidewalk placed to conceal the block wall. The Commission
additionally required that the block wall be landscaped with ivy so as to mitigate the visual impacts until such
time that the landscaping which borders the wall matures.
Traffic
The City Engineer has received an updated traffic report from the applicant and has determined that the
proposed project will not have a significant impact over the approved project. The traffic mitigation measures
placed on the project when approved as apartments have been deemed appropriate although the City Engineer
has conditioned a deceleration lane, minimum 100 ft in length, into the project design. The lane will provide
for right turns into the site for north bound traffic.
The City Engineer is currently involved in a determination of the cost of installation of the traffic signal at the
entrance to the project site. The Commission had conditioned the applicant to install the signal at his expense
and to be reimbursed, the fair share contribution, by ensuing development at the time construction.
4
Park Fees
The project is required to mitigate the impacts that residential developments have on the existing park facilities.
The City code requires that subdivisions of both single family and multi -family projects contribute either land
or in -lieu fees to the City to help offset the impacts on the existing facilities.
The contribution is based on the type of units within the project and the number of units being developed. The
proposed condominium project site will provide 54 multi -family attached units. The park contribution required
for this development is .34 acres or an in -lieu fee of $164,333. The Commission recommends that the City
Council condition the project to contribute the in -lieu fee.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Based on the nature of this proposed project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for CUP 89-551 has
been determined to be adequate for this project, in that no additional negative impacts will be created by the
condominium proposal.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
The public notice was advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on
April 13, 1992. Mailers were sent to 195 property owners within the required 500 ft. radius of the property
on April 13, 1992.
PREPARED BY:
Robert SoLU. Associate Planner
Attachments:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-07 and No. 92-08
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Public Works Department
Fire Department
Tentative Tract Map 51079
Vicinity Map
Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Staff Reports
City Council Resolutions of Approval
s:CUP89551.FRM
5