Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/1994cit(19 couytcl./ AGENDA Tuesday, September 20, 1994 7:00 P.M. South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California Mayor Gary H. Werner Mayor Pro Tem Clair W. Harmony Council Member Eileen R. Ansari Council Member Phyllis E. Papen Council Member Gary G. Miller City Manager Terrence L. Belanger Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery City Clerk Lynda Burgess Copies of staff reports, or other written documentation relating to agenda items, are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (909) 860-2489 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking " 7 The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper in the Council Chambers. and encourages you to do the same. MISSION STATEMENT The City Council meeting is the forum established to conduct the business of the City of Diamond Har, its citizens, property owners, and businesses. The City Council has chosen to conduct its business meetings in a televised, open forum. This has been done to assure that all community members are kept informed as to the status of City business. It is the Council's objective to conclude the business stated on the evening's agenda by a reasonable hour, which is 11:00 p.m. To accomplish tonight's objectives, the City Council requests that: 1. Public comments may be directed to Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to the public, which are not on this evening's agenda. 2. Public comments on scheduled matters will be heard in conjunction with the respective agendized subject. 3. There are to be no personal attacks toward individual members of the City Council. Such comments are viewed as personal attacks against the entire City Council and will not be tolerated. 4. There are to be no personal attacks from an individual Council member. Such are viewed as personal attacks from the entire City Council, which are not conducive to a positive business meeting environment; and, will not be tolerated. The Diamond Bar City Clair W. Harmony ��- Mayor Pro Tem Eileen R. Ansari Councilwoman iates your cooperation. Phyllis E. Papen Council o G. M 11 Councilman Next Resolution No. 94-42 Next Ordinance No. 03(1994) 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Werner ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Miller, Papen, Mayor Pro Tem Harmony and Mayor Werner 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATION, CERTIFICATES - 2.1 Proclaiming September 19-25, 1994 as "POLLUTION PREVENTION WEEK." 2.2 Presentation to Anjali Sridhar for finishing in the top 10 in the "Miss Teens Encouraging Excellence Nationally Pageant." 2.3 Presentation to Myla Hardy, Silver Medalist at the California State Games. 2.4 Presentation to Geri Briden, Retiring from the Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce. 2.5 Commendation to John McKitrick, President of the Heritage Park Rec-Council, for his support and efforts to "Youth Activities." 2.6 Presentation by Karl Rosen, President, Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce, of a check to the City in the amount of $1500 for Heritage Park Community Center. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Council on Consent Calendar items 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. 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Council - members are for Council discussion. Direction may be given at this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a future meeting. 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - September 22, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., Heritage Park Comm. Cntr., 2900 S. Brea Canyon Rd. SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 PAGE 2 5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION - September 22, 1994 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.3 PLANNING COMMISSION - September 26, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.4 CITY -ON-LINE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - September 28, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., City Hall Conference Room, 21660 E. Copley Dr. 5.5 MULTI -CULTURAL COMMITTEE - October 3, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Room CC -2, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.6 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - October 4, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.7 PLANNING COMMISSION - October 10, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.8 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - October 13, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.9 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - October 18, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.1 MINUTES 6.1.1 Regular Meeting of June 21, 1994 - Approve as Submitted. 6.1.2 Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 28, 1994 - Approve as Submitted. Requested by: City Clerk 6.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of July 11, 1994 - Receive & File. Requested by: Community Development Director 6.3 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - 6.3.1 Regular Meeting of June 9, 1994 - Receive & File. 6.3.2 Regular Meeting of July 14, 1994 - Receive & File. 6.3.3 Adjourned Regular Meeting of July 18, 1994 - Receive & File. Requested by: City Engineer 6.4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of June 27, 1994 - Receive & File. Requested by: Community Services Director 6.5 VOUCHER REGISTER: Approve Voucher Register dated September 20, 1994 in the amount of $224,497.83. Requested by: City Manager 6.6 REJECTION OF CLAIM - Filed by Rita Stevens on July 22, 1994 - (INDEMNITY CLAIM ONLY). SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 PAGE 3 Recommended Action: Reject request and refer matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. Requested by: City Clerk 6.7 RELEASE OF GRADING BOND POSTED FOR 22428 STEEPLECHASE IN. - Paul and Mary Wang desire release of a cash bond posted for grading in the amount of $2,700. The Interim City Engineer finds that Mr. and Mrs. Wang have performed all work as shown on the approved As -Built grading plan on file. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve work completed and release Cash Bond No. 038-468472-50 in the amount of $2,700. Requested by: City Engineer 6.8 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR GOLDEN SPRINGS DR. LANDSCAPE MEDIAN, WESTERLY CITY LIMITS TO LEMON AVE - On July 5, 1994, the Council authorized staff to advertise for bids for the Golden Springs Dr. Landscape Medians Project. At this time, staff proposes to award a contract to the lowest responsible bidder. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council award a contract to Advanced Construction in an amount not -to -exceed $247,822.90. Requested by: City Engineer 6.9 AWARD OF BID FOR TREE PLANTING IN THE CITY - On August 16, 1994, the Council adopted Resolution No. 94-38 authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids for planting of parkway trees. Bids were received from seven qualified contractors and one non-qualified contractor, whose bid was non-responsive. Bids were opened and publicly read on September 13, 1994, with bids ranging from a low of $14,930 to a high of $26,519. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council award the contract for planting of parkway trees to Green Giant Landscape, the lowest responsive bidder, in the amount of $14,930, plus an additional amount not to exceed $1,500 to serve as contingency, if needed. Requested by: Community Services Director 6.10 RESOLUTION NO. 94 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION'S HOME OWNERSHIP PROGRAM FOR FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS - The L.A. County Community Development Commission has announced the availability of HOME funds for first time SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 PAGE 4 homebuyers to assist low and moderate income families through second trust deed financing. The maximum funding per participant is based upon purchase price, up to 20% of the purchase price, or $30,000, which is ever less. The County will administer the program at no cost to the City. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 94 -XX and authorize the Mayor to sign the Memorandum of Understanding. Requested by: City Manager 6.11 RESOLUTION NO. 94 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING A MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM IN COOPERATION WITH THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA DEBT LIMIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE IN 1994 FOR AN ALLOCATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATES AND THE TRANSFER OF SUCH ALLOCATION TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - In an effort to develop an affordable housing program, staff has been investigating different methods of funding for first time homebuyers. The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program is designed to assist the first time homebuyer in purchasing a single-family home. The program is specifically directed toward households which would not be able to purchase housing without assistance such as MCC program. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 94 -XX, authorize the Mayor to sign the Cooperative Agreement, and submit an applica- tion to the County for the City's involvement in the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. Requested by: City Manager 6.12 RESOLUTION NO. 94 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXCHANGE OF $300,000 IN UNCOMMITTED PROPOSITION A (LOCAL RETURN TRANSIT FUNDS) TO THE CITY OF LANCASTER FOR $207,000 IN UNENCUMBERED FUNDS - The City has approxim- ately $300,,000 in uncommitted Prop A Local Return Funds for FY 1992-93. The City of Lancaster has offered $0.69 on the dollar in exchange for the City's uncommitted Prop A funds. The proposed exchange is mutually beneficial to both cities and will enable the City to fund additional library services. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 94 -XX approving exchange of $300,000 in Prop A Local Return Funds to the City of Lancaster for $207,000 in unencumbered funds. It is further recommended that the Council authorize the Mayor to execute, on the City's behalf, the necessary contract- SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 PAGE 5 ual documents with the City of Lancaster to complete the exchange. Requested by: City Manager 6.13 RESOLUTION NO. 94 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE TRANSFER BY JONES INTERCABLE, INC. OF CERTAIN SHARES OF ITS STOCK TO BELL CANADA INTERNATIONAL INC. - Jones Intercable has agreed to sell to Bell Canada Intl., Inc., a certain number of shares of Class A Common Stock which, when aggregated with the shares of Class A Common Stock currently owned by an affiliate of BCI, will equal 30% of the outstanding shares of Jones Intercable Stock. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 94 -XX approving the transfer by Jones Intercable, Inc. of certain shares of stock to Bell Canada Intl., Inc. Requested by: City Manager 6.14 RATIFICATION OF PURCHASE ORDER FOR USE OF WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES - At its meeting of July 7, 1992, the Council approved a joint use agreement with the Walnut Valley Unified School District granting staff the authority to schedule recreation programs in school district facilities. Each fiscal year, an open purchase order is issued to encumber the funds budgeted for rental of the school district facilities. For the past two years, an average of $50,000 was spent for the rental of District facilities. It is expected that a similar amount will be expended during FY 1994/95. The Purchasing Ordinance limits the City Manager's authority to sign purchase orders to $10,000. Only fee- based programs capable of cost recovery are scheduled in school district facilities. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council ratify the purchase order for use of Walnut Valley Unified School District Facilities for Recreation Programs for an amount not to exceed $50,000 and authorize the City Manager to sign the Purchase Order. Requested by: Community Services Director 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 ZONE CHANGE NO. 92-2, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51169, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-3, OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-3, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-2 - The proposed project is a request for approval of a 13 unit subdivision a 20 acre site located in Significant Ecological Area No. 15. Additionally, the application is for the removal of one oak tree, a zone change to bring SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 8. MVIelow., the project into conformance with the General Plan (1992) and the certification of the environmental document. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, receive testimony and direct staff to prepare all documents necessary for final approval. Requested by: Community Development Director 7.2 RESOLUTION NO. 94 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22102, AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO (2) PARCELS LOCATED AT 1575 VALLEY VISTA DRIVE - LOT 13, TRACT 30379 AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - The applicant requests approval to subdivide a 4.39 acre parcel located at 1575 Valley Vista Dr. into two lots of 3.5 acres and .89 acres. No development projects are included as part of this application. The project site is located in Gateway Corporate Center and is zoned CM-BE-U/C (Commercial Manufacturing, Billboard Exclusion, Unilateral Contract Zone). Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 94 -XX approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102, Lot 13, Tract 30379 and making findings in support thereof. Requested by: Community Development Director OLD BUSINESS: 8.1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 92-2, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32400, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-5, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 912; THE SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1 (APPLICANT - ARCIERO & SONS) - Continued from August 16, 1994. On July 5, 1994, the Council approve the applicant's 91 unit project, in concept. The Council directed the preparation of environmental findings, project conditions and appropriate resolutions for subsequent review and final action. Several project issues are unresolved. The applicant received a continuance from the August 16, 1994 meeting to September 20, 1994. The applicant is now requesting an additional continuance to October 4, 1994. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council continue Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400 and its related applicants to October 4, 1994. Requested by: Community Development Director 8.2 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 51253, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92- 12, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-9; THE SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1 SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 PAGE 7 (APPLICANT: SASAK CORPORATION) - Continued from August 16, 1994. The applicant requests approval of a 21 single-family residential development proposed on 6.7 acres located adjacent to Morning Sun Dr. On July 5, 1994, the applicant requested and received a continuance to August 16, 1994 in order to respond to Council comments. The applicant requested and received an additional continuance to September 6, 1994. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council continue this matter to a future date. Requested by: Community Development Director 8.3 DISCUSSION RE RESOLUTION NO. 94-40: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RE: NO LEGAL DEFENSE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS. Requested by: City Council 8.4 RESOLUTION NO. 91-71 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL STANDARDS OF OPERATION. Requested by: City Council 9. NEW BUSINESS: None 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 11. CLOSED SESSION: May convene to Consider: Matters of pending litigation (G.C. 54956.9), Personnel (G.C. 54957.6), or purchase/sale of real property (G.C. 54956.8). Records not available for public inspection. Pending Litigation - Oak Tree Lanes 12. ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ) The Diamond Bar City Council will hold a Regular Meeting at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, located at 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California at 7:00 p.m., on Tuesday, September 20, 1994. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I, LYNDA BURGESS, declare as follows: I am the City Clerk in the City of Diamond Bar; that a copy of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council, to be held on September 20, 1994 was posted at their proper locations. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Notice and Affidavit was executed this 16th day of September, 1994, at Diamond Bar, California. /s/ Lynda Burgess Lynda Burgess, City Clerk City Clerk City of Diamond Bar 21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE • SUITE 100 DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-4177 909-860-2489 • FAX 909-861-3117 --W---- T W- T E L E C O P Y DATE: TIME: / si C O V E R S H E E T TO: Name: Agency: Telephone No.: FAX No. FROM: Name: orn rn c /(J c c Division:(,��✓- NUMBER OF PAGES: (Including Cover Sheet): COMMENTS: Gary H. Wemer Clair W. Harmony Eileen R. Ansari Gary G. Miller Phyllis E. Papen Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: h 'v ti w c v` (� DATE: 6 ADDRESS: PHONE: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda name and address as written above. 0 ease have the Council Minutes reflect my TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK i 6, P' DATE: a1 �30 Fd�i- W j.Ad PHONE: g6/^47 'Z AGENDA #/SUBJECT: %. I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: _/� /`� Z 4V7�yq DATE: �Z62 ADDRESS: �%Z N'�� l PHONE: St,0_15�0? ORGANIZATION: /�r�� / ��i L096uc- AGENDA #/SUBJECT: 4rtA,_, ii G F % T 052) Zr)7`1& 1-IC.70C I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. gnature TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK DATE: PHONE: �•�I� I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature �VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL J TO: CITY CLERK FROM: �� l tl /' �. S/h /! DATE: '� " ;D -2; S� ADDRESS: 2/30 �airw�',�a PHONE: - (07% ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature , VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: /&.a c,,_ A- DATE: 9 - -z® -fie ADDRESS: ,-,7o.) 1 14t -L , 1Z1 PHONE: L-J� <V - ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: DATE: ADDRESS: `; o' c �;. �' ��. ��r �; I % i � ,'-PHONE: /✓ ! i �r ORGANIZATION: ��—__-r--R------~ AGENDA WSUBJECT: `� � ` s / 0�'( F t-- - I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council, Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT CITY CLERK DATE: p zw c 17 r it I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL Z ---J TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK DATE: PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature yfd9-861-3117 PAGE 1 (PHINIEU PFiGe: PAu� µL FUMFI_LA HECFI'.'ED W7/17 iy:sy 1994 908618888 a� i7�i99a 20:'7 AI, i2iJMP' I L.LA 1 5 i l0! .:11sm If DATE: 7/17/94 S COUNCIL14EMBER ATTENTION: ALL FI.g/CITY MANAGER ' -=, FROM: Mq. AL RUMPILLA .Z DISCUSSION RE: CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9 Comm be part of the minutes of I will ask that my written MEETING. 19/94) City CouncilmeeA SETTER E COUNCIL it. Tuesday s ( / FOR A $ETTE no one is following CHANGES THAT SHOULD BE MADE A. Mins ion Statement at 6:30 Pm -be on eliminated, ted, 5 sec. B. Start Meetings atr 00 Pm- 1 minute 1. Call to :30 P 1 minute Pledge of Alleg' Roll Call: procl&mations, etc. Not to exceed 10 2. Special Presentation, Minutes' minutes. vents..Not to exceed 5 3_ Schedule of Future E Per speaker without being has 5 minutes P item until everyone 10 4 • Public Comments snot move on to next avg # of sp interrupted. Do council. 50 minutes toted had a chance to address the also not to 5 minutes ger Councilmembert25 minutes 5. Council Comm 5' 15 minutes be interrupted,? minutes 6. Consent Calendar: 7 minutes 7. old Business: 7 minutes S. New Business: 10 minutes 9. public Hearing2 minutes per Council -member 15 minutes 10. Announcements: Adjournment11. Close Session: Session, 12. Announce any action in close tem on the not Schedule more than one or two item of the The Council should know are a very controversy subject audience• agenda that they Ates a large Community, and the council anticip et through i,e. over night parking• help the Council to g I think this may help he meeting in a timely manner. Respectfully: Mr. Al Rumpilla w • ONE 3 ARE NOT RECEIVED CALL (909) 861-8898 FACSIMILE AGES INCLUDING COVER GH NUMBER OF PEE 1F ALL PACE 861-8896 (FAX) NUMBER (909) 9.,. _ — Moreland &a CEFmRm PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS July 27, 1994 Honorable Members of the Finance Committee City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 Honorable Members of the Finance Committee: SL. TS JAC NVM- T PRA0", ;;A66 FCR'N A W66 (71.) I60 -97W 4111 PALOMAR AIRPOR' POAL), SC''_ -5C -AAL59AD, ZAL FORNiA 92009 ;619) 43' We We have performed certain agreed-upon procedures as enumerated below in relation to the City of Diamond Bar's procurement and cash disbursement internal accounting control procedures as of July, 1994. 'These procedures have been performed solely to assist you in the evaluation of the City's procurement and cash disbursement processes, and our report should not be used for any other purpose. We make no comment as to the sufficiency of these procedures for your purposes. We performed the following procedures: (1) obtain an understanding of the procedures, (2) evaluate the City's procedures for material weaknesses, (3) review specific transactions for compliance, and (4) provide the City with our findings and recommendations. The results of our limited review are discussed below. Based on the results of the procedures described above, we noted no material weaknesses in the design or function of the procurement and cash disbursement processes. However, we noted the following items of less significance. I. The City has no formal policies related to the issuance and use of pur6hase orders. Although an informal policy is apparently in place, it is not consistently followed. In order to ensure that all material purchases are in accordance with the budget and are properly approved, we recommend the City provide a threshold above which all purchases must be made through the use of a purchase order. It is our understanding that the City's purchasing policy, which is still being developed, wiII require the use of purchase orders for all purchases greater than $1,000. 2. The City has not developed a formal written manual for purchasing policies and procedures. Finance Committee City of Diamond Bar July 27, 1994 Page 2 In order to provide for the consistent treatment of similar purchases, we recommend the City develop and implement the use of a purchasing manual. It is our understanding that such a manual is currently being developed. 3. Invoices received through the mail are routed to the department which requested **MW the goods or services; the Finance Department does not receive the invoice until the department has requested payment of the invoice. We recommend the City route all invoices directly to the Finance Department immediately upon receipt. The Finance Department should maintain a control log of all invoices which includes the vendor, vendor's invoice number, City's purchase order number, date the invoice was received, date payment is due, and the appropriate ordering department. Once the invoice has been entered into the control log, it should be routed to the ordering department for appropriate action. The control log should be monitored to ensure payments are made in a timely manner. 4. The Account Clerk does not indicate on the face of the invoice that the invoice has been reviewed for accuracy and appropriate approvals. In order to provide evidence that invoices are reviewed for accuracy and appropriate approvals, we recommend the Account Clerk indicate her review and approval by initialing the invoice prior to payment being made. 5. The Account Clerk's responsibilities include invoice and warrant processing and distribution of warrants. In order to provide adequate separation of incompatible responsibilities, we recommend the invoice and warrant processing and distribution of warrants responsibilities be separated 6. The Senior Accountant's resp..,nsibilities include both the preparation of the payroll warrants and the reconcilhef:on the payroll bank account. In order to provide adequate separation of incompatible responsibilities, we recommend the reconciliation of the payroll bank account be prepared by an employee independent of the payroll process, 7. The reconciliation of the total warrants used to the total used per the warrant signing machine transaction counter is not monitored by someone independent of the warrant processing function. We recommend there be an independent review of the reconciliation performed of the total warrants issued in order to ensure the accurate and appropriate completion of this reconciliation. Honorable :Members ome �- Finance Committee City of Diamond Bar July 27, 1994 Page 3 8. The City does not have an approved vendor list from which all purchases are made. In addition, the City does not perform a verification of authenticity and independence of vendors used. We recommend the City prepare, maintain, and utilize an approved vendor list in order to ensure the authenticity and independence of vendors used by the City. 1. Six of the thirteen transactions selected by the Finance Committee and five of the ten transactions selected by the auditor had department head approval only on the Request for Warrant; there was no department head approval on the invoice. In addition, one of the thirteen transactions selected by the Finance Committee had department head approval only on the invoice; there was no department head approval on the Request for Warrant. We recommend the City's procedures clearly indicate every place the department head's approval is needed. The Account Clerk should carefully monitor the warrant packages to ensure the procedures are being followed. 2. One of the ten transactions selected by the auditor did not have the Accounting Manager's approval on the Request for Warrant. We recommend the City follow its policy of having all Requests for Warrant forms approved by the Accounting Manager to indicate the payment is in accordance with the adopted budget. 3. One of the ten transactions selected by the auditor did not have any supporting documentation attached or otherwise did not provide a reference where supporting documentation could be found. We recommend the City attach or reference documentation in order to support the transactions. 4. Two of the thirteen transactions selected by the Finance Committee did not have the invoice stamped "PAID". In order to help prevent the duplicate payment of invoices, we recommend all paid invoice packages be stamped "PAID". S. Eight of the thirteen transactions selected by the Finance Committee required contracts. Two of those contracts were not submitted to the City Council for approval (one of these two contracts related to two transactions). One contract was signed by the Mayor and the other was signed by the City Manager. Finance Committee City of Diamond Bar July 27, 1994 Page 4 In addition, eight of the ten transactions selected by the auditor required contracts. Two of *he transactions related to the same contract which was never approved by the City Council. We recommend the City Council approve all contracts in excess of $10,000 as required by City policy. 6. Of the seven contracts selected for review by the auditor, one was approved by the City Council subsequent to the contract's effective date. We recommend the City Council approve all contracts prior to the execution date contained within the contract. 7. A contract was not "Approved as to Form" by the City Attorney, although a line for such signature was provided on the contract. The contract was signed by both the City Clerk and the Mayor. . We recommend the City Attorney approve every contract as to form prior to either the City Clerk or other City official's signature. Because these procedures were not sufficient to constitute an audit made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, we do not express an opinion on the financial statements or any specific accounts or elements thereof of the City of Diamond Bar. Had we performed additional procedures or had we trade an audit of the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, matters not indicated above might have come to our attention and would have been reported to you. This letter should not be associated with the financial statements of the City of Diamond Bar. Very truly yours, MORELAND & ASSOCIATES Patricia Rives, Partner PR -IP T07N- =.u�5 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL DRAtT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JUNE 21, 1994 1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Werner called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Werner. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Ansari, Papen, Mayor Pro Tem Harmony and Mayor Werner. Councilmember Miller was excused. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Frank Usher, Assistant City Manager; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer; Bob Rose, Community Services Director, Jim DeStefano, Community Development Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. Mr. Clark Moseley was introduced as a substitute for Interim City Attorney, Michael Montgomery. 2. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 92-1 AND 2; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8; AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-8; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32400, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-5, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 91-2; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253 AND PERMIT NO. 91-2; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-12; OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-9; THE SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN - Continued from June 13, 1994. CM/Belanger advised that the Council requested an opinion from ICA/Montgomery as to the status of tentative maps relating to amendment of the tentative maps subsequent to the initial filing of the application of the map. Mr. Montgomery provided a legal memorandum addressed to the Council on June 17, 1994. Mr. Moseley advised that the issues discussed in the memorandum should be referred back to ICA/Montgomery so that he may further clarify his report, which does not truly cover all of the concerns. CM/Belanger advised the Council that if it takes any action on these vesting maps, it must make a finding under Government Code Sec. 65361, which is the OPR letter, whether it's approved or denied. M/Werner questioned whether the Council must make a decision on the entirety of the master plan, or leave it, or would it also have to make decisions on each of the individual tract map application and any other similar issues. CM/Belanger advised that the Council has three separate and distinct applications submitted by three separate developers; that they share certain aspects that were discussed in the form of a master plan, but the Council needs to consider JUNE 21, 1994 PAGE 2 as separate and individual actions. M/Werner asked if all the items listed on the Agenda were entitlements that would have to be decided on, such as the development agreement, the vesting tract map, the oak tree permit, etc. CM/Belanger stated yes. M/Werner also questioned that once the process is done, and all of them are denied and EIR is certified, will the Council be left with something lingering that might in a matter of time be approved without our knowledge. ICA/Moseley answered that if the Council takes affirmative action on each and every one of the items, the answer is no. C/Papen commented that at the last meeting, not only would the issue of vesting tentative maps be on the agenda for discussion, but the Council would be reviewing all of the options of the Arciero property. She expressed concern for approving the South Pointe Master Plan because there were five property owners who had a conglomerate of various shapes and sizes of parcels. She advised that the Master Plan was designed to resolve alot of issues where people infringed on others' property rights, people building on others property, the school being built on City property. She advised that the City does not approve the Master Plan, none of the land swaps that previously agreed to will happen, the Sasak tract map actually builds on other peoples' property unless the Master Plan is agreed to and all land swaps are completed. C/Ansari stated that the issues regarding the continued meeting was not only for the Council to review the paperwork further but to get the Council to agree. She again expressed concerns regarding her review of the road and the road being built on a landslide. She stated that there are 8 acres of landslide, 400' wide by 755' long. MPT/Harmony stated that the City tried to help the School District by issuing a grading permit and that the Council needs to agree to issue a temporary grading permit so that the dirt gets moved and the school gets built. C/Papen stated that she supported the original South Pointe Plan. It worked for the School District, homeowners and the commercial community. She pointed out that the City could increase sales and property tax, eliminate the commercial building, eliminate the 20 acres of park to a modified Alternative 1, cut the homes from 200 to 125. She stated that condition number 1 says that there would be no homes or roads built on any landslides without getting the dirt compacted to D.B. standards. C/Papen moved, M/Werner seconded to eliminate 30 acres and end JUNE 21, 1994 PAGE 3 up with 6 or 7 acres of graded property along the freeway, deny the RNP vesting tentative tract map conditional use permit and oak tree permit, reduce the number of lots on the Sasak property from 21 to no more than 18 and condition the Sasak property that the homes must have access to other streets in the City. M/Werner expressed concerns on filling the canyon and withdrew his second. C/Ansari moved, M/Werner seconded to continue the matter to the July 5, 1994 meeting. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Papen ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - Miller RECESS: M/Werner recessed the meeting at 7:14 p.m. RECONVENE: MPT/Harmony reconvened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and announced that M/Werner would be excused from the remainder of the meeting. C/Miller arrived at that time. 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC. None. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Karl Rosen, President of the Chamber of Commerce, announced that because this Council meeting started at 6:00 p.m., the cable program "Diamond Bar, Where The Action Is" will be shown on Wednesday, June 22, 1994 at 6:30 p.m. and then again on June 28, 1994. He stated that MRF issues will be featured. He also expressed concerns on item 9.5 of the Agenda concerning budgets and approval for local transportation items and the dial -a -ride which takes place during the holiday season. Richard Callard, 24105 Palomino Drive, introduced Mrs. Thelma Press, former Director of Cultural and International Affairs for the City of San Bernardino. Ms. Press introduced Mildred Hudson from San Bernardino, stated that Sister City people are very special and gave the history of the organization. She announced that D.B. has formed a Sister City group, that there are 125 million people involved in the movement and congratulated the City for their involvement. Richard Callard, 24105 Palomino Drive, announced a Sister Cities meeting on Thursday, July 14, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. at Golden Springs School. JUNE 21, 1994 PAGE 4 Dr. Lawrence Rhodes presented copies of Robert's Rules of Order. Nick Anis, 1125 Bramford Court, announced, on behalf of Artisoft Personal Computer Co., that a donation of Lantastic Ver. 6.0 for 50 work stations and Lantastic TCPIP, with a total value of $5,990, will be made to the City. He stated that they are using the City as a model for uses of their equipment. In response to C/Miller, Mr. Anis stated that the City is presently using this software and the upgraded version is simply that. C/Papen thanked Mr. Anis for his efforts in getting this equipment for the City. Dr. Carol Haugen, Principal of Quail Summit School, gave a presentation regarding the Cameron M. Todd Memorial ball wall to be located at Paul C. Grow Park. She introduced Kelly Brisher and Lori Mellaney, neighbors and friends of first -grader Cameron Todd, who was tragically shot last New Year's Eve. Kelly Brisher commented on Cameron Todd and the memories he left behind. Lori Mellaney stated five reasons why the ball wall should be built at Paul C. Grow. Dr. Haugen asked if the City could help get this project completed by 1) waiving the plan check fee;. 2) relocate the cardiac fitness equipment to in front of the comfort station; 3) relocate the cement walking path through the tree area and 4) help construct the ball wall pad. C/Papen asked what the ball wall actually was and how the public could contribute. Dr. Haugen stated that all contributions can be made to Quail Summit Community Club. Gillian Ray, Children's Librarian, requested that the Council approve item 9.8 to continue children's programs and activities at the D.B. Library. She announced the "Friends of the Library" International tea and fashion show fund-raiser. C/Ansari announced that Mrs. Ray was recognized as the top Children's Librarian for her work with children and her story -telling capabilities. Nancy Salvato, 20860 Gold Run Dr., expressed feelings of anger, outrage and disappointment that the South Pointe issue has been deadlocked with no immediate resolution in sight. JUNE 21, 1994 PAGE 5 Wendy Steinberg stated that taxpayers and residents have the right to a good education and the City is not giving that to the children. Terry Birrell commented on C/Miller owning RnP Development Properties and denying that. She asked C/Miller to provide documentation proving that he does not own the property. She asked for fairness for all children and residents, retain the open space and get the school built in the Sand Stone Canyon area. C/Miller responded that he would not ever disclose his personal records to the public. He also stated that he had made a public comment on not participating in any public process or any City process for the Master Plan. He also stated that his father-in-law's address was corrected and requested that it be taken off the City's mailing list. CM/Belanger advised that the City received a letter from Mr. Rumsey indicating that he is not involved with RnP and requesting that his name and address and any reference to RnP be removed form any official mailing list. In regard to C/Papen's question regarding the statute of limitations for ownership by Council Members, CM/Belanger replied that the status is one year after disposal of the property. Ms. Birrell asked ICA/Moseley to explain the conditions upon which a subdivision application can be made and voted on. ICA/Moseley stated that a Council Member can own property but cannot be involved with projects involving your property as a Council Member. Andrew Ramirez, 154 N. Roberto Ave., #B, West Covina, expressed concerns on the MRF and health considerations. Elizabeth Hodges, 1604 Morning Sun, commented on getting South Pointe School constructed while saving the open space in Sand Stone Canyon. Nick Anis expressed concerns over the open space in Sand Stone Canyon and of MPT/Harmony wanting to save the canyon and not getting the school built. Barbara Beach-Courchesne stated that RnP has a "no building" restriction on their property. She also commented on other schools in the district that have waited years and years to find permanent homes. Jack Healy, 23051 Aspen Knoll Dr., stated that an individual's property rights cannot interfere with other's property rights. Max Maxwell asked if it is legal to bring new issues to the JUNE 21, 1994 PAGE 6 Council on the South Pointe Master Plan and not re -open this to the public. Jennifer Irikawa, 8487 Falcon Ridge, advised that she does not work for C/Miller. She commented on the retirement community and how they are down on all the issues and that children are at the bottom of the list. Carolyn Elfelt, 21119 Silver Cloud, stated that the South Pointe School needs to built. 5. COUNCIL COMMENTS: C/Miller stated that the majority of the Council signed the Mission Statement and read that Council meetings are a forum established to conduct the business of the City. He stated that the Council chose to conduct its business meeting in a televised, open forum to keep everyone informed. He also advised that the meetings are to be concluded at a reasonable hour of 11:00 p.m. He requested that public comments be directed to Consent Calendar items and matters of interest with no personal attacks on the Council. C/Ansari agreed with C/Miller's comments on how the Council's meetings should be conducted. She advised of her visit to the material recovery facility in San Marcos which recovers 2100 tons of waste per day. She commented on how workers were allowed to work in their street clothes with no protective gear in the filth within that facility and expressed concern for the workers due to their sorting through hospital waste in this facility. Further, she announced that on Sunday, the Diamond Pointe One Club for the Friends of the Library will hold their annual tea fundraiser at a cost of $10.00 and that Wed., June 29, 1994 will be the beginning of the City's Concert in the Park series from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. at Sycamore Canyon Park. C/Papen announced new summer banners at the entrance of the City. She also announced that the Fountain Spring and Shadow Canyon traffic lights on D.B. Blvd. will be installed in the near future. She also mentioned that she cannot attend the MRF meeting but has sent in her comments to the City of Industry. MPT/Harmony re-emphasized bus rides to the MRF meeting and asked those planning to attend to notify the City. He then presented his biography "This is Your Life, Clair Harmony". 6. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 6.1 GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (GPAC) - June 23, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon Rd. 6.2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - June 23, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon JUNE 21, 1994 PAGE 7 Rd. 6.3 PLANNING COMMISSION - June 27, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 6.4 GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GPAC) - June 28, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon Rd. 6.5 CONCERT IN THE PARK - June 29, 1994 - 6:30 - 8:00 p.m., E1 Toro Marine Corp Band - Patriotic Music - Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Rd. 6.6 GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GPAC) - June 30, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon Rd. 6.7 4TH OF JULY HOLIDAY - In Observance City Offices will be closed Monday, July 4, 1994. Offices will reopen July 5, 1994. 6.8 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - July 5, 1994 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Papen requested that the Clerk correct the Minutes of May 16, 1994, item 7.1.2, stating that the Agenda was taken out of order and the Minutes are reflective of the original agenda. Page 13 states that she left the meeting early and reflects that she voted on three additional issues. She also requested that a "no" vote be recorded for item 7.5. MPT/Harmony requested that item 7.5 be pulled from the Consent Calendar. C/Papen moved, C/Ansari seconded to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of the Minutes and Item 7.5. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Ansari, Papen, Miller, MPT/Harmony NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - M/Werner 7.2 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approved Voucher Register dated June 21, 1994 in the amount of $856,577.60. 7.3 TREASURER'S REPORT - April, 1994 - Received and filed. 7.4 Approved Grading Bond reduction for 13 Lot Subdivision at Diamond Knoll Lane in Tract 47722, Bond No. 3SM77171800 TO $22,500. and directed the City Clerk to notify the principals. 7.6 POMONA VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY AGREEMENT FOR FY 1994-95 SUPP. #3 - It was moved by C/Papen, seconded by C/Ansari to approve Supplement No. 3 to the agreement with Pomona Valley Humane Society for FY 94-95 and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. JUNE 21, 1994 PAGE 8 MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 7.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 7.1.1 Adjourned Regular Meeting Referred back to staff meeting. 7.1.2 Regular Meeting of May 17, Referred back to staff meeting. of May 9, 1994 - for next Council 1994 - for next Council 7.5 Resolution No. 94 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE DESTRUCTION BY THE CITY CLERK OF CITY RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS PROVIDED UNDER ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 14700 - It was moved by C/Papen, seconded by C/Ansari to deny adoption of the proposed Resolution until a General Plan is in place. C/Miller stated that it is important to maintain confidentiality of the individuals who signed these documents, but the problem will be that 1) the City Clerk cannot maintain the confidentiality of who signed them for very much longer and 2) questioned whether it was necessary for the City to retain the first petition documents when there is a second referendum petition which is the valid referendum against the 1993 General Plan. CM/Belanger pointed out that it is important to destroy these records because the City is out of storage space. He suggested either destruction of the documents according to this Resolution or the purchase of another file cabinet. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Ansari, Papen MPT/Harmony NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Miller ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - M/Werner S. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. 9. OLD BUSINESS: 9.1 Second Reading of ORDINANCE NO. 02A(1990): AN ORDINANCE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 02(1990) ADOPTING REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS RELATING TO THE COLLECTION, RECYCLING TRANSPORTATION, AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE, RECYCLABLE AND COMPOSTABLE MATERIALS - CM/Belanger asked the Council to direct staff to modify Section 21 to increase fire extinguisher poundage from 5 pounds to 20 pounds. MPT/Harmony asked how the Council would deal with setting of the schedule for trash haulers if this issue is JUNE 21, 1994 PAGE 9 approved tonight and CM/Belanger stated that if adopted this evening, it would go into effect about this time next month. C/Papen moved, C/Ansari seconded to deny second reading of Ordinance No. 02A(1990) until the Council gets the document with proper corrections, redlined and strikeouts for Council's review. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Ansari, Papen, Miller, MPT/Harmony NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - M/Werner 9.2 RESOLUTION NO. 94-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 - CM/Belanger recommended establishment of a levy for FY 1994-95 of $15.00 per parcel on each of the 17,383 parcels. He stated that at the last meeting there was discussion of staff's recommendation and the rational for the recommended amount of the levy. ICA/Moseley stated that the Council had a Public Hearing on June 7, 1994 which was continued to this meeting. Since this is a continued matter, the public has a right to comment on continued matters pursuant to the Brown Act. MPT/Harmony re -opened the Public Hearing. Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr., stated that, due to the recession, improvement projects should be stopped and the assessment for District 38 be lowered. C/Miller stated that the City needs to continue with the improvements and that the $1.00 assessment is not a big issue. CM/Belanger advised the Council that they will be voting on future capital improvement projects, the funding plan and the proposal for revenues for District 38. C/Papen moved, C/Miller seconded to instruct staff to prepare the capital improvement program for District 38 during this next fiscal year and adopt Resolution No. 94-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1994-95. MPT/Harmony stated that the City is charging an outrageous amount for administrative costs and feels that JUNE 21, 1994 PAGE 10 $20,000 in reserves is a realistic amount instead of $63,000. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Ansari, Papen, Miller NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - MPT/Harmony ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - M/Werner 9.3 RESOLUTION NO. 94-28: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 - CM/Belanger recommended that the Council retain the assessment rate of $73.50 on 1,288 parcels located within the district. He stated that this district's revenues are generated through assessment support for maintenance and operation activities. C/Papen asked that because District 39 does not have enough funds, can this District go in the hole and next year the assessments be raised. CM/Belanger advised that staff will be coming back with recommendations regarding the scope of the parcel -by - parcel basis and maintenance of the public areas. C/Papen questioned if staff will be keeping track of the time spent on this district and back charge it to the district and come out with a negative number. CM/Belanger advised that they will be keeping track of the time but will come up with a negative number which might consider the raise of assessments in this district. C/Papen advised that the Council set a policy that no money from the General Fund would subsidize landscape districts. She advised that if it is staff's intent to subsidize, then the City needs to keep track of time, etc. MPT/Harmony re -opened the Public Hearing. With no public testimony offered, MPT/Harmony closed the Public Hearing. ICA/Moseley advised staff to accumulate the attributable charges on an actual basis, using a time card method and giving an opportunity to the Council to revisit this issue if they wish. C/Papen moved to direct staff to record and charge back to District 39 the charges of staff time spent on the District and to set the assessment for District 39 at $73.50 for the 1994-95 Fiscal Year. Motion failed for lack of a second. JUNE 21, 1994 PAGE 11 C/Miller moved, C/Ansari seconded to direct staff to track the costs associated with maintenance of District 39 to be considered for the next assessment and adopting Resolution No. 94-28 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1994-95. C/Papen stated that the motion will take General Fund money and subsidize the district. C/Miller asked CM/Belanger the time frame and when this decision has to be with the County. CM/Belanger advised that the levy has to be to the County before their first meeting in August. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Miller, Ansari, Papen, MPT/Harmony NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - M/Werner 9.4 RESOLUTION NO. 94-29: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 - CM/Belanger recommended an assessment of $220.50 on 563 parcels for FY94-95 to generate an approximate total of $124,000 to fund district activities. He pointed out that the Engineer's Report of the financial analysis shows "zero" for personnel services as shown in the reserves. MPT/Harmony re -opened the Public Hearing. With no public testimony being offered, MPT/Harmony closed the Public Hearing. C/Miller moved, C/Ansari seconded to adopt Resolution No. 94-29 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1994-95. C/Papen asked if the motion includes having staff time appropriated to charge back to the district. C/Miller advised that it would as with the last motion, keeping track of time. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Miller, Ansari, Papen, MPT/Harmony JUNE 21, 1994 PAGE 12 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - M/Werner 10.2 STATUS REPORT AND REQUEST FOR LEGAL COUNSEL SPECIALIZING IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS RE: TO SUPPORT EFFORTS OF INDUSTRY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY COMMITTEE - The Council agreed to suspend the agenda and discuss this item before continuing with the remainder of Old Business matters. Steve Britt, Chairman, D.B. Technical Subcommittee, reported that the committee's memorandum dated May 28, 1994 stated there is a legal cut-off date of July 5, 1994 and submitted comments regarding the environment impact needs to be completed. He requested that the City retain LG&E attorney firm for liaison work on this issue. CM/Belanger stated that he has been in contact with Mr. Trumbull and he has already begun working with LG&E to provide the kind of information that Mr. Britt has indicated the committee would like to see. That information would be a part of the material submitted to the City of Industry and the commentary on the draft environment impact on the MRF. C/Papen moved, C/Ansari seconded to approve expenditure from the special legal services fund in order to retain legal services to review the proposed Industry Materials Recovery Facility and corresponding environmental documentation; further, to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Trumbull Law Firm to provide: a) a detailed legal analysis of the Draft Environmental Impact Report; 2) to prepare written comments emphasizing the major non-CEQA related issues; 3) to coordinate written and oral comments with the City's environmental consultant, LG&E Power Engineers and Constructors, Inc.; and 4) to prepare an outline of litigation issues and concerns associated with the City's opposition to the project. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Miller, Ansari, Papen, MPT/Harmony NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - M/Werner 9.8 FUNDING OF THURSDAY AND SATURDAY LIBRARY SERVICES FOR FY 94-95 - ACM/Usher reported that $70,000 needs to be allocated to keep the Library open on Thursdays and Saturdays throughout the remainder of the fiscal year. He advised that a budget sum of $160,000 for FY 1994-95 will be sufficient in keeping the Library open on Thursdays and Saturdays. C/Miller moved, C/Ansari seconded to authorize the Mayor JUNE 21, 1994 PAGE 13 to execute an agreement with the Library administration for funding the D.B. Branch operations on Thursdays and Saturdays during FY 94-95 in an amount not to exceed $160,000. C/Papen suggested amending the motion to include the intent of the Council to continue the children's library program with the services of Mrs. Gillian Ray as the children's librarian. C/Miller and C/Ansari agreed to amend their motion. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Miller, Ansari, Papen, MPT/Harmony NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - M/Werner 9.5 RESOLUTION NO. 94 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING AND ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1994 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1995 INCLUDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS, SPECIAL FUNDS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR ACCOUNTS, DEPARTMENTS, DIVISIONS, OBJECTS AND PURPOSES THEREIN SET FORTH - Continued to June 28, 1994. 9.6 RESOLUTION NO. 94-30: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF DIVISION 9 OF TITLE 1 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE - It was moved by C/Papen, seconded by MPT/Harmony to adopt Resolution No. 94-30. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ansari, Miller, Papen, MPT/Harmony NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: M/Werner 9.7 RESOLUTION NO. 94-31: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY - C/Miller moved, C/Ansari seconded to adopt Resolution No. 94-31. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Miller, Ansari, Papen, MPT/Harmony NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - M/Werner JUNE 21, 1994 PAGE 14 9.9 DISCUSSION RE: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT SIGNS CARRYING NAMES OF COUNCIL MEMBERS - Continued to July 5, 1994. 9. 10 SELECTION OF CITY ATTORNEY - C/Papen stated that this item requires that the City Council set a Closed Session for interviews with prospective firms. Following discussion it was agreed that the City Manager would set up interviews for the second week in July. 9.11 DISCUSSION RE: COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE FOR LIBRARY SERVICES - Continued to July 5, 1994. 9.12 DISCUSSION RE: ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS, BEGINNING TIME FOR REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, AND OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS - Continued to July 5, 1994. 9.13 BROWN ACT - EFFECT UPON CITY COUNCIL, LESS THAN A QUORUM Continued to July 5, 1994. 9.14 DISCUSSION RE: CITY COUNCIL SUB COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS - Continued to July 5, 1994. 9.15 CITY ATTORNEY REQUEST FOR DIRECTION ON AMICUS CURIAE MATTERS - Continued to July 5, 1994. 10. NEW BUSINESS: 10.1 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR AUDITING SERVICES - Continued to July 5, 1994. 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. 12. CLOSED SESSION: None. 13. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m. to June 28, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. for discussion of the budget. ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk MAa.vW&0 Ur THE CITY C'OUNPIL ®R��� ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JUNE 28, 1994 1. CALL TO ORDER: MPT/Harmony called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by MPT/Harmony. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Ansari, Papen, Miller, and Mayor Pro Tem Harmony. Mayor Werner was excused. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Frank Usher, Assistant City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer; Bob Rose, Community Services Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2. OLD BUSINESS: 2.1 RESOLUTION NO. 94 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING AND ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1994 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1995 INCLUDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS, SPECIAL FUNDS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR ACCOUNTS, DEPARTMENTS, DIVISIONS, OBJECTS AND PURPOSES THEREIN SET FORTH - C/Miller moved, C/Papen seconded to carry budget over to July 5, 1994 at 6:00 p.m., authorize necessary and normal expenditures established within the budgetary limits for FY 1993-94 and continue to fund current appropriation levels. C/Ansari questioned CM/Belanger if this motion would impact the City if the budget meeting is put over until next meeting. CM/Belanger advised that the City can continue with city issues. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - C/Miller, Ansari, Papen, NOES:MPT/Harmony COUNCILMEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - M/Werner 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 4. ADJOURNMENT: MPT/Harmony adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. to July 5, 1994. JUNE 28, 1994 PAGE 2 ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1994 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Meyer; Vice Chairwoman Plunk; Commissioners: Flamenbaum, Schad, and Fong Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Associate Planner Rob Searcy; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery; Engineer Consultant Mike Myers; and Administrative Secretary Marilyn Ortiz VC/Plunk arrived at 7:07 p.m. C/Flamenbaum arrived at 7:15 p.m. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of June 13, 1994 CDD/DeStefano requested the minutes reflect his absence from the June 13 meeting. Moved by C/Schad, seconded by C/Fong and carried unanimously to adopt the minutes of June 13, 1994 as amended. NEW BUSINESS 2. Planned Sign Program No. 94-6 Request for approval of a sign program which includes two proposed wall signs on an office building located at 1350 Valley Vista Drive, Diamond Bar. Continued from June 27, 1994 public hearing. AstP/Lungu reported that the project site is located at Gateway Corporate Center which is in the Commercial Manufacturing Zone with a draft General Plan land use designation of Professional Office. The project site is surrounded by the Orange Freeway and the C -M Zone. Pursuant to the Sign Ordinance the maximum sign face area of a wall sign is 125 square feet for every linear foot of frontage not July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 2 _ to exceed 125 square feet per use. A wall sign shall not exceed 800 of the building frontage. The maximum number of wall signs permitted is one per outer wall per use. As a special condition no permits shall be issued for wall sign at a multi -use building or commercial center in which more than one sign is proposed without the Planning Commission approval. The proposed project is for two wall signs to comply with the sign code. The proposed signs are non -illuminated, approximately 10 feet in width and four feet in height, and each sign equals 40 square feet in sign face area. Both signs will be located on the easterly side of the bulding facing Copley Drive. One will have a copy of "QTC" and the other will have a copy of "Baybrook". The propsoed Plan Sign Program complies with the City's Sign Ordinance. The applicant nees to obtain approval from Gateway Corporate Center. The Planned Sign Program does not require a public hearing. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Sign Program No. 94-6, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. Applicant/Glen from Deadline Signs stated there are multiple corporations within this facility and they wish to be able to identify both corporations. One is a subsidiary of the other. In response to Chair/Meyer, Glen replied there are no existing signs on this building and that he understands the recommended conditions of approval. Moved by C/Schad and seconded by C/Fong to approve Planned Sign Program No. 94-5 with the Findings of Fact and conditions within the resolution. The motion carried 4-0 as follows: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Fong, VC/Plunk, Chair/Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum PUBLIC HEARING: 3. Appeal of Administrative Development Review No. 94-3 A request to appeal the decision of approval to construct a first and second story addition of approximately 1,291 square feet, 1 car garage, and deckfpatio cover to an existing 1,750 square foot two-story residence located at 1243 S. Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar CA 91765. Continued from June 27, 1994, public hearing. July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 3 AstP/Lungu reported that on May 24, 1994 a public hearing was held for this project. After reviewing the staff report, visiting the sight and receiving testimony from the applicant property owner, Mr. and Mrs. Behdin, the Community Development Director approved this project with conditions as listed in Resolution 94-4 which is attached to the staff report. Pursuant to the Development Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990) , the decision of the Community Development Director shall be final and shall become effective within 10 calendar days after adoption of the resolution by the Director. On June 3, 1994 the City of Diamond Bar received a letter from the appellant, Mimi Chan, accompanied by neighbors' signatures, in opposition to this project. Mrs. Chan resides at 1253 Deerfield Place which is the adjacent property to the subject site and directly effected by this project. The appellant's main objectives are related to the side yard setback, privacy, and the altering of existing neighborhood characteristics. Staff revisited the site reviewing the appellant's objections. The majority of the homes in the neighborhood maintain original side yard setbacks anywhere from nine (9) to 15 feet. One home has a side yard setback of six feet eight (6.8) inches. The adjacent neighbor has a side yard setback of 10 feet. However, the side yard setbacks are i relating to the garages of the homes rather than to the habitable space. The habitable space setback is 15 feet. Another home has a five (5) foot side yard setback but their neighbor has a 20 foot sideyard setback. The appellant's property maintains a 12 foot side yard setback. The project site currently maintains a 16 foot side yard setback. The proposed addition for the 'project will maintain a five (5.) foot side yard setback. This means a side yard setback reduction of 10 feet. These setback's relate to the distance between habitable space of each home. Since the addition reduces the side yard setback it may also reduce the privacy of the appellant as well as for the homeowners project site. The original approval for this project requires that staff investigate the appropriateness of a master bedroom window that is proposed for the room addition. Staff determined that, although the room addition is not directly across fro -m the appellant's window, it does offer the opportunity to look into the appellant's home. There is a down slope on the project site adjacent to the property line which is shared by the appellant. Staff feels that perhaps planting shrubs may be a mitigation measure that can offer more privacy to the appelant. As stated in the staff report dated May 13, 1994, Administrative Development Review No. 94-3 complies with the City's development standards. However, permitting additions which maintain only a five (5) foot side yard setback may begin to change the anbience of the neighborhood and diminish July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 4 the feeling of openness. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission sustain the Community Development Director's decision, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. In response to C/Fong's question AstP/Lungu responded that the relative elevation of the subject sight and the appellant site is approximately five (5) feet. C/Schad asked whether vegetation would block the view of turning the corner. AstP/Lungu stated that The City's Parks Department is investigating whether the City or Los Angeles County is responsible for trimming the vegetation. Staff is still investigating the matter. There are several properties with similar situations. In response to VC/Plunk, AstP/Lungu indicated that the combined setbacks on the all other houses were not 20 feet or greater. The average sideyard setback for each house is 10 feet. Some are more. Only one site has a five (5) foot setback. The adjacent neighbor's sideyard setback is 20 feet. Chair/Meyer stated that DBIA submitted a letter indicating they had reviewed the plans and determined that additional information was needed for further review. Chair/Meyer requested that the applicant come forward and address the Planning Commission followed by the individuals who are in opposition to the plan. Applicant/Behdin stated the difference in elevation between his property and that of the appellant is 5.8 feet ie: 5.8 feet lower than appellant's lot. The proposed addition will be a two story, matching the height of the two story that exists, and with the two story addition, the roof line will be approximately two (2) feet higher then the appellant's first story. The side of the appellant's house toward the applicant property is only one story. The second story starts on the opposite side so that the subject addition will be only approximately two feet higher at the roof line. With respect to the vegetation along Longview Drive that C/Schad questioned, Applicant/Behdin provided documents showing easements to Los Angeles County for property maintenance. He did not bring the document with him because he has submitted same to Planning. The applicant objected to DBIA's 21 day time extension. The applicant presented a setback analysis of a 300 foot radius including photographs of homes represented in the analysis. He indicated a setback of 18 feet between structures on the applicant's property and the appelant's property, upon completion of the proposed addition, and compared it with all properties included in the analysis proving his contention that his addition would conform to the ria July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 5 area contained in the report. In addition, the applicant went outside the 300 foot radius to a 500 foot radius to prove his theory that his property would be conforming with the completion of the addition. Applicant/Behdin maintained that the existing five (5) foot wall between the two properties would block the view, not his proposed addition. Regarding privacy, the applicant maintains he has met all requirements of City Planning. Appellant/Mimi Chan, 1253 Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar, the property next to the proposed structure, states she does not mind the neighbor wanting to build an addition but she feels the proposed structures is too large for the lot and does not fit the characteristics of the neighborhood. She says the applicant should maintain a larger setback from her property. She objected to the applicant cutting into the slope. She submitted photos of the neighborhood to the Planning Commission. In response to C/Fong, Mrs. Chan stated that her dining room and formal guest room are next to the block wall between the properties. Mrs. Chan responded to C/Fong clarifying that cement is on her property in the side yard next to the block wall between the Z properties. Mariann Hess, 1261 South Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar stated her concern about the stability of the hill and potential damage to her property. She further stated concern that the proposed addition would create a structure too large for the lot size. She expressed her main objective is to avoid a precedence stating that houses can be built so close together. She indicated she is not objecting to the addition, but to the size of the addition. She says she hopes the structure can be completed in a timely manner. RECESSED: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:12 p.m. RECONVENED: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:36 p.m. Dave Arcero, 1297 Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar, stated his opposition to this project saying the completed structure with the addition will overpower the other houses in the neighborhood. Kathy Arcero, 1297 Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar, says her main concern is with the size of the structure and that it will be too big for the neighborhood and the neighborhood will lose -- its airy feeling. In response to Dave and Kathy Arcero, Chair/Meyer indicated that if a building addition does not exceed 50% of the floor July 11, 1999 Planning commission Page 6 area of an existing structure there is no need to notify the neighbors. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, Diamond Bar, stated he does not live in the area of the project and has not seen the plans, but is opposed to the project in principal. In response to Chair/Meyer's request for rebuttal testimony, Applicant/Behdin stated that he had presented all of the information to the Planning Commission for decision. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer closed the Public Hearing and returned the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration. VC/Plunk indicated she feels the aesthetics are good and she does not find the house to be oversized for the neighborhood. She does have concerns about how close the addition will be to Mrs. Chan's property and would like to see a side yard setback of eight (8) feet instead of five (5) feet for a total of 20 feet between the two structures. She indicated the window should either be removed from the planned addition or not aligned with the neighbors windows. Responding to C/Fong, AstP/Lungu indicated there would be approximately 17 feet separating habitable space between the two structures. She said the majority of the structures in the area have more space between them, and some have less. In response to C/Fong, Chair Meyer indicated that the technical aspects of a retaining wall are outside the scope of the Planning Commission. VC/Plunk requested a recommended language for a condition regarding the retaining wall. AstP/Lungu's responded that the language is in the resolution which states that the applicant shall comply with all Planning and Zoning, Engineering, Building and Safety requirements. C/Schad indicated his concerns with the retaining wall, the footings and the soil. In addition, he is concerned whether the air conditioning is adequate to handle the addition. If an additional unit is required, where will it be placed and is the electrical capacity of the present service sufficient. He stated he believes the window should be eliminated. Chair/Meyer stated that although he does not agree with the magnitude of the addition, the applicant has complied with all regulations and should be granted approval. In response to VC/Plunk, CA/Montgomery stated that with regard to property rights the Planning Commission may decide this case either way, depending upon their finding of whether or July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 7 not the proposed addition is in conformity with the existing neighborhood. He cited a case that allowed denial of an application to be upheld. The court found that it was in the Planning Commission's purview to determine whether or not the harmonious design and aesthetics of the neighborhood require that the application be denied. In this case, it was a neighborhood of single family residences. A second story was proposed that would have overwhelmed the yards of the surrounding neighbors and given them a view directly down into the pools and rooms of the other houses. He further stated, the finding will not be disturbed in court unless it. is arbitrary or capricious. Responding to Chair/Meyer's request for motion, CA/Montgomery indicated that before a vote could be taken by the Planning Commission, it should be noted for the record, that because Mr. Flamenbaum apparently lives within 300 feet of the application of the opposition, he has not participated in these proceedings in any way and has abstained from making a decision. Moved by VC/Plunk, seconded by C/Fong and carried to adopt the Resolution denying the Appeal of Administrative Development Review No. 94-3. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Vice Chairman Plunk and Chairman Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING: 4. Parcel Map No. 22102 Chair/Meyer stated that the Parcel Map No. 22102 is a request to sub -divide 4.39 acres of property on Valley Vista and that the applicant and staff are recommending that this item be continued to the July 25, 1994, meeting. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open. There being no one wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. Moved by C/Schad and seconded by VC/Plunk, and carried unanimously, to continue the item to the July 25, 1994, meeting. Chair Meyer noted for the record that C/Flamenbaum has again taken his seat on the Planning Commission. July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 8 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, Fong, Schad, Vice Chairman Plunk and Chairman Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING: 5. Zone Change No. 92-2, Vesting Tentative Map No. 51169, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3, Oak Tree Permit No. 92- 3, and Environmental Impact Report No. 92-2. Chair/Meyer stated that the applicant and the staff recommend that this item be continued to the July 25 meeting. Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing open. Lex Williman, Planning Director for Hunsaker and Associates, 10179 Huennekens, San Diego is requesting a continuance in order to work out the final conditions of the approval for the July 25, 1994, hearing. In response to Chair/Meyer, Lex Wil.liman agreed to waiving of rights. There being no additional testimony, Chair/Meyer closed the Public Hearing. Responding to C/Flamenbaum, AP/Searcy stated that the application will be ready for the July 25, 1994, hearing, the concurrence as related to the General Plan processing and having adequate time to review the document and its importance. The reason for the requested continuance is so that the Planning Commission may concentrate on the General Plan and the applicant has concurred with the request and submitted a letter to that effect. The Planning Commission voted on the motion made by C/Schad and seconded by VC/Plunk to continue the public hearing to July 25, 1994. The motion carried 4-1 with the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Fong, V/Chairman Plunk and Chairman Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None RECESS: Chair Meyer recessed the meeting at 9:05 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair Meyer reconvened the meeting at 9:18 p.m. July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 9 6. Adoption of the General Plan. Chair/Meyer stated that the General Plan for 1994 has been under consideration by the General Plan Advisory Commission (GPAC). They have made recommendations and presented them to the Planning Commission for review and consideration. Chair/Meyer asked for consensus from the Planning Commission of a schedule of events and suggested meeting on Saturday, July 16, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. at Heritage Park for a "shirt- sleeve" session. Responding to VC/Plunk's question regarding a joint meeting with City Council, Chair/Meyer replied that the Planning Commission had expressed opposition and further wished to avoid a joint public hearing. VC/Plunk asked how staff could get the Traffic and Transportation meeting minutes from Thursday, July 14, 1994 to the members of the Planning Commission for review prior to the Saturday meeting. Chair/Meyer stated that it is. his understanding that there has been no direction by City Council that the Traffic and Transportation Commission had to review the General Plan. Following a discussion among the Planning Commission members regarding future meeting dates, Chair/Meyer indicated it was the general consensus of the Commission that the meetings be scheduled for July 16 and July 25, 1994 reiterating that July 25 is a regular Planning Commission scheduled for 7:00 p.m. at AQMD. Responding to CDD/DeStefano, Chair/Meyer agreed that the General Plan will be the first item on the agenda as a continued Public Hearing. In response to Chair/Meyer's request, CDD/DeStefano provided the staff report to consider adoption of the 1994 General Plan. The General Plan is a statement of our aspirations in the form of goals, policies and implementation programs that guide the long range physical development of the community. In January, 1994 the City Council created a 38 person GPAC to develop the 1994 General Plan. GPAC utilized, pursuant to the Council's direction, the rescinded 1993 General Plan as its discussion draft. GPAC reviewed each element over a six months period from January 11 through June 30, 1994, to review the document. GPAC made some significant changes to the previous plan. The General Plan is required by California State law. There are seven elements of a general plan. Collectively, they serve to identify Land Use, Circulation, Environmental, Fiscal July 11, 1994 Planning commission Page 10 and Social goals and policies for the city or for the planning area incorporating our sphere of influence. It provides a framework for which the Commission and Council can make land use decisions and from which the citizens can not only participate in that decision making process, but also participate in the framework from which those decisions will ultimately be made. It is specifically designed to inform the citizenry, the developers and the decision makers as to the city's plans for its future and how it envisions development within its borders or its sphere of influence. our element incorporates the seven state mandated elements into six sections: the Land Use Element; the Housing Element; the Resource Management Element, where we have combined the Open Space and Conservation Elements; the Public Health and Safety Element, where we have combined the State mandated Noise and Safety Elements. We also have a Circulation Element. State law allows us the ability to create optional elements. We have chosen to create a Public Services and Facilities Element. The draft 1994 General Plan is before the Planning Commission for the beginning of this public review process. A Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) was prepared in 1991 and 1992 providing a technical base line and environment data which was used for the preparation of that draft General Plan. The information provides a foundation for the policy plan and for the further environmental analysis. The MEA is a resource tool. It is not intended to be City policy. It is a document that should be regularly updated with, for example, the changes in census statistical data. A previously certified and adopted Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contains all of the environmental documentation for the General Plan as required by State law. It includes detailed analysis of the various impacts of ultimately developing Diamond Bar and outlines several alternatives dealing with land -use densities and intensities. It detailed the impacts and created a mitigation plan and monitoring program for the alternatives considered within that document. It also contains all of the technical appendices related to the noise studies, air quality studies, etc. The environmental considerations within the 1994 General Plan were covered within the EIR. Therefore, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines of the State, we will be presenting an addendum for Commission consideration. The highlighted areas within the document are GPAC'S additions. The strike -outs within the document are GPAC's deletions, and the underlines within the document are changes that were added by our consultant as a result of GPAC's direction. The document that is before the Commission at this time requires corrections and additions. Some changes, that GPAC motioned approval for have not made it into the document as a July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 11 result of the last two meetings that GPAC held because the minutes were not yet available for those meetings. So we plan to bring to the Planning Commission and the public and of course all of the members who participated in this process, an errata document that outlines the specific changes that are not yet in the document before the Planning Commission. The majority of those are minor but they are necessary in terms of faithfully recording GPAC's activity. The public hearing notice for this meeting was provided via City On -Line and City newspapers. We have regularly distributed, to approximately 300 persons and organizations, General Plan materials that have been provided to not only the GPAC, but to members of that list, the Planning Commission, the City Council, etc. We provided to the Planning Commission, last week, a copy of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, and Resource Management Elements for review. On Friday, we provided a copy of the final complete document from our consultants. We have also provided additional copies of the Master Environmental Assessment and the Environmental Impact report, and all of the GPAC meeting minutes up to June 23, 1994. We also presented to the Planning Commission all of the information that was presented to the City staff either prior to a GPAC meeting or at a GPAC meeting. We have distributed that to you so that you can see what some of those issues were in terms of those that were discussed and deliberated upon and those that were not discussed. Within this packet of information we have given you some guidelines presented by the State of California on the Land Use, Housing, and Circulation Elements. We will be providing other guidelines to you in future meetings. -- CDD/DeStefano addressed VC/Plunk's concern that staff could either provide a document to the public that does not faithfully record all of GPAC's decisions and make that fact In order to advertise the GPAC process we advertise through the use of the local newspapers by purchasing classified ads, as well as display ads, to try to solicit public involvement in the process. We also use the Windmill providing monthly inserts to solicit input incorporating citizen interest in the development of this plan. We would recommend that you determine a process for review element by element; issue by issue; and with that we can focus on each of the elements and provide a brief overview for you for each element. State law establishes a requirement that the General Plan must pass several legal and policy tests in order to be adequate. We have outlined for the Planning Commission what some of those might be in terms of questions for the Planning Commission. First of all, is the General Plan complete? Is it e comprehensive in the long-term? Is it internally consistent? Is it informational? Is it easy to read? Is it easy to understand? And can it be implemented? The public hearing notice for this meeting was provided via City On -Line and City newspapers. We have regularly distributed, to approximately 300 persons and organizations, General Plan materials that have been provided to not only the GPAC, but to members of that list, the Planning Commission, the City Council, etc. We provided to the Planning Commission, last week, a copy of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, and Resource Management Elements for review. On Friday, we provided a copy of the final complete document from our consultants. We have also provided additional copies of the Master Environmental Assessment and the Environmental Impact report, and all of the GPAC meeting minutes up to June 23, 1994. We also presented to the Planning Commission all of the information that was presented to the City staff either prior to a GPAC meeting or at a GPAC meeting. We have distributed that to you so that you can see what some of those issues were in terms of those that were discussed and deliberated upon and those that were not discussed. Within this packet of information we have given you some guidelines presented by the State of California on the Land Use, Housing, and Circulation Elements. We will be providing other guidelines to you in future meetings. -- CDD/DeStefano addressed VC/Plunk's concern that staff could either provide a document to the public that does not faithfully record all of GPAC's decisions and make that fact July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 12 known or provide the errata sheets in order to get the information to the Planning Commission. CDD/DeStefano indicated in response to C/Flamenbaum's question that GPAC meetings have come to an end unless the Council might require additional meetings of GPAC and further indicated there are no additional meetings scheduled for GPAC at this time. In response to C/Flamenbaum's concern CDD/DeStefano responded that GPAC has not reviewed and approved the final document prior to the distribution of the document to the Planning Commission. CDD/DeStefano reported in response to C/Schad's inquiry that the Planning Commission has received every element of the General Plan. He indicated the errata would be delivered in written form on Thursday, July 14, 1994. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open. Former GPAC member, Robert Huff, 1641 Fire Hollow Drive, Diamond Bar stated that in reviewing the document he found the flavor to be very different from what was originally intended. He encouraged the Planning Commission to take time and give the plan careful consideration. Mr. Huff pointed out that in the beginning of the process he viewed the intent of GPAC as promoting limited growth. Toward the end of the process the intent seemed to shift to more that of no growth. Mr. Huff indicated that he feels the document needs wisdom and legal counsel. Specifically referring to the first sentence of the vision statement on page 1, Mr. Huff recited, "It is a primary goal of the City of Diamond Bar to maintain a rural and country living environment". He further indicated that the City cannot maintain something teat it does not have. He suggested that although this first sentence may be inappropriate, the balance of the vision statement reads well. Mr. Huff further stated that in its zeal to save land, GPAC incorporated a lot of restrictive language throughout the document which may defeat the very purpose of what the committee was trying to achieve. In response to C/Flamenbaun, Mr. Huff indicated that he would provide the Commission with suggested language. In addressing the Commission, Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind, Diamond Bar offered, in writing, suggested recommendations and changes to the General Plan. Mr. Smith stated that he felt the General Plan should clearly spell out how the City functions and the relationship between the City of Diamond Bar and the gated community known as "The Country". jwr July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 13 On page I-20 of the General Plan of the Land Use Element, Mr. Smith suggests adding a strategy to talk about developers, developments and the addition of play areas for children. C/Flamenbaum asked Mr. Smith for clarification of his proposal submitted under Strategy 2.2.1 requesting that Realtors submit changes in ethnological trends to potential buyers and why he picked that term versus race, sex, etc. Mr. Smith responded the subject was racial discrimination and that the Housing Element would be the appropriate place for this item, reiterating that the statements contained in the document are weak and meaningless and because they make no attempt to identify where racial discrimination exists. Dr. Lawrence Rhodes, P.O. Box 2258, Walnut, CA 91788 apologized to the Committee indicating that he was not prepared to attend the hearing as he had received the General Plan that afternoon and did not have a chance to go through it. He indicated that in doing some research on Sandstone Canyon he could not locate a recording of an EIR in the county and he is concerned that there needs to be language addressing endangered species in the General Plan. Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove Drive, Diamond Bar indicated that he had delivered written comments on four of the elements and partial comments on the Land Use Element to the members of the ' Planning Commission. Mr. Neely urged the Commission to take the time necessary to review the document. He pointed to his 35 page written document as containing comments which could be studied by the Commission emphasizing the organizational structure of the document and offering, specifically, a reorganization of the document beginning with the introduction. Mr. Neely stated that he felt the organizational structure of the General Plan is incoherent and should be changed to the following order: Introduction; Resource Management Element; Public Services and Facilities Element; Public Health and Safety Element; Housing Element; Circulation Element; Land Use Element; (and finally, ending with) Land Use Map. Mr. Neely indicated that by taking action on each of the individual elements in this order the Planning Commission may find that there is a synergistic effect, as each of them build on the other. By the time the Commission gets to the Land Use Element, the understanding of this element ought to be considerably clearer. He cited an example of requirements for low and low to moderate income housing in the Housing Element that would require setting aside some land. That being the case, as indicated by State mandate, Mr. Neely added that thi s should be discussed before getting to the Land Use Element. In addition, he stated that he believed that the Commission would have to deal with the Circulation Element prior to dealing with the Land Use Element. In addition, he stated the July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 14 i Commission may find certain strategies listed in the other " elements, be it Resource Management or Public Services and Facilities that might limit the opportunities for further development prior to getting to the Land Use Element. In summary, Mr. Neely suggested that each item be considered in the order he has indicated. Manny Nunes, 9731 Royal Palm Boulevard, Garden Grove, planner for property owners who own Tract No. 46485 in the back country of "The Country Estates" stated that in connection with a letter signed by Mr. Christopher Li which was delivered to the Planning Committee, he would summarize the concerns of the property owners for the purpose of the Planning Commission gathering information. Mr. Nunes stated the group is concerned that any additional slope classifications would place an additional burden on their project since they have had a map into the City for three and one-half years, during which time they have met all City guidelines and have conformed with evolving City policies. The group maintains that R-1-40,000 zoning standard and existing environmental concerns would very amply protect the community interest. 3 Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, Diamond Bar, handed the Planning Commission three sections of the Walnut General Plan indicating he believed the language in that plan could be used by the Planning Commission as a blue print for the General Plan. Mr. Maxwell indicated there had been several attempts to get the General Plan on the ballot. He asked staff if all maps, tables have been completed. In response to Chair/Meyer, Mr. Maxwell provided a summary list of his comments to the Planning Commission. C/Flamenbaum, responding to Richard L. Callard, 24105 Palomino Drive, Diamond Bar, cited a motion by Mr. Max Maxwell and seconded by Jan Dabney on March 22, 1994 that objective 1.7 on page I-18 of the Land Use Element be deleted from the General Plan. Mr. Callard stated that he believes this item should be returned to the General Plan. Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, Diamond Bar, thanked the Planning Commission for taking the necessary time to complete deliberations with respect to the General Plan. She stated that, in her estimation, GPAC sought a =` democratic process and made a genuine effort to listen to the desires of the public and incorporate their wishes. She indicated her willingness to attend additional meetings of GPAC but felt that they had contributed all they could. July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 15 Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. CDD/DeStefano recommended that the public hearing be closed for the evening and continue the item to Saturday, 10:00 a.m. wherein the intent would be to reopen the hearing to the public for further input and deliberation. He further recommended that the meeting be continued to the Heritage Park Community Center. Attorney/Montgomery recommended that the Commission use the term recess in place of close. Following a brief discussion by the Commission members, CDD/DeStefano summarized the proposed order of agenda topics for review of the General Plan on Saturday, July 16, 1994, meeting as follows: 1) Resource Management; 2) Public Services and Facilities; 3) Public Health and Safety; 4) Housing; 5) Certification; 6) Land Use. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None i ADJOURNMENT Moved by C/Fong, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10:42 p.m. to Saturday, July' 16, 1994, at 10:00 a.m. at Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 Brea Canyon Road. Respectfully,, James DeStefano' Secretary --xry O-+ D-TA"Am-n -njm MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION JUNE 9, 1994 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Ortiz called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Hearing Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Vice Chairman Istik. ROLL CALL Chair/Ortiz stated that C/Chavers would be absent and excused from tonight's meeting and vC/Istik would be excused early to attend the GPAC Meeting. Commissioners: Esposito, Gravdahl, Vice Chairman Istik, and Chairman Ortiz. Staff: Senior Engineer, David Liu; Administrative Assistant, Tseday Aberra; Sergeant Rawlings, and Engineering Secretary, Linda Smith. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Meetings of April 14, 1994 and May 12, 1994 C/Esposito and C/Gravdahl would abstain on vote for May 12, 1994. Moved by VC/Istik, seconded by Chair/Ortiz and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of April 14, 1994, and May 12, 1994, as presented. II. COMMISSION COMMENTS - None III. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR - None V. OLD BUSINESS - None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Policy on Protective -Permissive Left -Turn Signal Phasing. SE/Liu reported that at the May 12, 1994 Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting C/Chavers requested that staff investigate the feasibility of establishing a policy or criteria for the use of a protective -permissive left -turn signal phasing. June 9, 1994 B. Page 2 Three basic categories of left -turn phasing alternatives were presented including the explanations of Unprotected Left -Turn Phasing, Protected -Only Left -Turn Phasing, and Protective/ Permissive Left -Turn Phasing. He further explained that the basic precept of the protective -permissive technique is that the protected green arrow is displayed only when needed in a traffic demand condition, and that this technique is an efficiency concept as opposed to an accident reduction concept since it cannot provide the same degree of safety as an exclusive protected left -turn signal phase. SE/Liu commented that the City's Consulting Traffic Engineer, Warren Siecke, reported that various cities throughout the country are currently experimenting with protective -permissive left -turn signal phasing. The Orange County Traffic Engineering Council and the Institute of Transportation Engineers are forming committees that will receive input and review the findings from throughout the country regarding the usage of protective -permissive left -turn signal phasing. Staff recommends that the findings from these committees be obtained and reviewed. It is therefore staff's recommendation that the Traffic and Transportation Commission postpone the development/establishment of a policy or criteria for protective -permissive left -turn signal phasing until staff obtains additional information regarding the subject matter. C/Gravdahl moved, seconded by C/Esposito, to accept staff's recommendation to postpone the discussion of protective - permissive left -turn signal phasing. The Motion was passed unanimously with the following ROLL CALL vote: AYES: Esposito, Gravdahl, vC/Istik, Chair/Ortiz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chavers Change of Traffic and Transportation Commission Meeting Time. vC/Istik moved, seconded by Chair/Ortiz, to change the meeting time of Traffic and Transportation Commission from 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 P.M. C/Gravdahl asked to clarify if all other City Commissions start their meetings at 7:00 p.m. SE/Liu affirmed that 7:00 p.m. was the meeting time for the other Commissions. He noted that the City Council meeting time is on the June 14, 1994, City Council Agenda for discussion. June 9, 1994 C. Page 3 C/Gravdahl commented that starting the meeting at an earlier time will allow the Commission to discuss the approval of minutes, receive Commission and public comments prior to discussion of other agenda items at 7:00 p.m.. C/Esposito commented that 6:30 p.m. was her preference. vC/Istik withdrew his motion after receiving concurrence with Chair/Ortiz. The item will be carried over to the July 14, Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting. Truck Parking along the east side of Brea Canyon Road north of Lycoming street. Chair/Ortiz moved, seconded by C/Esposito, to carry this item to the July 14, Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting. C/Gravdahl asked if staff has checked with the businesses to ascertain the impact of such a resolution. He also asked if staff has explored the option of no parking at night. S/E Liu responded that no contact has been made at this time. He concurred that more investigation is necessary and recommended to carry the item to the July 14, Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting. Staff will look into limiting truck parking to the commercial zone area and explore other options. C/Esposito asked for clarification about the section of road being designated as a truck route. Sgt. Rawlings recollected that the Condominiums were built first. The designation of a truck route came with the incorporation of the City of Diamond Bar, and the AM/PM has been there for about three years. vC/Istik commented that the City designated Brea Canyon Road as a truck route to allow access to the City of Industry from the freeway. C/Gravdahl commented that parking and eating facilities may be required along a truck route. The Motion was passed unanimously with the following ROLL CALL vote: AYES: Esposito, Gravdahl, vC/Istik, Chair/Ortiz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chavers vC/Istik was excused to attend the GPAC Meeting. June 9, 1994 Page 4 VII. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS SE/Liu reported that the matter which is related to parking along Diamond Bar Boulevard between Acacia Hill Road and Morning Canyon Road is scheduled tentatively for the June 21, 1994, City Council Meeting. VIII. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Chair/Ortiz commented that he had been contacted by Dr. Rogues regarding two matters. He would get the exact information of the concerns and forward it to staff. IX. ITEMS FROM STAFF A. Future Agenda Items X. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Traffic Count Information at Various Locations in the City of Diamond Bar SE/Liu reported that the handout was part of the data collection effort for the City-wide speed zone survey currently underway. The survey is a requirement and was last done in 1989. The updated study should be completed next month and will be brought to the Commission at the August Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting. Chair/Ortiz asked if peak counts were made. SE/Liu responded that for the study purposes a.m. and p.m. counts are not necessary. He believed, however, that this information would be forthcoming with the reports. C/Gravdahl asked if a speed study was being done at the same time, and Chair/Ortiz asked if staff anticipated a change in speed on Diamond Bar Boulevard. SE/Liu responded that the speed study is underway and that there is probably no change in the speed limit on Diamond Bar Boulevard. Chair/Ortiz asked Sgt. Rawlings if he thought there was a need to change any speed zones. Also, he inquired about the report on citations at Lorbeer Junior High School. Sgt. Rawlings responded that he would need to see the data. He commented that eleven citations had been issued for parking in the red zone in front of the school since he had been keeping the hand tally. One moving violation was issued in relation to this issue. June 9, 1994 Page 5 B. Parking Request for Diamond Bar Girls Softball League SE/Liu reported that the Diamond Bar Girls Softball League has requested staff to provide on -street parking for their tournament as stated in the memo forwarded to the Commission this evening. The tournament will be held between Friday, June 24 and Sunday, June 26, at Peterson, Summit Ridge and Sycamore Canyon Parks. The City Manager has authorized the on -street parking. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by C/Gravdahl, seconded by C/Esposito and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Respectively, /s/ David G. Liu David G. Liu Secretary Attest: /s/ Tom Ortiz Tom Ortiz Chairman C:\NP60\LINDAKAY\TT-94\TT-JUN09.94 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION JULY 14, 1994 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Ortiz called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Hearing Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Chavers. ROLL CALL Chair/Ortiz stated that C/Espositio would be absent and excused from tonight's meeting. Commissioners: Chavers, Gravdahl, Vice Chairman Istik, and Chairman Ortiz. Staff: Senior Engineer, David Liu; Consultant Engineer, Mike Myers; Administrative Assistant, Tseday Aberra; Sergeant Rawlings, and Engineering Secretary, Linda Smith. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of the June 9, 1994, Traffic and Transportation Commission Meeting will be continued to the August 11, 1994 meeting. II. COMMISSION COMMENTS - None III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Craig Clute, 21217 Fountain Springs Road, asked two questions about the traffic signal on Diamond Bar Boulevard at Fountain Springs Road. The first was to ask for information regarding the signal's purpose, cost, and information about the study which determined the need for a traffic signal. He commented that he had come before the Commission three years ago about the Fountain Springs traffic problem. At that time the recommendation was for an increase of law enforcement in that vicinity. He asked to see the results of this increased law enforcement. He also requested a traffic study be done for all of Fountain Springs Road and stops signs at Sunbright Drive and Castle Rock Road on Fountain Springs Drive and a no left -turn signs from southbound Brea Canyon Road to eastbound Fountain Springs Road. He requested closure of the north entrance to the Country Hills Towne Center, as well as enforcement of the existing speed limit. SE/Liu responded that a traffic signal warrant study had been conducted at the intersection of Fountain Springs Road and Diamond July 14, 1994 Page 2 T&T Commission Bar Boulevard and it was determined that the intersection is warranted for a signal due mainly to the number of accidents that have occurred. The study was done to take into consideration of other intersections. Two signals are being done concurrently at this time, including the intersection of Diamond. Bar Boulevard/ Shadow Canyon Drive. Regarding the specific data requested, it will be provided to Mr. Clute at a later date. Sgt. Rawlings responded that increased enforcement had been slated for the Fountain Springs Road area after Mr. Clute's original request. Over a period of time, the enforcement level has decreased in favor of other problem streets. The computers are purged at the end of every year, but the citations in the vicinity can be provided to Mr. Clute. C/Gravdahl asked about the City Wide Speed Zone Survey and if there are any traffic counts available. SE/Liu responded that it will be an agenda item for the August 11, 1994 Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting. C/Chavers commented that Fountain Springs Road is a prima-facie street with driveways and is zoned 25 MPH. Mr. Clute responded that the speed limit is posted for 30 MPH. C/Chavers commented that this issue might be considered. VC/Istik commented that Prospectors Road is also posted for 30 MPH and is in the category of residential with driveways, so both streets should be considered. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR - None V. OLD BUSINESS A. Change of Traffic and Transportation Commission Meeting Time Chair/Ortiz moved, seconded by VC/Istik, to change the starting time for the Traffic and Transportation meetings to 7:00 p.m. The Motion was passed with the following ROLL CALL vote: AYES: VC/Istik, Chair/Ortiz NOES: Gravdahl ABSTAIN: Chavers ABSENT: Esposito B. Vehicle Parking Along the East Side of Brea Canyon Road north of Lycoming Street July 14, 1994 Page 3 T&T Commission SE/Liu reported that the Department of Public Works received a request to eliminate vehicle parking on the east side of Brea Canyon Road north of Lycoming Street. The request originated from residents who live in the condominiums adjacent to Brea Canyon Road and as a result, experience noise generated from vehicles parked on said street. Field investigation of the Brea Canyon Road/Lycoming Street vicinity reveals that vehicles continuously park on the east side of Brea Canyon Road north of Lycoming Street in order to access the 24-hour AM/PM market at the northeast corner of Brea Canyon Road and Lycoming Street. The noise the vehicles generated have been bothersome and distracting especially in the evening and during the night to those who reside in the adjacent condominiums. Currently, along the easterly side of Brea Canyon Road, there is a "No Parking Anytime" restriction between Golden Springs Drive and Lycoming Street and no parking restriction exists between Lycoming Street and Washington Street. Along the westerly side of Brea Canyon Road, there is no parking restriction between Golden Springs Drive and Lycoming Street and there is a 1130 -Minute Parking Commercial Vehicles" parking restriction between Lycoming Street and Washington Street (along Shea Business Center). At this time, the principal conflict is the use of Brea Canyon Road between the condominium residents and customers of neighboring merchant AM/PM. Both parties have been invited to attend this meeting in order to discuss this matter. It is recommended that the, Traffic and Transportation Commission recommend to the City Council the installation of "No Parking/Stopping, 10:00 p.m. -6:00 a.m. signs along the easterly side of Brea Canyon Road between Lycoming Street and Washington Street. It should be noted that said restriction will not be implemented along AM/PM market's Brea Canyon Road frontage due to the Foothill Line #276 bus stop. Chair/Ortiz asked if there had been an increase in telephone complaint calls for noisy trucks late at night. Sgt. Rawlings responded that this matter had not been brought to his attention in the Sheriff's Department. VC/Istik asked for clarification regarding a more restrictive "No Stopping" sign. SE/Liu commented that the intent of this combination of "No Parking/Stopping" is to inform drivers not to assume one or the other. C/Gravdahl asked if AM/PM had been contacted. July 14, 1994 Page 4 T&T commission SE/Liu responded that notification had been given in writing and by site visit with the manager of the AM/PM. AA/Aberra confirmed that she had received calls from both the Windwood Homeowners Association and AM/PM. Claudia Yeager, 807 S. Dryander Drive, was in favor of the action as recommended by staff. She stated that she had made several calls to the Sheriffs Department regarding noise from the trucks parked on the north and south side of Lycoming Street adjacent to the AM/PM Mini -Mart in the early morning hours. For the last several months, trucks have parked for the entire weekend on this residential street. Her concerns are for the safety of the children in the residential areas. Sgt. Rawlings responded that there is an ordinance to prevent commercial vehicles from parking on residential streets or agricultural areas. The zoning in front of the market would need to be checked. C/Chavers moved, seconded by C/Gravdahl, to adopt staff's recommendation to install "No Parking/ Stopping" signs and further to take to the City Council that parking be restricted on Lycoming Street from Brea Canyon Road to the depth of the AM/PM Mini -Mart on a 24-hour basis. The Motion was passed unanimously with the following ROLL CALL vote: AYES: Chavers, Gravdahl, VC/Istik, Chair/Ortiz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Esposito Chair/Ortiz reopened the comments portion of this item for resident wishing to speak on this matter. Colleen Garcia, 849 Windwood Drive, commented that diesel trucks park outside her complex at all hours, leaving their engines running and the noise awakens the household.' Also, customers exiting the AM/PM Mini -Mart have poor visibility to on -coming traffic making a hazardous condition for drivers, because trucks are parked on the street. SE/Liu re -iterated the recommendation, including No Stopping on Lycoming Street which will be forwarded to the City Council for their approval and adoption. VI. NEW BUSINESS - None July 14, 1994 Page 5 T&T Commission VII. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS Chair/Ortiz asked about the status of the parking on Diamond Bar Boulevard for St. Denis Church. SE/Liu reported the item has been scheduled for the City Council Meeting of July 19, 1994, and St. Denis Church has been notified. VIII. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Chair/Ortiz commented that his first item deals with bicycle lanes, and his survey with Mr. Tom Van Winkle in regards to the broken lines for the bike lanes. On Diamond Bar Boulevard at Goldrush Drive, 96' of broken lines exist. The speed limit is 40 MPH and the bike lane is only 3' wide. The potential hazard should be discussed. His research of the Vehicle Code indicates a vehicle is subject to citation if it enters a bike lane more than 200 feet from the intersection. SE/Liu responded that there maybe some locations in Diamond Bar where bike lanes are not adequate or up to date. This can be looked into and brought back to the Commission at a later date. C/Chavers commented that there are State of California Standards for the markings of bike lanes. The CALTRANS Standard is 100' of broken lines before the intersection and is irrespective of the speed limit on the street or the width of a bike lane. The line is there to inform a bicyclist that the bike lane is ending and he/she no longer has a protected barrier. The line instructs the bicyclist that the motor vehicles have the legal right to cross in front of the cyclist, not to merge into his path. Tom Van Winkle, 21003 Gerndal Street, commented that bike lanes are hazardous, and he is concerned for the safety of the bicyclists and the vehicles entering the lane to make right turns. He believes this matter is worth consideration of the Commission and certain lanes have the potential of accidents. C/Chavers asked if there were any legal requirement that says a motor vehicle must pull to the right in order to make a right turn. It is his understanding that safe right -turn maneuvers are made from the correct lane. Sgt. Rawlings responded that to make a right turn, vehicles must be in the right lane and correspondingly, to make a left turn they must be in the left lane. He would check the Vehicle Code further, but knows of nothing that states the driver must be as far to the right as possible or next to the curb. VC/Istik asked if the State of California regulation was for 100' minimum or 100' on the broken line. C/Chavers commented he would need to look it up. July 14, 1994 Page 6 T&T Commission Michael V. Schneider, 1100 Pebblewood Drive, commented that on southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard near Pathfinder Road, especially in the morning, motorists encroach into bike lanes and use them as a third traffic lane. He would like to see a third lane striped for the merging traffic on Diamond Bar Boulevard, which would still allow for a bike lane. SE/Liu responded that staff would conduct site visits and check the State Standards regarding bike lanes. Chair/Ortiz offered for consideration an item from Mr. Ed Houdin which indicated that the painted "Right -Turn Only" arrow on northbound Diamond Bar Boulevard at eastbound SR -60 on-ramp is in need of repainting. An additional arrow was. also requested. Since this is in CALTRANS jurisdiction, the City's right to paint in this area was questioned. SE/Liu responded that staff will conduct a site visit to verify the existing conditions as well as verifying the jurisdiction, and if said area is within CALTRANS' jurisdiction the City will make a request to repaint the Type 4 Arrow. The City will also request the addition of another arrow on behalf of the resident. C/Chavers offered his assistance to either staff or Mr. van winkle regarding bike lanes. A. Review/Discussion of GPAC Recommended Circulation Element C/Gravdahl commented that his concern is that the Traffic and Transportation Commission was not adequately represented with a consensus. Since there are new members on the Traffic and Transportation Commission, a consensus of the Commission regarding the Circulation Element should be forwarded to the Planning Commission. He further commented that the original plan was done in 1990 and there may have been considerable changes made since and said changes should be further discussed. The DKS model, perhaps should be looked at, too. C/Chavers commented that the model was developed for the General Plan by DKS. It was based upon data provided by the Southern California Association of Governments in its role as the regional planning agency and includes social, economic and every aspect of Southern California life, infrastructure, air quality, etc. The traffic model projected twenty years into the future, looking at the averages both regionally and locally over the last twenty years. The model was done in 1991 and reflected the year 2010 projection from SLAG data base and this is still the best social - economic data available at this time. This is an averaging tool that allows subjective decisions by the City. C/Gravdahl asked if the model allowed different interpretations with different data entered. Page July 14, 1994 Pa e 7 T&T Commission C/Chavers responded that the model allows one to use the existing conditions with any additional land use information, and the model will distribute the traffic generated by the additional land use to reflect the incremental changes in traffic on the street network. The model is a numerical machine that supplies rows and rows of tables and data. C/Gravdahl commented that this tool should be made available to the Planning Commission and to the City Council. vC/ Istik commented that the model was brought up at the GPAC by C/Chavers. Most members understood that the model was very technically oriented. C/Chavers commented that the data was in the original General Plan document, but were taken out. He had intended to convey that the data should be in the Circulation Element. vC/Istik commented that he would also like to see the data in the Circulation Element. Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove Drive, commented that in his opinion C/Chavers comments about the modeling program for the Circulation Element is absolutely accurate. He further commented that the Circulation Element being presented to the Planning Commission by the GPAC is a mess and incoherent. The time restraints imposed on the GPAC did not allow them enough time to write a better document. Because the Planning Commission will be reviewing the Circulation Element, the Traffic Commission has additional time to review the Circulation Element properly. Mr. Neely presented for the Traffic and Transportation Commission's review his alternative Circulation Element which he has rewritten. This alternative Circulation Element is a combination of documents taken from the Master Environmental Assessment document, the existing Circulation Element, the State of California Office of Planning, and Research General Plan Guidelines document and the Plan for Physical Mobility by DKS. He stated that his document builds a story within the Circulation Element with the format of introduction, description of existing conditions, the best evaluation of future conditions, and discuss issues of contention. His Circulation Element is incomplete at this time on the future conditions sections, therefore he asked the Commission to review his document and asked C/Chavers to assist him in the completion of an alternative Circulation Element that would be concise, comprehensive, and in his opinion a compromise document for all the residents of Diamond Bar. C/Chavers commented that he is uncertain of the reception by the Planning Commission to an alternative Circulation Element. He stated that he was willing to go through the effort. Chair/Ortiz asked staff about proceeding with the matter via a special Traffic and Transportation meeting. July 14, 1994 Page 8 T&T Commission VC/Istik commented about the timeule as Cit presented could be Planning Commission by the City _ Y asked if the Traffic anOran r°withlthecP Planning Commission ission, to meeting, either on theirested review a proposed alternative Circulation Element. He sugg that GPAC members be invited. t is to have a better document for Mr. Neely stated that his inten the City of Diamond Bar. SE/Liu commented that it is his understanding that the Planning Commission intends to complete and present the General Plan fto the City Council on August 2, 1994. The next scheduled meeting Planning Commission is Saturday, July 16, 1994, between let • to be and 3.00 p.m., and that any further meetings have y scheduled. C/Chavers asked if there were legal requirements regarding the flow of documents to the City Council on the General Plan. Consulting Engineer/Mike Myers confirmed that the General Plan ng Commission, but the City Council document comes from the Planni may incorporate revisions by holding Public hearings. commissioners who are members VC/Istik commented that the Planning he PAC Comma sinners who are of the GPAC did not vote, however,id vote. members of the Traffic and Transportation should be asked about thesinvoldvement of Perhaps the City Attorney the Traffic and Transportation Commission. Chair/Ortiz asked for metingacould be held in order to review Transportation Commission the completed alternative Circulation Element. responded that a seventy-two (72) hour notice must be given SE/Liu resp t Jul 31 1994, or Wednesday, Y , prior to the meeting date. Monday, 19, 1994, is a July 20, 1994, are open dates. Tuesday, July s meeting can be adjourned scheduled City Council Meeting. Tonight to a specific date and place to further discuss this item. f to invite membersof the GPAC meeting. to VC Istik asked staf attend the Traffic and Transportation Commission nd SE/Liu responded that he would thenvy the City Manage s of the Traffic and the Directorof Transportation Commission Community Development. ion C/Chavers stated that input from the Traffic and Tr edpwithtthe Commission as an advisory commission would be p of the minutes alternative Circulation Element document and a copyCommission and the City with public comments to the Planning Council. July 14, 1994 Page 9 T&T Commission IX. ITEMS FROM STAFF SE/Liu reported that two items will be on the City Council Agenda for July 19, 1994. The first is the request by St. Denis Catholic Church to park on southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard between Acacia Hill Road and Morning Canyon Road, every Sunday. The second is the diagonal parking issue on Brea Canyon Road at Heritage Park Community Center. X. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by C/Gravdahl, seconded by C/Chavers, to adjourn this meeting to Monday, July 18, 1994, 7:00 p.m., at the Heritage Park Community Center. Respectfully, /s/_ Davi r3 G Tiu David G. Liu Secretary Attest: /s/ Tom Ortiz Tom Ortiz Chairman C:\WP60\LINDAKAY\TT-94\TT-JUL14.94 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES of rIfN 1xAFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION JULY 18, 1994 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Ortiz called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Conference Room 3 & 5, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. ROLL CALL Commissioners: Chavers, Gravdahl, Vice Chairman Istik, and Chairman Ortiz. Commissioner Esposito arrived at 7:35 p.m. Staff: Senior Engineer, David Liu; Consultant Engineer, Mike Myers; Administrative Assistant, Tseday Aberra; and Engineering Secretary, Linda Smith. I. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Chair/Ortiz referred to and read excerpts from the City of Diamond Bar's, Traffic and Transportation Commission Handbook, revised March 12, 1992. Page 4, last paragraph, that the Chairperson is responsible for the maintenance of order and decorum at all times. No person should be allowed to speak who has not first been recognized by the Chair. All questions and remarks should be addressed to the Chair. Page 8, item #5, (The purpose of the Commission will be) to hear complaints and receive comments from citizens pertaining to traffic issues throughout the community and to make recommendations thereon to the City Council. Page 10, paragraph 5, Commission Members shall accord the utmost courtesy to each other, to City employees, and to the public appearing before the Commission. A. Review/ discussion of Circulation Element (Continued from July 14, 1994) SE/Liu stated that for tonight's meeting, Mr. Gary Neely has prepared an alternative Circulation Element for the Commission's review/discussion. Gary L. Neely, 344 Canoecove Drive, reported that the document being presented tonight is a completed version of a suggested alternative to the GPAC recommended Circulation Element. This alternative Circulation Element is a combination of documents taken from the Master Environmental Assessment document, the existing Circulation Element, the State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines document, and the Plan for Physical Mobility report by DKS. He read a carried motion from the draft June 30, 1994 Minutes of GPAC, "To issue a statement to the City Council and the July 18, 1994 Page 2 TAT Commission Planning Commission that, although the GPAC did not have time to fully review and comment on his document, the proposed changes to the Circulation Element submitted earlier by Gary Neely should be presented and discussed during the public hearings that both the City Council and the Planning Commission will hold on the review and eventual adoption of the General Plan." Mr. Neely further explained that the GPAC did not see the entire document as being presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission. GPAC was presented with only the Introduction and the Existing Conditions sections, and an outline for the remaining sections of the draft Circulation Element. Mr. Neely stated that this rewrite makes the Circulation Element more coherent. There are some suggested changes to Goals, Objectives and Strategies section which have been put in to correspond to the issue analysis discussions that are in the body of the work. Referring to a topo map, Mr. Neely commented that the Planning Commission has approved the concept of a lake and bought out in the Resource Management Element, as well as a reclaimed lake that is higher up. If a reclaimed lake is constructed in the Upper Tonner Canyon/Tres Hermanos Ranch then that precludes the possibility of running a road down the middle of the Tonner Canyon. In the Chino Hills Specific Plan (for the Circulation System) the road starts at the mouth of the Canyon and dead ends at Tres Hermanos in Diamond Bar. The Committee that discussed the alternatives before, said there were three alternatives: 1) northern alignment, 2) an alignment down the middle of the Tonner Canyon and 3) alignment east of the Canyon. The Committee did not want a road down the middle of the Canyon. The northern alternative was eliminated when the DBA Project was approved, leaving only alternative 3. He further stated that in the alternative Circulation Element there is a discussion of a potential extension of Soquel Canyon Road intersecting with Tonner Canyon Road. The alignment of a Tonner Canyon Road in this alternative Circulation Element is upon the mesa where the road cannot be seen from the bottom of the canyon nor can the bottom of the canyon be seen from the road. This is the same alignment that was a derivative from the committee chaired by Mr. Werner. He commented that the Chino Hills General Plan discusses Carbon Canyon Road and in essence preserves the historic value of Sleepy Hollow. The Chino Hills General Plan does not allow us to use this as a solution to our traffic problem. However, the City of Chino Hills is working with San Bernardino County and Orange County to make Soquel Canyon Road a reality even though the City of Brea opposes it. Further, without the construction of Tonner Canyon Road, the number of road segments in the City where volumes exceed capacity are expected to grow from the current five (5) to twenty-eight (28). With Tonner Canyon Road, the number drops to three (3) July 18, 1994 Page 3 T8T Commission by the year 2010. However, two of the road segments on Grand Avenue will still be impacted. If the road isn't built the condition will be worse. As a last result with the widening of Grand Avenue to six lanes and the building of Tonner Canyon Road, the number of road segments will reduce to one (on Chino Hills Parkway) by the year 2010. To solve this problem the north end of the connection through Tonner Canyon Road to Chino Hills Parkway needs to be re -engineered. We will then have zero (0) road segment where volume exceeds capacity by the year 2010. This is the only professionally generated solution to the traffic problem in Diamond Bar. Mr. Neely asked that the Traffic and Transportation Commission hold a public hearing so that the public could comment on this alternative Circulation Element, and if the Traffic and Transportation Commission finds the report acceptable to send a note to the Planning Commission stating the merits. Or, transmit the document with the Commission's comments and changes to the Planning Commission. This document, in his opinion, is a solution to the traffic problem in Diamond Bar. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, requested clarification of proposed Tonner Canyon Road in the Chino Hills General Plan. Mr. Neely responded that the Chino Hills General Plan shows the alignment of this road as extending down the middle of Tres Hermanos Ranch and entering the City of Diamond Bar's Sphere of influence in such a way that it would extend west down the middle of Tonner Canyon. The City should define a road in the Circulation Element the way it would help the City of Diamond Bar. Mr. Maxwell commented that Chino Hills has Highway 71 and Chino Hills Parkway, and there will be HOV lanes on the SR -60, and inquired if Chino Hills residents are using Chino Hills Parkway or Diamond Bar Blvd. to get to the freeway. Mr. Neely commented that 50% of the work force that lives in Chino Hills works in Los Angeles County. 30% of the work force that lives in Chino Hills works in Orange County. VC/Istik noted that the white area is described by Mr. Neely as a mesa above 1100 feet and there are canyons in the area. The mesa should be defined as the top of the hill through the southeast portion of the County where it is defined as Significant Ecological Area (SEA) 15. It is important to acknowledge the significance of Sleepy Hollow, but so too is SEA 15. C/Gravdahl asked if the topo map reflects a road that was used in the 1930's between Brea and Pomona. VC/Istik commented that there is a dashed line which follows approximately the ridge. He further commented that if the July 18, 1994 page 4 T&T Commission road were on the south side of the ridge line then it would very nearly go around SEA 15. As reflected on page 42, Strategy 1.1.4. reads, "Pro -actively work with adjacent jurisdictions to determine acceptable alternate travel corridors around the City of Diamond Bar and Sphere of Influence. Such consideration will recognize environmental sensitivity and avoid disruption of SEA 15.11 Mr. Neely is suggesting a change in the wording yet it appears that is not needed. Mr. Neely commented that the Diamond Bar's Sphere of Influence ends at the corner of both County lines and would therefore have the road go right through Sleepy Hollow. This alternative Circulation Element has verbiage to limit the number of accesses to this road from side roads to discourage development. C/Chavers stated that this was in the original Goals, Objectives and Strategies and is maintained in the rewrite. VC/Istik commented that the report was very good. C/Gravdahl commented that this report is a 100% improvement over what it was two weeks ago. It is better because of the charts and the fact that it has an idea of where it is going and a background of where it came from. He would like to see two areas added. One, bus routes, for busing Chino Hills residents from the east side of the City instead of passenger cars, and the bus routes that are currently in existence. Two, add in a goal for a ride -share program for the Diamond Bar citizens. He asked SE/Liu for the traffic count on Grand Avenue east of Diamond Bar Blvd near the shopping center. SE/Liu responded that the count was close to 30,000, but he would need to check the records for accuracy. The count was made in April of this year. C/Gravdahl commented that based on this information Diamond Bar's four -lane divided highways are at their maximum capacity. He asked about the daily capacities as reflected in the report. C/Chavers responded that the figures were from manuals, but were specifically tailored to Diamond Bar's level of service. C/Gravdahl commented that gridlock is apparent and his suggested measures could help. C/Chavers commented that he had put in about six hours of time on this document to make it a professionally appearing document as well as to try and reflect the sentiments of the GPAC over the last six months. He further stated that some may take exception to the way the document is written when read, but he is more satisfied with this type of document in July 18, 1994 Page 5 T&T Commission which it states here we are today, here is where we will be tomorrow, and here is what we are going to need to do tomorrow to handle the demands we will have tomorrow. This document lays it out and substantiates the kinds of solutions that are presented. He further stated his support of pursuing additional Park -n -Ride facilities east of the City as reflected in the GPAC recommended Circulation Element, Strategy 1.1.5, part (e). With bus routes to service these facilities fewer vehicles would be going through the City. C/Chavers suggested that perhaps the item might be modified to include bus routes. C/Gravdahl concurred. C/Chavers commented regarding a technical point substantiated by the DKS modelling. The different alternatives of Tonner Canyon, Soquel Canyon, Carbon Canyon Roads and the mix of these roads and their effect on Diamond Bar. If only Soquel Canyon Road was built, there will be no traffic relief to Grand Avenue in Diamond Bar. It skirts too far south of Diamond Bar. Diamond Bar needs a road that intercepts the traffic enroute to Chino Hills before it gets to Diamond Bar. The bottom line is that a southerly road needs to be built to help ourselves in meeting our needs. Council Member/Ansari reported that she is a member of the Four Corners Committee, consisting of representatives from Riverside, Orange, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino Counties. Chino Hills is pushing for a Tonner Canyon roadway and is asking to bring it to the August 11, 1994 meeting. C/Chavers commented that it is his understanding that the City of Chino Hills models indicate the Tonner Canyon Road is a viable solution because they have too much traffic funneling onto Grand Avenue. Council Member/Ansari commented that the Chino Hills General Plan reflects that area as one house per five acres. She inquired where the City is going to get the transportation funds to build that roadway. C/Chavers commented that he would expect the City of Chino Hills to make it a City-wide Assessment District because the entire City would benefit. VC/Istik stated that it is important to go around SEA 15. He does not agree to the proposed change on page 42 that would eliminate that verbiage. He stated he did not want to minimize disruption to SEA 15 as proposed. He is in favor of the verbiage to go around SEA 15. C/Gravdahl asked if a sketch of the roadway to accompany the document would be advisable. July 18, 1994 Page 6 TAT Commission Chair/Ortiz requested clarification from the Commissioners whether to hold another public meeting or to transmit the information gathered at tonight's meeting to the Planning Commission. C/Chavers stated he would prefer to pass this item to the Planning Commission and City Council with the comments of the Commission and those present tonight. VC/Istik asked if the GPAC Committee Members were specifically invited to tonight's meeting. SE/Liu responded that they were not specifically invited to this meeting. VC/Istik commented that taking this alternative Circulation Element to the Planning Commission without their input, could give the appearance that this was done with out the knowledge of the GPAC. Therefore, he asked to have staff give copies of the report and the minutes to every GPAC Committee Member as well. Tom Van Winkle, 21103 Gerndal Street, asked if this document is to be considered as an alternate document to the GPAC's recommended Circulation Element. Chair/Ortiz responded that the document is to be used as an alternative, or in addition to the GPAC Circulation Element. Mr. Van Winkle concurred with Mr. Istik that GPAC Members should have this information. A poll was taken by the Traffic and Transportation Commission which indicated that all members were in favor of building a road around SEA 15. VC/Istik moved, seconded by C/Chavers, to send this Alternative Circulation Element to the Planning Commission along with a copy of the minutes and to have staff send this material to all members of the GPAC. The Motion passed unanimously with the following ROLL CALL vote: AYES: Esposito, Chavers, Gravdahl, VC/Istik, Chair/Ortiz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None C/Chavers asked the minutes to reflect that during the meeting Of July 14, 1994, Mr. Van Winkle had made some suggestions to the Commission. Mr. Chavers reacted negatively and would July 18, 1994 Page 7 T&T Commission therefore like to offer an apology. He re -iterated his offer to assist the Chair and staff to help resolve any questions or issues Mr. Van Winkle brought to the Commission. . II. ADJOURNMW!r Moved by C/Istik, seconded by C/Chavers and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully, /s/ David G. Liu David G. Liu Secretary Attest: /s/ Tom Ortiz Tom Ortiz Chairman C:\WP60\LINDAKAY\TT-94\TT-JUL18.94 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION HERITAGE COMMUNITY CENTER JUNE 27, 1994 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Goldenberg called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Goldenberg. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Goldenberg, Vice Chairman Ruzicka Commissioners Medina, Schey, and Tye Staff: Community Services Director Bob Rose Recreation Supervisor Marla Pearlman Administrative Assistant Sandy Barlow Absent: None MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE None MINUTES 1. Minutes of March 24, 1994, April 28, 1994, and May 26, 1994. Moved by VC/Ruzicka, seconded by C/Schey and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the above dates with the following correction: Minutes of April 28, 1994, under "Announcements," remove the statement attributed to C/Tye as follows: "and one at Summitridge near the parking lot." OLD BUSINESS - None June 27, 1994 Page 2 NEW BUSINESS 2. Priorities Matrix The City Council Finance Sub committee requested staff to consider the lighting of the athletic fields at Lorbeer Junior High School. CSD/Rose stated that the lighting of the athletic facilities at Lorbeer Junior High School could be added to the Commission's list of priorities and remembers that the subject was mentioned at a Commission meeting in the past. The request for funding can be added to the priorities matrix with the Commissions approval. C/Schey stated that he could not recall the discussion regarding the lighting of this particular field and asked which area would be lit. CSD/Rose stated that the soccer/football field was discussed during the subcommittee meeting, but went on to state that the site should be looked at as a whole and should include any improvements that could benefit the community as one project. He further stated that a possible scenario could be that the lighting could be installed at City expense and the use of the field could be determined by the Joint Use Agreement with the Pomona Unified School District. The field could be used by the Pomona Unified School District up to 5 p.m., and the City would then have jurisdiction from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. VC/Ruzicka stated that he recalls the subject being discussed in 1991 and suggested that the archives be searched for the minutes concerning the discussion. C/Schey questioned why we are not lighting our own facilities instead of Lorbeer. VC/Ruzicka commented that when Pop Warner needed a home field, Pomona Unified School District offered the Lorbeer facilities for their use. C/Medina stated that he feels that Chaparral should be lighted as well. June 27, 1994 Page 3 Chair/Goldenberg stated that residents in some areas take exception to lighting of the fields in their neighborhood. He also stated that the Lorbeer facility is a good location for lighting and is easily accessible. CSD/Rose stated that many of the City's parks are in residential areas where support should be obtained from the homeowners as a part of the Conditional use Permit approval process. This process must be completed before lights can be installed in parks. C/Schey asked if we have some idea of what type of use would be demanded. CSD/Rose replied that women's soccer and Pop Warner football have been using the facilities and that use is expected to continue. He also stated that there has been some use by AYSO in the past, and that they would surely welcome the opportunity to use the fields more, if they are lit. VC/Ruzicka stated that he felt that adult groups would also use the facilities. C/Tye stated that AYSO and Pop Warner would be interested in using the facilities for the Fall season. CSD/Rose stated that AYSO is presently scheduled to use Heritage Park for practice on Monday nights and that he feels that they would want to use the Lorbeer facility more than once a week. CSD/Rose further stated that the purpose of the priorities matrix is to keep track of the ideas that are brought forward. Ultimately, the lighting issue would go before the City Council prior to any action. This item is not in next year's budget at this time. Chair/Goldenberg asked what the cost of lighting would be. CSD/Rose provided a quote similar to what is budgeted for the lighting of Peterson Park, which is approximately 8140,000. C/Schey stated it could be less because there are fewer lighting standards required for football and soccer than baseball. June 27, 1994 Page 4 VC/Ruzicka stated that it is a good idea to light the athletic fields at Lorbeer Junior High and asked if a motion is required to recommend the project to the City Council. CSD/Rose stated that at this time, staff is only looking for Commission support to place the item under the Major C.I.P. category of the Priorities Matrix to record that the Commission supports the concept. The item would be, defined further and would be brought back to the Commission with more specifics in the future. VC/Ruzicka stated that a motion is needed now. A motion was made by C/Schey lighting of the athletic facilities at adoption of the appropriate joint seconded by VC/Ruzicka. that the Commission support the Lorbeer Junior High subject to the use agreement. The motion was C/Schey stated a concern about having residential neighborhoods on two sides of the school. VC/Ruzicka stated that the field area is hidden and stated that he does not feel it would bother the residents if activities were concluded by 10 P.M. C/Schey amended the motion to state that the lighting of the athletic facilities at Lorbeer Junior High be added to the major C.I.P. category, and that installation of the lights be subject to an appropriate Joint Use Agreement with the Pomona Unified School District governing the use of the facility. The amended motion was seconded by VC/Ruzicka. C/Medina asked about lighting at other fields. CSD/Rose stated that other fields that would not draw opposition are being considered for a later time. VC/Ruzicka stated that he feels Lorbeer is the best location for lighting and that other locations may have to wait until neighboring residents show their willingness to accept lighting. Chair/Goldenberg asked for the amount of funds that are available for June 27, 1994 Page 5 the 1994-95 fiscal year budget for this lighting project. CSD/Rose replied that the City Manager Recommended budget has $430,000 in reserves in the Park Improvement budget and that the Quimby Fund budget reserve is $221,057. Chair/Goldenberg asked for any other discussion on the motion on the floor. VC/Ruzicka asked if the agreement with the Pomona Unified School District regarding the lighting of the athletic facilities at Lorbeer Junior High would be handled in a separate agreement. CSD/Rose replied that it would be handled as an addendum to the existing Joint Use Agreement and that the City would want to have final approval authority for use of the facility after school hours. Motion to approve adding the lighting of the athletic field at Lorbeer Junior High to the Major C.I.P. category of the Commissions' Priority Matrix carried unanimously. 3. Resource Management Element of the General Plan Chair/Goldenberg reported that good progress has been made by G.P.A.C. over the last four to five weeks, thanks to C/Schey's input, and asked for additional input. CSD/Rose stated that the 18 -page Resource Management Element of the General Plan goes before G.P.A.C. tomorrow night and that the Commission has the opportunity to provide input on this element. Item 3 on page III -2 is the primary emphasis for the Commission, but the Commission may want to be involved in other areas, such as open space, etc., that affect park use and development. CSD/Rase referred the Commission to Objective 1.3 and Strategies 1.3.1 through 1.3.8 on pages III -11 & 12. He also indicated that Table III -1, the Local Recreation Facilities chart, needs correction. The acreage developed is overstated due to unusable land; i.e., slopes. VC/Ruzicka stated that item 3 needs to approach the subject of the need for additional park space in a more assertive manner. He June 27, 1994 Page 6 emphatically stated that park space in Diamond Bar is currently woefully inadequate for the City's needs for active and passive use and feels a statement should be added to that effect. Chair/Goldenberg suggested an addition on page III -3 at the end of item 3. VC/Ruzicka stated that he feels it needs to be indicated up front and as many times as possible. C/Medina questioned the ratio of park space to population. CSD/Rose replied that the national standard for developed park space is 2 acres per 1,000 population. The City's current ratio is 1.1 acres per 1,000 population per the chart but actually feels it is lower due to the inclusion of undeveloped park land in the developed land figures. C/Schey suggested adding a statement after the first sentence in item 3 that the City is inadequately served with active and passive park space. C/Tye asked where the chart came from. CSD/Rose stated that a consultant prepared the chart from input from the Parks and Recreation staff when the first General Plan draft was prepared. Chair/Goldenberg requested an update from CSD/Rose for the meeting tomorrow and CSD/Rose agreed to provide a handwritten update. VC/Ruzicka again stated his concern for the inadequacy of park space. C/Schey stated that the G.P.A.C.'s vacant land listed as open space ownership of the City. members feel the need to get all and attempt to have is under the Chair/Goldenberg referred to the recent Supreme Court ruling which will affect the issue and concurred with VC/Ruzicka's statement regarding lack of park space. June 27, 1994 Page 7 4. Request for Financial Support of Proposed Ball Wall at Paul C. Grow Park To address the question as to what a ball wall is, CSD/Rose stated that Castle Rock Elementary School has a structure that can serve as an example. He stated that it is not an item that he would normally recommend to be placed in a park, but this is a unique situation. The park is located on school district property and the school will make good use of the structure during their recess time. CSD/Rose stated that staff attended a meeting with Walnut Valley Unified School District representatives where it was requested that the City provide financial support to waive plan check fees, relocate the cardiac fitness equipment and sidewalk, and assist in the construction of the ball wall. The current estimate to construct the ball wall is $10,200. C/Tye asked how much of the $10,200 will be derived from fund raising efforts. CSD/Rose stated that he did not know the figure at this time. C/Schey stated that the $10,200 figure does not include the cost to relocate the equipment and the sidewalk, only for the construction of the ball wall. CSD/Rose confirmed C/Schey's statement that the Commission needs to decide how much they will recommend. The cost of construction can be lowered by utilizing cinder block versus the precast panels as indicated on the cost sheet which could possibly bring the cost down to $6,000. He also stated that he does not feel the City should spend more than the cost to relocate the equipment and the sidewalk. C/Schey asked why the location was chosen and if that is the best place for it. CSD/Rose explained that the school is in all portable classroom buildings at this time and the ball wall location is based on the site plans for the proposed permanent buildings. VC/Ruzicka made a motion that the Commission recommend to the City June 27, 1994 Page 8 Council to allocate $6,000 to support the construction of the ball wall. The motion was seconded by C/Schey subject to confirmation of $6,000 being adequate and that the money will not be spent until confirmation of adequate funding for the construction of the ball wall is available from the school district. Chair/Goldenberg stated that he has no problem with items 1, 2, and 3 of the request but questioned the responsibility as to who should construct the play pad. C/Tye agreed and stated that he feels the Commission should limit their focus to what is important to parks and recreation. He understands that this could be an emotional issue but feels the need to limit putting in new equipment. C/Schey asked if the motion maker would accept the amendment. VC/Ruzicka accepted the amendment and added that it is important to remember that the park is operating on school district property and there needs to be cooperation with the school district. C/Medina referred to Diamond Bar High School tennis courts that are multi -use facilities and he feels the ball wall should also be multi -use. Chair/Goldenberg agreed but stated that the Commission needs to keep the cost down. C/Schey thought the motion was not to include construction of the pad. CSD/Rose recommended items 1, 2, and 3 and if any money is left, it could go to the project itself, but up to a limit of $6,000. C/Tye questioned the cost of $10,200 and the appearance that 60 percent of the project would be funded by the City. If the $6,000 is not part of the $10,200, where did it come from. He stated that the $6,000 should go towards what we say it goes for regardless of the total cost of the project. VC/Ruzicka recommended a portion up to $6,000. June 27, 1994 Page 9 Chair/Goldenberg moved to provide support for the ball wall under items 1, 2, and 3 of the June 3, 1994 memo and not put a dollar figure on those items. Seconded by VC/Ruzicka. C/Medina stated that he feels dollars could be saved. Chair/Goldenberg replied that the dollars are not ours to save. C/Schey stated a concern with not stating a dollar amount. He asked if the motion could be amended to include a stipulation that no money be expended until we are assured of construction by the School District for a maximum contribution of $4,000 by the City. Seconded by VC/Ruzicka. CSD/Rose pointed out that the Commission should be primarily concerned with what affects the park itself. C/Schey agreed and stated that he did not want to expend City dollars on school facilities, especially when the school district is not putting budgeted funds into it. C/Tye asked if we know for sure that the school district is not participating in funding. CSD/Rose stated that he believes the only funding is from fund raising, efforts by the Parents Club, donations from local service clubs, and this request of the City. C/Schey moved to recommend to City Council the payment for the relocation of the physical fitness equipment and the sidewalk and to waive plan check fees to a maximum of $4,000, not to be funded until construction begins. CSD/Rose stated that he feels that $4,000 is a fair contribution. C/Schey further suggested that the $4,000 would be a maximum amount but not all would be committed to be spent. Only the amount needed to accomplish the agreed tasks would be spent. CSD/Rose concurred that if that was the intent of the Commission, then June 27, 1994 Page 10 the recommendation to City Council would be worded that way. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Joint Use Agreement with the Pomona Unified School District CSD/Rose stated that negotiations for a Joint Use Agreement with the Pomona Unified School District were started in 1991 and a proposed agreement is now ready to be submitted to the City of Diamond Bar. This agreement is intended to formalize use of the facilities listed on Attachment I. Attachment II lists the fees for operational and non- operational hours, which CSD/Rose feels is comparable to the agreement with the Walnut Valley Unified School District and is broad and general enough to allow for changes, such as the lighting of Lorbeer Junior High, which would be handled as an addendum to the agreement. Attachment III needs clarification as to which category the City falls into. CSD/Rose stated that he feels it is a fair agreement and only affects the City of Diamond Bar use. The community use is still under the Pomona Unified School District rules and regulations. He requested input from the Commission on the proposed Joint Use Agreement. C/Schey asked if the user groups will continue to operate through the district and if this agreement will only affect the City use. CSD/Rose stated that is will only affect the City use, however, it does give the City latitude to represent third parties, such as user groups, if it becomes necessary. C/Tye requested an example of use if not for use by user groups. CSD/Rose replied that the contract classes would be covered by this agreement. VC/Ruzicka stated that he feels it would add to our credibility in that we are an unusual city with two school districts and we have contracts with both school districts and no area of Diamond Bar is treated differently. He asked if it will curtail use of the facilities by the sports groups. June 27, 1994 Page 11 CSD/Rose stated that it will not and it will only formalize the use without granting the City any priority of use over any other user. Chair/Goldenberg mentioned that the agreement does not have a termination date. He asked if it requires the approval of the City Council. CSD/Rose replied that it does require the City Council's approval. The agreement will be returned to the Commission after adoption by the school district and then go to the City Council for their action. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 6. Recreation Program Up -date RS/Pearlman reported that recreation staff is conducting the youth baseball league and is distributing the uniforms to the players and all team rosters are filled and coaches are assigned. The fields are ready for play. Contract class registration began at Heritage Park on June 11. Revenue as of the 24th was $25,000 and registrations are still coming in. Many classes are full and staff is working to add new classes. Recreation services offices are now located at Sycamore Canyon Park. ANNOUNCEMENTS C/Tye complimented the banners and flags along the streets. C/Schey stated the need for an agreement with the Pomona Unified School District for City use of the gym at Lorbeer and that the City could possibly exchange lighting of the athletic fields and possibly the upgrading of the gymnasium facility for use of the gym for City Programs. VC/Ruzicka concurred that use of the gym should be included in the lighting June 27, 1994 Page 12 agreement. C/Schey stated that he feels the gym facilities are not used to their potential and are only used three months out of the year. Chair/Goldenberg announced that Jimmy Edmonds, who graduated in 1989, is now playing for the Angels. Chair/Goldenberg asked the status of bringing the operation of the recreation program in-house that was mentioned at the 5/26/94 meeting. CSD/Rose stated that the discussions are ongoing and he has no additional information at this time. AA/Barlow reported that the Concerts in the Park will begin on Wednesday, June 29th at Sycamore Canyon Park. The park will close at 4 p.m. to allow for setup. Parking will be allowed on the east side of Golden Springs Drive. And, a free shuttle will be provided from the Diamond Bar Golf Course parking lot to Sycamore Canyon Park. Chair/Goldenberg stated that he feels CSD/Rose and his staff should be introduced at the beginning of the first concert. ADJOURNMENT Moved by C/Medina and second by C/Schey and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bob Rose Bob Rose Secretary Attest: /s/ Mike Goldenberg Mike Goldenberg Chairman I N T E R O F F I C E M Z M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor Werner and Councilmember Ansari FROM: Linda a. MagnusouFtcountinq Manager SUBJECT: Voucher Register, September 20, 1994 DATE: September 15, 1994 Attached is the Voucher Register dated September 20, 1994. As requested, the Finance Department is submitting the voucher register for the Finance Committee's review and approval prior to its 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 RNGISTER APPROVAL The attached listing of vouchers dated September 20, 1994 have been reviewed, approved, and recommended for payment. Payments are hereby allowed from the following funds in these amounts: 001 General Fund 112 Prop A Fund 115 Integrated Waste Mgt. Fund 118 Air Quality Improvement Fund 138 LLAD #38 Fund 139 LLAD 139 Fund 141 LLAD 141 Fund 250 CIP Fund TOTAL ALL FUNDS APPROVED BY: Linda G. Ma son Accounting Manager Terrence L. Belanger City Manager $190,518.64 10,675.90 5,085.00 1,086.00 342.38 500.46 9,370.95 6.918.50 $224*497.83 Gary H. Werner Mayor Eileen R. Ansari Councilmember **a City of D i a a o n d Bar *** 71N TIMES 16333 09/15/94 V O U C H E R R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 DUE THRU.............09/20/94 vow NAME YEMW 10. t * PREPAID + ACCOINT PRDJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LIIEM. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ E1M/ME INVOICE DESCRIPTION Nam DATE GEEK ARA W vim AWDervice *001-4090-2325 11 509M 01/1%2 09/13 09,% 33700 Meeting Supplies 123.90 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 123.90 AT i T AT&T f001-4090-2173 4 50920C 09/13 09/20 018181618001 Phone Bills -July Aug'" 113.36 TOTAL DIE V6D01----.--_> 113.38 Accountants Overload Accaertant +001-40118.100 8 50921A 01/2110 09/13 09/20 415779 Teeporary Sw-8/22-8/25 495.00, TOTAL BIE VEIi01t --------) 495.01` Accurate Laadeupe Accurate f00i-4319-2210 3 50M 09/13 09/20 32400 Balance bus-Imoics102403 27.00 `4 TOTAL W VEIDOR --------> 27.08 Airtouch Cellular Airtauch /001-4000-2M 1 509MA 09/13 09/20 1121376 Cellular 8etxs-8/15/94 50.15 TOTAL DUE YEI®tit--------) 31.15 Allied Business fares Inc AlliedForm *0014411-3406 3 50920A 01/1961 09/13.09128 20319 Prkg.Citations Start#4= 1,056.4? TOTAL DUE.VEMOQI--------) 1,056.49 Aqua Backflar l4 A pdKk ;141-4341-Z210 i 5092010 02/2030 09/13 09/20 13336 Test 7 Backflow Devices to.* TOTAL DUE VETM--------> 140.00 Barbaea Garcia & Barnes *001-4020-4021 3504 09/13 09/20 Legal Services -DBA 1,451..31 TOTAL DUE VENDOII--------) 1,451.35 Boys Club/So Gabriel Vly BaysClub *001-45EI0-5620 6 50920A 01/2006 09/13 09/20 1176 Graffiti ftmal-Any 475.00 TOTAL DIE YBW--------) 475.06 Brea, City of 9reaCity *001-4330-5300 2 5092DA 01/1875 09/13 09/20 51974 Recreation Svcs -8/94 22,556.00 *001-4350-5300 4 50920A 01/1075 09/1309/20 51974 Error 22,555.00- #001-4350-5300 6 50920A 01/1875 09/13 09/20 51974 Recre Hom &ws-8/94 25,M5.00 TOTAL DIE YEN= --------1 25,995.00 #t# City of Dia■ond Bar #t# RUN TIME: 16:33 09/15/94 V O U C H E S R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 DUEim............. 09/20/% VOW NAME VEIL LD. t } PREPAID # f ACCOANT PRDJ.TX-MD BATCH PdJMM. ENTRIIDIE INYDICE DESCRIPTION MW BATE CHECK ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ------ ------- Bustos, Gilbert Data #001-2300-1002 2 509200 09/13 09/20 Com.Cntr.Omp.-7/2/94 200.00 TOTAL DUE VENOM --------) 200.00 Charles Abbott b AK Inc CharlesAbb 26 509200 09/14 09/20 Rmfund - Remotion 49.50 #001-36M #115-4515-5500 1 509M 09/13 09/20 97-015 Professional Srvts-5/94 2,8%.Ab 1 50920D +115 -4515 -MM 2 509M 09/13 09/20 97-016 ProfNsianal 8rvc"04 2,236.08 09/1409/20 City Own n R*AinB 6.81 #001-4010.2325 TOTAL DIE VENDOR ---! 5,095.00 City Council - Nemtings Cher, Belea 1342 #001-4090-1200 3 509200 09/1409/20 Supplims Cenral Gari. 50.91 M-3479 24 549200 09/13 09/20 09/14 09/20 Remotion kfe"r 20.00.,: #001-4090-2200 7 509200 09/14 09/20 00.00vt.Maint TOTAL DIE YOM --------! 20.01E 12 5WMD Community Disposal Co. ComDispmel #001-4510-5501 2 509200 01/2061 09/1409/20 67.97 9bwt 9wo ping Ox -6/44 7,8M.n — TOTAL DUE VEIL --------M 7,689.72 Community Industries C=ln& st #001-4558-5521 4 509201 0212060 09/13 09/20 Litter Abatement - 8/91 839.44 TOTAL DIE VENBUR--------) 881.44 Computer Applied Systems CAB +001-4060-4030 3 509200 0112159 09114 09/20 940901 Honthly Nmint-10/94 832.00 TOTAL IRE "VEN101---- ----! 832,08 D. B. Improvement Assoc. DBIA #112-4553-5533 10 50920A 01/2119 09/13 09/20 Advmrtisement--Trmit 360.00 TOTAL DIE VOW --------) 368.08 S . Diamond Bir Hills Club'` #001-4354-2140 b ;. OFM 09/20 2923 Facility Rhtl Rec.Fall 94 1,481.2;) TOTAL DIE ilE1tOOR-------•! 1,481.23 Diamond Bar Petty Cash Pettycah 9041-3478 26 509200 09/14 09/20 Rmfund - Remotion 49.50 #001-36M 1 509200 09/14 0FM Rmfwd-Salm PMmted rd" 5.06 #001-4010-1200 1 50920D 09/1409/20 Supplies City Commtil 4.10 #001-4010-2110 1509200 09/1409/20 City Own n R*AinB 6.81 #001-4010.2325 6 509200 09/14 09/20 City Council - Nemtings 27.15' #001-4090-1200 3 509200 09/1409/20 Supplims Cenral Gari. 50.91 #001-4090-2120 5 509200 09/14 09/20 Omn.Gov.- Postage 9.95 #001-4090-2200 7 509200 09/14 09/20 00.00vt.Maint 24.88 9001-4090-2325 12 5WMD 09/14 01/20 Supplies Gw.Gwt.Ntw 67.97 ##• City of 0 i a a 0 n d Bar 0#f RLN TIME: 16:33 09/15/94 V O U C H E R R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 1 509'100 #001-4000-2330 ME THRU.............09/20/94 #001-4090-1200 4 309'100 VENDOR NAPE VE1400R ID. {001-4350-M 9509200 # } PREPAID # # ACCOINT PRDJ.T1-W BATCH PO.LIWJW. ENTRY/DUE IUIVDICE DESCRIPTIM AMOUNT DATE CHECK Diamond Bar Petty Camp Pettycash (CONTINUED) #001-4095-2110 6509200 09/14 09/20 Comunity Relations Prntng 16.13 #001-4095-4260 4 5092!0 09/14 09/20 Supplies Ecom Bev. 16.24 #001-4210-M 4 909lOD 09/14 49/20 Planning - General Plan 22.40 +001-4310-1200 16 5092M 0911409/20 Supplies Cam.9rC& 5.73 #001-4311-2216 4 509200 09/14 0/20 Park Naint-&= Park 38.25 #001-4313-2210 6 509200 09/1409/20 Heritage Park -Mint Supp 30.94 #OOi-4330-1200 21 509200 0/1409/20 Supplies floc im 67.94 #001-4350-5306 8 509200 09/14 A9/20 Supplies Concert in Park 4.23 Diamond Bar Petty Cash PettyCaeh #001-4030-1200 4 50920D IWI-4030-2325 1 509'100 #001-4000-2330 3 50M #001-4090-1200 4 309'100 #001-4320-1200. 22 509200 {001-4350-M 9509200 Eastman Inc. +001-4610-1200 3 50920A 14/1979 #001-4060-1200 1 50920A 12/1979 #001-4050-1200 2 50920A 13/1979 FIA Federal Credit Union FMCrWitU #001-2110-1012 3 50920A TOTAL BE VEIL --------! 09/14 09/20 Supplies - City Nemmw 09/1409/20 Nt9 cop-milaff 0911409/20 Mtg 0*-*rtslaff 09/1409/20 Geral Buppliee 09/14 09/20 PA iom Suppliam 09/1409/20 Concerts in Part Supp 09/13 09/20 01282" 09/13 09/20 012657874 09/13 09/20 012898129 09/1509/20 First Interstate Bank #001-4010-2320 1 509 : W/K 09/20 TOTAL OLE IIIDQ--------) Supplies Public Mrks/Adsm 9upplies Fimrmct! Supplies Fimaace TOTAL ME VEW--------) Payroll Ded - WW- TOTAL-PREPAID W-TOTALPREPAID ANt11LF ---- MAL DUE vem ) United Nations Publicatns TOTAL PRIMI AMOUR ----) TOTAL DUE VEW011 •------- ) First Interstate Bank FirstInter #001-4030-2310 7 509200 09/14 09/20 Fuel City Mgr -7-09-41 TOTAL PO WD ALONT ----) TOTAL DUE VEIM-------) 468.21 25.101 2. 82.07 1,M.00 09/20/44 0000021132 1,775.00 0.00 7.00 09/01/94 0000021128 7.06 0.00 21.0 09/01/94 0000021127 21.09 0.00 ### City of 0 i a a a n d Bar ### RUN TIME: 1633 09/15/94 V O U C H E R R E 6 1 S T E R PAGE 4 METMMAU.............09/20/94 VENDOR WE VENDOR ID. • # PREPAID +� # ACCMW PROJ.T1-W BATCH PO.LIME/MD. ENTRY/DME INVOICE DESCRIPTION NOW DATE CHECK Foothill Transit FoothillTr #112-4353-M 11 50420A 09/13 09/20 8017 Mo Passes - 7/94 1,231.58 TOTAL DUE YEW --------) 1,231.'0 G L G Trophy Co. Mora* +001-4354-1208 14 509208 01/2046 09/13 09/20 1036 Trophies Mian Supp 140.61 TOTAL DUE VEM --------) 140.61 GSC/PIIBODrI GGC/PAm #001-4316-2210 5 509208 01/2056 09/13 09/20 733475 Caetar Straps/Maple Hill 28.09 +001-4322-2210 5 509208 02/2066 09/13 09/20 733475 Cantor 8trapa/Ranald 11* 28.0 TOTAL DUE VEIBIDM--------1 56.17 ; ;- GTE GTEL #001-4090-2130 1 509208 09/13 09/20 E9 OOM453 &pip.Pmta181"-9/94 T. TOTAL DIE VMD N -- ------ ) 444.2T^ OTE Califarnia GTE 401-4090-2125 1 509208 09/13 09/20 197-3128 6an.8ov Phone -8/91 2,098.26 TOTAL ONE WE --------) 2,098.26 OTE CaliFarnia GTE 0001-4090-2125 2 509208 09/136 09/20 E'9F,0000146L9 Wp.RantaI4100-9191 880.03 TOTAL M E�yE--------f 881600 GTE Califarnia GTE #001-4331-2125 2 509108 09/13 09/20 3%-56x0 RKrution Flaw 8/94 57.27 TOTAL ME VEIDOIM-------- ) 57.27 GTE California #001-4319-21n 1 WM 09/20 OU -9089 Peterson Park Phare -9/91 37.88 TOTAL ONE YEW --------> 37.88 GTE Cilifarnia GTE #001-4010-2125 2 509208 09/13 09/20 860-0028 rhAm Service -8/94 15.99 TOTAL DIE VEMDO!--------> 15.9! *f} City o.f Diamond Bar {f+ RIM TIMES 16:33 09/15/94 V O U C H E R R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 DUETHRU............. 09/20/94 VENDOR NAME VENDDR ID. 0 f PREPAID + f ACMXT PRDJ.TII-FO BATCH PO-LINE/W. ENTRY/DIE INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Geiger, Dana Geiger8 +001-4010.4000 11 509208 03/2028 09/15 09/20 09-94069 Transc.CC Nin.8/2/94 170.00 0001-4210-4000 7.509201 02/2028 09/13 09/20 09-94069 Error 170.00 3 001-4210-4000 9 509201 02/2028 09/15 09/20 01-91069 Transc.CC Minutes -W2/94 170.00 - Goldenberg, Michael Goldelim 00014350-4100 1 509208 Graffiti Control Systm Graf iticom 0001-4558-= 8 509208 01/2095 Grange. Sandra '1340- 0001-3178 26 509200 Hi -Nay Safety Rentals Inc HiVr&fs 0001-4350-5306 7 509206 01/2023 Furtado, Carlos Hurtado 0001-3223 2 509200 Impressive ScreenMorks Impressive TOTAL DUE VENDOR -- ------ } 170.00 00/13 09/20 ParksL%c Caedsian Mtge 120.00 TOTAL DIE YOM --------} 120.00 09/1109/20 20894 Graffiti Revel -8/94 1,260.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------} 1,260.0 09/1309/20 Recreation Refuel 57.40 TOTAL DUE YB--------) 57.00 09/13 09/20 7865 Trfc.Cotral ConmMignm 332.87 TOTAL DUE Vee 332.87 09/13 09/20 203W Rfnd.Ovmrp snt.Prkcitats. 3.00 TOTAL DUE Yom --------} 3.00 0001-4350-1200 16 509X8 01/2072 0!/13 09/20 30% Youth Baseball offliee 6,309.95 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------F 6,309.93 Inland Valley Oly Bulletn' 0001-4040-2115 6 SM 01/2131 4!►/i3 09/20 49%1 Public Notices DE.Chmnp 101.'0 TOTAL DUE YBUR --------) 101.56 Jabs Available Jobskail 0001-4090-2320 2 509201 09/1309/20 1 Year Subscription 21.00 TOTAL DUE VB81QF--------} 25.00 t** City of D i a a a n d Bar t*t RMTIIEi 16113309/15/94 VOUCHER REG I9TER IUE TH11.............09/20/94 VENIM W E VEWM ID. ACCQNT PROJ.TY-40 BATCH PO.LIIEX. ENTRY/DUE IMIGICE DESCRIPTION L.A. Co nty-Swiff's Bap LACRwriff 1001 -4414 -SIO* 1 309200 #001-4411-5404 1.50920A L.A.Couaty Public Marks LACPubWk 0001-4510-W, 1509206 LA Cellulae Telephorw LACellular #COI -4W2125 2 509209 0001-4090.2125 3 500206 #001-4440.2120 2 504209 LA County Agriculture Coe LACAOric *139-463!'-2210 3 50M 01/1977 *134- 2210 S 50420A 01119" LA County Agriculture Cam LACAgric *139-43W22 ` 7 5WM 01/1977 LME Power Engimws #001-4710-4240 2 509209 01IM762 #001-4210-4240 4 504209.01/01762 #001-4210-4240 65092011 01/01911 #001-4210-4240 8 509210 01/01762 *001-4210-4240 10 509^"762 Enviramsstl.Anowat-6/!1 3,690.00 011409/20 97929 League CA Cities Hausin #001-4010-2330 2 WM League Of Calif Cities I.eague3 t001-4090-2320 4 504208 01/2139 09/14 09/20 30036 Event Calvary Chapel -7/94 09/13 09/20 30402 Contorts In Park -7/6-8/17 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 09/13 04/20 95DI0000075 Trffc.Signals Safety Lght TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 09/13 09/20 12772444 Cellular City "/94 09/13 09/20 12472444 Cellular General Oov-8/94 0/13 09/20 12972444 Cellular EmM.Prep-8/44 \ TOTAL BE VEMW--------> PAGE 6 t t PREPAID t * NUINT DATE CHECK 6,511.94 2,264.81 8,776.78 2,341.2E 2,341.96 04/13 04/20 187M Mood Abatwent bmp.Fees 24.80 04/13 09/79 821 Mood Abatm t 130 157.81 TOTAL DUE VEIN.--------) 182.64 09/13 09/20 189M PostAiN d Abateeemt-7/94 317.82 TOTAL DUE VEMU--------) 317.82 09/13 09/20 97914 Envireastal A0000mt-6/94 5,233.11 09/13 09/20 91928 Envirm tl Ammot-7/94 3,680.00 09/13 09/20 97429 Enviramsstl.Anowat-6/!1 3,690.00 011409/20 97929 Em11r 3,690.00- 09/14 04/20 97929 Envirmemtal Assent -7/94 5,514.85 TOTAL DUE YEN= --------> 14,427.96 09/13 09/20 Dep.Fatel Pmw vatim 100.00 TOTAL DUE VE100!--------) 100.06 09/1309/20 Capias qm Ptblic Laws 90.00° TOTAL DUE V64DM--------! 90.06 t#t RIII Citf#f TIME: 16:33 04/15/94 V O y UCof Oiae H E R R E GoInd S TEBar R PAGE 7 DIE THM.............09/20/94 VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID, t # PREPAID f } ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-W SATCM 'O.LINE/W. ENTRY/DIE INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMIINT SITE CHECK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ League of CA Cities Lsagutl #001-4010-2330 1 509706 09/13 09/20 kmal Canf-10-23To10/25 705.00 #OOI-403D-2330 2 509200 09/13 09/20 Amual Conf-10-237610/23 145.00 TOTAL ME YBM---- ----) 900.00 Leighton and Associates Leighton #001-2300-1012 3 509206 09/13 09/20 28478 Ga tach Revier TN51169 181.30 +001-2300-1012 7 50920♦ 09/13 OP/2A 83276 24065 FalconmW"16 . 94,30 #001 2300.1812 6 509'20♦ 09/1309/20 8871P Gtiotsch RW EWS-W 73.80 #001-2300-1012 8 30920E 09/13 09/20 831281 Steeple pws 81 009 706.68 001-2300-1D12- 5 50420E OP/13 49820 83282 Not" Rw ENP4-050 140.30;„. #001-4551-:8234 1 3"m 09/1309/20 83263 Gsotach IMr7/2P/44 115.98'' TOTAL OLE YOM --------} 1,316.8 Los Angeles Canty LAM #112-43M-3JJ33 12 509M 09/1309/20 13 Transit Paws -7/!M 107,60,`' TOO ME Y6 --------} 107.60 Los Angeles Canty ISD LACISD #001-4096.2310 1 109TOD Of/13 09/20 ITT00702 Training Sma-L 61#ith 73.00 TOTAL DIF YENDiR--------> 73.00 Marla Pearlsan Poatlean #001-4330-.1200 17 509206 09/1309/20 Reie6ursesent-Supplies 63.43 TOTAL ME YEM--------} 63.48 Mm PrintingepM. {001-4095-2115 2 509206 01/2077 09/13 09/20 80136 Fall *m1ftter-Printing 5,600.00 TOTAL DUE VEIiDdt -------- 5 =.Oo Medina, Raul #001-4350-4100 2 2r'WA3 09/20 PwkditJltg-6/2710/15 60.00 TOTAL DIF VB --------1 00.0 Metrolink Monthly Pass Metrolink fiiT-4353-5633 14 309200 09/1309/20 Mafhly P.sses 7/44 3,544.80 TOTAL DUE VF --------> 3,544.80 t#t City 0f Diamond Bar ttt AIN TIME= 16:33 09/15/94 V O U C H E R R E G I S T E R DIE THRU............. 09/20/94 PAGE 8 Yew NAME VENDOR ID. # t PREPAn # + ACCOUNT PRDU.TX-10 HATCH PO.LIIEAO. EMTRT/M INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE Coq( -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mobil #001-4210-2310 #001-4210-2310 #001-4090-2310 #001-4090-2310 #001-4090-2310 #001-4210-2310 Mobil 14 509248 01/1999 12 509204 01/1999 16 509208 01/1964 18 309208 01/1961 20 509208 01/1964 10 50920101/1999 Montoomiry, Michael wa tgommr #001-2110-1006 3 509208 +001-4020-4020 2 509208 01/2062 #001-4020-4021 5509206 02/2062 Moreland 6 Associates Moreland #001-40604000 10 509200 01/2109 RUN Loa Polynesian Nrr:a Loa #001-4350-5300 7 309200 NAACP Freedom Fund 4001-4010-2= NAACP Freedom Fund #001-4010-235 09/1309/20 KM47463 0911309/20 K204WO 09/13 0!/20 K4143M 09/1409/20 K4143422 09/1409/20 K4143422 0911309/20 K4145713 09/13 09/20 09/13 09/20 09/1309/20 09/14 09/20 09/14 09/20 09/14 09/20 7W921 "` OM4 09/20 r Nilsson, Virginia 1343 #001-3478 23 509200 PERS Health Benefits PERSHulth #001-2110-1003 1 509200 #001-4090-0093 1 509200 09/13 04/20 09/14 09/20 9ept194 09/14 09/26 Sept,94 Fuel Plaming 9/12/94 Fuel Plaming 8/29/91 Gas Gem -al Govt -8/94 Error Fwl Geral Govt. Fuel Planing-9/O6M TOTAL OLE VB --------} August Rmtirwent Legal Ssrwicn-8/94 Litigation Sims-" be TOTAL DUE VEM---- ----} TNP.11rKs 8/6-6/24/94 TOTAL DUE MM --------1 Seaiar Progrm - Luau TOTAL FWAID .AMM ----) TOTAL DIE iM --------> Amual AMrds.Bngt-llermor►y TOTAL PREPNID AIOHN ---- TOTAL DIE Yom --------► Anal Anards 9*-Ansar2 TOTAL PREPAID AImNT ---- TOTAL DIE VENVOR--------> Recreation Refuel TOTAL DUE Yom --------) Health Ins Preen-8ept'94 Admin Fees-Sept,94 TOTAL PREPAID AMDUNT --f TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------- 24.23 21.85 5.85 5.85- 5.83 23.22 75.2D 645.23- 3,500.Of 312.50,:: 4,569.511 ., 4,569.90 100.00 09/20/94 0000021130 100.00 0.00 40.00 09/01/94 8000021126 40.00 0.00 40.00 09/20/94 0000021129 40.00 0.00 66.00 66.00 10,424.25 09/20194 0000021131 52.12 09/20/94 0000021131 10,476.37 0.06 ttt Cit#a A1MTI)E:16:3309/15/94 VtOy UCoHf DiER REm0oIn9d TEBar R PAGE 9 DUE THRU.............09/20/94 VEIM NA)E VEM ID. # t PREPAID t t ACCOINT PRDJ.T"m BATCH PQ.LIMM. 8MME INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMDUNT DATE CHECK ------------------------------------------------ Payroll Transfer PayrollTr #001-1020 3 509200 09/14 09/20 PP18 PP18 46 i00 00 09 Pitney Bowes Credit Cap. PBM #001-4090-2130 2 509208 Poeosa Valley Baine sm. PMIS M-4431-5403 43092019 01/1949 Postage BY mm #001-4p90-2120 R.N Design #001-230001010 PostByFtm 6 509200 RdMnign 4 509'100 Rica, L Kesl:ar Keshar 1001-2304-1002 S 509200 09/13 49/90 Coe.Ctr.Drp.S/20/94 200.00 TOTAL DUE VEMOR--------) 200.00 Rich, David Rich #001-2300-1002 1 50920C 09/13 09120 6 �y3+d Robertson, Ale:andria 1: 9001-3478 25'`: OIfM 09/20 Rotary Club of Walnut Vly Rotaryw #001-2300-1003 12 509200 09/1509/20 Cos.Cntr.Dst-7/9/94 200.00 . /20/94 0000000018 200.00 TOTAL PREPAID AMDU9IT ----) 46,600.00 TOTAL DUE MMM --------) TOTAL ME VENDOt-------- ) 0.00 09/M 09/20 1444744 F*ip.Rrntal 8124-9/10/94 99.39 TOTAL DUE VENA --------) 99.51 09/13 09/20 9400-425008 Animl cmtml-9/94 4,514.0 TOTAL DIE YOM --- -----) 09/14 09/20 14089li20 Pestage Rapla:int 1,0.08 Yom" TOTAL DUE 09/13 09120 1OP14 RWMI.Swts FPI. 93.00(; 420.00, TOTAL IDE VENDOR --------) 490.40 Rica, L Kesl:ar Keshar 1001-2304-1002 S 509200 09/13 49/90 Coe.Ctr.Drp.S/20/94 200.00 TOTAL DUE VEMOR--------) 200.00 Rich, David Rich #001-2300-1002 1 50920C 09/13 09120 6 �y3+d Robertson, Ale:andria 1: 9001-3478 25'`: OIfM 09/20 Rotary Club of Walnut Vly Rotaryw #001-2300-1003 12 509200 09/1509/20 Cos.Cntr.Dst-7/9/94 200.00 TOTAL DUE YOM --------) 200.00 Re7eatiow Refold 20.00 TOTAL DUE MMM --------) 20.00 Her Pk Deposit Refund 50.00 TOTAL DUE YEN= ---- ---- ) 50.00 #ft 444 RUN TIME: 16:33 09/15/94 City V 0 UCof DiH E R RaEeGoInd S TEBa R PAGE 10 DUETHRU.............. 09/20/94 VENDOR MANE VENDOR I0. 4 4 PREPAID # t ALCM PROJ.TI-ND BATA{ PO.UNE/ND. E11T AXIS IMVOICE DESCRIPTION MOUNT DAZE CHECK --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ruiz, Midwl Robert Ruiz TOTAL DIE YEW --------N 154.24 TrafcSip1.9mdm Cyn {001-2300-1002 3 509200 09/13 09/20 Refired DEP-8/27/94 200.0)0 CO.Catr.DW-7/30/94 200.00 Toro. DIE YE MOR --------) TOTAL RE 4E1Dat--------> 200.09 Ruzicka, Joseph T. Ruin 4001-4330-4100 3 509200 09/1309/20 ParksL91c Mtq-6/ M/Z5 80.09 TOTAL DIE VENDOR --------> 80.00 S.C.M.A.F. SCMAF #001-4350-2325 1 509100 09/13 09/20 SCIM *t.Institute-Roes 25.00 - TOTAL ME VENDOR --------1 25.00' Sin Gabriel Valley Sym 4001-4090-2315 #112-4593-2313. 1 509200 t 509w 09/1309/20 Om FT94-93 2,250.00 4118-4098-2315 2 50920C 09/14 09/20 FT% -95 09/13 09/20 FT94-95 Dues FM -95 Dues FY" -95 5,432.00. TOTAL ME VENDOR --------) 8,768.00 San Gabriel Valley SGVNYIA '001 -4350 -IM 24 509100 09/1409/20 Track Field Taw-Rsvwtn 200.09 TOTAL DIE YOM ------ — 200.00 San Gabriel Valley City sms TOTAL DIE YENOQR -------) 0.00 San Gabriel Vly Tribune SwIribeae #001-4040-2115 8 509200 01/2132 09113 09/20 0M Siacke, Marren C. #250-4510-4412 07094 3 WNW 0/13 09/39 3757-9 f250-4310-6412 07394 0 50920C 09/13 09/20 3258-9 Singh, Prithvi Raj Singh #001-2300-1002 4 509200 09/1309/20 Plilic Notices Zone pings 11.24 TOTAL DIE YEW --------N 154.24 TrafcSip1.9mdm Cyn 4,918.50 Traffic Signals Oesi" 2,000.00 TOTAL OLE MW --------) 6,918.50 CO.Catr.DW-7/30/94 200.00 Toro. DIE YE MOR --------) 200.00 ttt Cittt MM TIIE1 1b=33 0!/15/94 V ty O UCof DiH E R REmGoInd Bar S T E R PAGE 11 DUE TWL ............09/20/94 VENM NME VENODYt 10. t t PREPAID # # ACCOUITT PROJ.T1-10 IMITCN PD.LINE/W. ENTRY/ME INVOICE DESCRIPTION MOUNT DATE /NECK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sir 4ndy 8irtmody *441-4090'2110 b 509200 04/2041A 09/13 09/10 20(00 Minder Envllq= TOTAL UK YEW------ s Swrt 6 Final SairtVinl 1001-4309-1200 19 50920/ 01/2069 09113 09/20 3232907 Tiny Tots Supplies TOTAL DUE VOW --------) southern 'd Oar Ca SaCAM Elecricity Hsritap4/94 401-613-21S 1 509106 09/1309/20 Sartha " G. •Edisa SaCaEdism Electricity Dist939-8/!4 1001-010-213 3309200 09/14 09/20 SM*Mm Ca. Edison bCaEdism #141-4041-2131 2 309200 09/13 09/20 Southern Ca. Elisa SaCaEdism 1001-4313-2126 2 509200 09/13 09/20 1001-4313-2126 3 30910E 09/13 00/20 1001-4322-2126 1509'10/ 09/130/20 Southam Ca. Edisa SoCaEdisa 0138-4539-2126 3 5w* ,, 09/13 09/20 Spit, Paul *041-3479 - 09/1309/20 St Denis Catholic Church St.owmis 1001-4010-2325 5 50920/ Gas/NWitap Pack -8/91 TOTAL DUE VEiEQI--------f Elect.Traffic Cmtrl-8/94 TOTAL RE YOM --------> Electricity-Dist941-8/94 TOTAL DUE VENOM --------} 125.40 125.40 80.45 80.45 32.91. 32.94- 913.26, 913.24 27.58 27.58 Elecricity Hritap-8/94 730.93 Elecricity Hsritap4/94 1,061.07 Elact.Rort:liew Park-" 623.21 TOTAL DUE YBIM---- ----) 2,407.21 Electricity Dist939-8/!4 326.21 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 326.21 Racrwtim Awfund TOTAL DUE VM -------- 09/1409/20 ------- 09/1409/20 D Alction/Assarimmv. TOM PREPAID AIMW ---- TOTAL DIE YOM -------- 5.00 5.09 100.00 09/09/94 0000021143 100.00 0.00 *** *** MMTIME: 16:33Og/15/94 CiVtOy UCoHf DiER RaE■Go.InSd TEBR a DIETHRU.............09/20/94 PAGE 12 VENDO>: WN VENDOR 10. * * PREPAID AMMJNT PRMLTI-NO BATCH FO.LIIEjA& E11TRy/DIE INVOICE DESCRIPTION ANOT DATE CHECK ----------------------- State of California EDO +001-4090-0060 1 50M Thompson, Domer Thcopso n Thompson Publishing &up Tha■psom Tisco Out Personnel Svc. TinmM m001-4040-0000 7509200 01/2076 *OOI-4040-4000 9 509200 01/2046 09/13 09%20 92503133 SDI Pymnt-6/30/94 159.09 TOTAL DRE VENDOR --------> 159.09 09/13 09/20 931950 04/13 MA 931550 Trinity Enterprises TrinityEnt *001-4040-6230 6 509200 01/198U 04/14 09/20 T001179 M-4310-6230 2 02/1981a 09/14 04/20 T001179 #001-011-M 2 MM 03/19Aia 09/14 04/20 1001179 Tye, Steven ' TyyS *001-4350-4100 4 509200 09/1309/20 Unocal *001-4040-2310 6 3092D0 01/1963 09/14 09/20 714006 y Walnut Vly Mater Dist IlOie *141-4541-2126 3 MM �jY3 09/2p Mglnat Vly Water Dist ' Wwatwois *001-4322-2126 2 509200 *001-4325-2126 1 509200 TOTAL BE YEN= --»----) 0.00 TOTAL DUE VFlo --------) 0.00 T■w.Forsdmsd Ruep. 441.95 Tow.Srvcs-REVtionist 23.2&",-4' TOTAL DIE V8 --------> 463.20 wP"e•�t 3,431.54 COmpuhr Ewm*ft 1,715.77 CMF*w Ewmirm 1,715..74 TOIIL DUI: VEIL --------) 6,863.05 PariYic 6/27,7/28,8/Q5 120.00 TM DIE 120.0 Fuel City NnWW -9/06/94 20.57 TOTA1. BLE VEND09--------) 20.57 Mater Disti41-0/94 x.08 TOTAL DIE VEIM----- --- ) 079.00- 09/13 09/20 Water Rion Rmagme prk4/94 2,25l.9P 09/1309/20 water Starshiar prt-8/911 1,9!111.00 TOTAL ME VEISM--------) 4,25L9y **t Citr *t* U. TIREy : 16:33 09/15/94 V O UCof Diaeond H E R R E G I S TEBa R PAGE t3 DUE11M..............09/20/94 VENDOR NAPE VENDOR Is. t * PREPAID t t ACCOUNT PROJ.n-NO BATCH PO.LIMM. ENTRY/ME INVOICE DESCRIPTION ANKH DATE DECK walnut Vly Mater Dist W6% terOis *138-4538-2126 4 509200 09/1309/20 Walnut Vly Meter Dist WVWaterDis *141-4541-2126 4 509200 09/1309/20 Nest Coast Arborist tet. *001-M-550! 3 5W= 01/1929 09/14 09/20 Bili *001-4558-5509 4 509200 01/1929 09/14 09/20 8747 *001-4558-5509 .5 509200 01/1929 09/14 09/20 8748 Yoseeits waters YoUsNater *001-4310-2130 3509200 01/2021 09/14 09/20 122212 water Dist" -8/94 16.17 TOTAL DIE VENDIiII--------! 16.17 Water Dist#41 -8/94 8,324.34 TOTAL DUE YOM -------f 8,324.34 Tree Trienin8-8/19/94 6,050.0 , Tree Tririaralrsrheit TOM Trienieq Nonan* CP x TOTAL DUE V0001t mor-9more Unyon Pant 14. W TOTAL DUE YOM ------ --! 14.50 TOTAL PREPAID ----------! 59,159.46 TOTAL DIE ---------------) 165,336.37 TOTAL REFIT •-----------> 231,497.83 RSI TIME: 16333 09/13/91 ttt Citof ttt y Diamond Bar V O U C H E R REGIS TER PAGE 1 FUND SUMMARY REPORT BETHRU.............09/20/94 RM DI9�1SE TOTAL GA GJE NILL POST &E HAS POSH DIRECT PAT REVEIIE EIPEM REYOU EIPM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- fUTtlRE TROACTIM REEK EXPENSE 001 Gsnmral Fund 141 LLAD 041 Find 190,518.64 9,370.95 60,824.92 243.50 129,440.22 115 Int Nastm Npmt F 3,085.00 9,370.95 112 Prop A -Transit F 10,673.90 9,080.00 139 LLAD 139 Find 500.46 10,675.90 118 Air Guality Imp 1,006.00 500.46 250 C.I.P. Fund 6,919.30 6,918.30 1 1918.50 136 LLAB 038 Fund 342.36 ,342.38 70TAL -- Y �----• ALL FUOB 224,497.83 w •--�-~ �---------- 60,824.92 -----245.30 163,427.41 C1' � 1r1111111111111111, cARi, wnitRv co. Insurance Adjusters Claims.Management and Administration , 90 The Citv [hive Suite J00 Orange, CA 92668 Mail: P O. Box 25180 Sarrta .Ana, CA 92799-5180 ( 714) 740-7999 1800)572-6900 FAX: 714-740 7992 TO: City of Diamond Bar ATTENTION: Lynda Burgess, CMC/AAE City Cleric naval V eta 94 AUG { 8 PM 2: 03 (, I August 17, 1994 RE: Claim Stevens vs. Diamond Bar - claimant Rita Stevens (Marques/Lopesy D/Event ; 6_27-93 Redd Y/OffiCe 1 7-22-94 Our Film 3 75.463 JMQ. We have reviewed the above captioned claim and request that you take the action indicated below: [Z] CLAIN RB.TBead a standard r*j vtio0l0ttet tri the claimant **INDEMNITY , OL"A ONLY., C J CLAIM INSL1'F'TCTzMa. . , -.. n .. . , „, .. of i,�, Ina ''Witt' tele hiOh ctueversation of * a notice of.. insufficiency, p0s bm, rolled, to trW c2&tom later than *, 19*. THIS MUST HZ-- NAIj= Te ;TKC.C�Auu �' � 20 DAYS. (W, :, SCBIPT OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIN IN YOUR Ofp'tC,. 14 15m n i; _ Government Code Sections 910 �—"� See and/0V 910.2 and/or 910.4.,.. [ 3 AMENDED/SSP_ CIAO, Send a, standard: rejection. Tetter to the claimant, rejecting t ,d additi'=*I,famended [ ]LATE CLAd , claimant, advi �OY tq` the to file a writ t "" se is Y_( Return copies in your fili��. . OF RECEIPT OFT` ' 45' DAYS CLi MW 11 Y IC . w a.. See Government.,000 Sectfon: 93,1.4 C J APPLICAT-il &TLt�rION• Reject claimant's "Application for: Leave to Present a Late Clain.. sem Government Code Section 911.8. [ 7 TAKE NO ACTION: Defer any written responses**,, they claimant pending our further advise.:: Please provide us with a copy° of the notice sent,{' as rew"t—, above. If you have any questions -please contact the undersigneid. very truly' yours e, -CARL WARRICN a COMPANY t wL Richard Marque k.. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES- TO PERSON OR PROPERTY INSTRUCTIONS I. Claims for death, injury to person or t6 personal property must be filed not later than 6 mos. after the occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2) 2. Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than 1 year after the occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2) 3. Read entire claim before filing. 4. See page 2 for diagram upon which to locate place of accident. 5. This claim form must be signed on page 2 at bottom. 6. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give full details. SIGN EACH SHEET. 7. Claim must be filed with City Clerk. (Gov. Code Sec. 915a) To: The City of Diamond Bar Name of Claimant Rita Stevens, represented Jeffrey A. Dains, Attorne nome address of Claimant 235 Briar Creek Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765' City and State R ;SER'v S FOR F7- ct.AENI ........ y;;; - ecu cz%a. 7 94 iq 22 Alf 8.2 7 Age of Claimant (if natural person) Adult Home Telephone Number - Attorney --i}iess equaress of claimant attorney - 909-384-4100 621 Carnegie Drive, Suite 105, San Bernardino City an State Business Telephone Num ar Give address to which you desire notices or communications to be sent regarding this claim; .9O9-384-4100 Jeffrey A. Dains, Esq., on behalf of Rita Stevens, 621 Carnegie Drive, Suite 105, San Bernardino, CA 92408 now did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full particulars. Damage occured when a car -traveling along Golden Springs road in Diamond Bar encountered a known and dangerous condition on such roadway, which caused the vehicle to loose traction, slide out of control'and collide with the claimant's vehicle. W nen did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full particulars, date, time of day June 27, 1993 - complaint against claimants served on 'or about May 22, 1994 Where did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Describe fully, and locate on diagram on reverse side of this sheet, where appropriate, give street names and addresses and -measurements from landmarks; . Southbound on Golden Springs Road approximately 168 feet North of Sylvan Glen Road in the City of Diamond Bar. "What particular ACT or OMISSION do you claim caused the injury or damage? Give names of City employees causing the injury or damage, if known: The City of Diamond Bar had notice of a dangerous condition that existed at the location herein described and failed to take adequate measures to alleviate such condition of this roadway. Further, such notice would extend, but shall not be limited to the insufficiency.of the design, construction and maintenance of said roadway by the City of Diamon What DAAL?GE cr INJURIES do you ciaim.resulted? Give, fullextent oI injuries or damages claimed: Bar - Property damage to claimant's vehicle and indemnity for personal injuries, costs and attorney's fees as a result of an action filed against claimant. What AMOUNT do you claim on account of each item of injury or damage as of date of presentation of this claim, giving basis of computation: The amount claimed is in excess of $10,000 and property damage to claimant's vehicle is $4,441.59 plus $35 a day for rentral car. r,; rc rTA4 Ts•,-. -- - - ��•..�,.. as iar as known you claim on account of each item of prospective injury or damage, computation:giving basis of The amount claimed is in excess of $10,000 and property damage to claimant's vehicle is $4,441.59 plus $35 a day for rental car. SEE PAGE 2 (OVER) THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON REVERSE SIDE Insurance payments received, if any, . na.-r,es of :zsurance Company: Claimant received $4,451.59 to repair vehicle Expenditures made on account of accident or in;ury: (Date—Item) Unknown by the claimant at this time. ('_''`01st) Name and address of Witnesses. Doctors and Hospitals: Unknown by the claimant at this time. READ CAREFULLY For all accident claims place on following diagram names of streets, including North, East, South, and West; indicate place of accident by "X" and by showing house numbers or distances to street corners. If City Vehicle was involved, designate by letter "A" location of City vehicle when you first saw it, and by "B" location cf yourself or your vehicle when you first saw City vehicle; location of City vehicle at time of accident by "A-1" and location of yourself or your vehicle at the time of the accident by "B-1" and the point of impact by "X.,, NOTE: If diagrams below do not fit the situation., attach hereto a proper diagram signed by claimant. FOR AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS 7 ------------- - FOR OTHER ACCIOFNTc signature of Claimant or person filing on his behalf giving relati,qnship t Claimant- K Typed Name: Jeffrey A. Dains, Attorney for Rita Stevens — 1 S".r BE FIT,ED WITH CITY CLERK (GOV- CME SEC. 915a) . Date CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.: (n , 7 TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 REPORT DATE: August 12, 1994 FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer TITLE: Release of Grading Cash Bond Posted for 22428 Steeplechase Lane in the "Country" in Diamond Bar. SUMMARY: The Principal (Paul and Mary Wang) desire release of a cash bond posted for grading located at 22428 Steeplechase Lane in the amount of $2,700. The Interim.City Engineer finds that Principal has performed all work as shown on the approved As -Built grading plan, on file with the City. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council 1)declare the obligations under this bond null and void and release the cash bond which was posted with the City of Diamond Bar in March, 1992 as a condition precedent to issuance of a grading permit for a single family residence grading at 22428 Steeplechase Lane in the amount of $2,700.00; 2)instruct the City Clerk to notify Paul and Mary Wang and Sumitomo Bank of California of the City Council's action. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:x Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification _ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file Ordinance(s) in City Clerk's Office) Agreement(s) X Other: Final Engineering Certificate and Cert. of Deposit EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed N/A by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?_ Yes x No Which Commission? N/A 5. Are other departments affected by the report? Yes x No Report discussed with the following affected departments: N/A REVIEWED BY: Te rence L elanger Frank er /.George A. Wentz City Manag Assistant City Manager /`/`Interim City Engineer CITY COUNCIL REPORT MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 AGENDA NO. TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Release of Grading Cash Bond Posted for 22428 Steeplechase Lane ISSUE STATEMENT: The Principal (Paul and Mary Wang) desire release of a Cash Bond posted for grading located at 22428 Steeplechase Lane in the amount of $2,700.00. The Interim City Engineer finds that Principal has performed all work as shown on the approved As -Built grading plan, on file with the City. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council 1)declare the obligations under this bond null and void and release the Cash Bond which was posted with the City of Diamond Bar in March, 1992 as a condition precedent to issuance of a grading permit for a single family residence grading at 22428 Steeplechase Lane in the amount of $2,700.00; and 2)instruct the City Clerk to notify Paul and Mary Wang and Sumitomo Bank of the Councils action. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: This recommendation has no financial impact on the City's 1994-1995 budget. BACKGROUND: The grading on this 0.64 acre lot was for an 8,000 square foot single family residence. The lot was inspected and final grade was approved on May 5, 1994 by the City's Consultant, Mr. Mike Myers of Charles Abbott and Associates. Therefore, we now recommend that the bond which was posted with the City of Diamond Bar be released. DISCUSSION: The following listed cash bond needs to be released: Address: 22428 Steeplechase Lane Owner: Paul and Mary Wang Tract No.: 30578 Account No.: 038-468472-50 Financial Institution: Sumitomo Bank of California Amount: $2,700.00 PREPARED BY: Anne N. Garvev k' --i1-1994 07:51 ' riah e (PRINTED PAGE Z) I1 7148526564 r TALISSE TAX & ACCOUNTING P.02 +t — MW NDA3AR CITY "r 0 m9 . e�g�vt 21660 E. COPLEY DANE. SUrM Ido DIAMOND BAR, CA 9M 714860 -CITY . 714.860.2489 . ti. SUPERVISED GRADING INSPECTXON CXRTXFICATE TRACT NO..�.2-�Z.� �iTI�.�Oi.7,w&�. :.rl *516 PERMIT O.J1.1 -, ; - 1MA;j GCONTRACTOR ' I iEER'S ROUGH GRADING CERTIFXCATION that the earth fills placed on the following lots were installed upon compet _y prepared base material and compacted in compliance with requirements )de Section 7010. I further certify that where the report or reports of geologist, relative to this site, have recommended the installation of buttr other• similar stabilization measures, such earthwork construction has b .n accordance with the approved design. dated for compaction test data, recommended allowable S. ues and other recommendations. E' .. OILS (YES) (NO) LOT NOS. .. , B . LLS ( YES) (NO) LOT NOS. E e Reg.No Date signature' GRADING ENGINEER'S -ROUGH GRADING CERTIFICATION I t -`t: -+Y --o the satisfactory completion of Trough grading;includinge grading to approximi fz-16.' elevations, property lines lecated and staked; cut and fill slopes correctly grac and orated in accordance with the approved design; swalez and terraces graded ready Pav! ,7, be.ms installed; and required drainage .slopes provided on the building pads. furter Certify 'that where report or reports of an engineering geologist and/or so; engineer have been prepared relative to this site, the recommendations contained in s1 reports have been 'followed in the presecution Of -TIM work. LOT Sas. REM1+�C5 . Engineer Reg. No. Date SUPERVISING GRADIZ�G ENGINEERS FItiAL GRADING CERTIFICATION 7!� OQgOFESS/o ' z='rt4fy to the satisfactory All required drainage devices completion of graa,i4g in accordance wi have a► a4 tion syacems_provided (where been installed; slope plantinq es required); and adequate provisions hav i d.and'i a ade for d a•►p a� of surface waters from each building or engineering geologist (!f site. The recommendations of such s ils99��qq,� peYsona Were employed) have been r orataffl the `'00 :LOT NOS. *r R£MAi2KS V e- Engineer Req. Na.�.57>1S Date _42- j CASH DEPOSIT IN LIEU OP779ND (F, -'H'QL PERFORXANCE, LABOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND CONSENT OB BINANCIAL INSTITUTION (hereinafter 'Financial Institutiorin) hereby acknowledges that Paul Ping S. Wang & Mary Mei IK�Al%%fter "Depositor")• has deposited with Financial Institution the sum of $ 2 e7)Q Financial Institution acknowledges and a ees that the foregoing deposit stands in the name of the City of Diamond Bar, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City") , and that the City is the o —ner of such accou;t No funds shall be withdrawn from said account without the express, written consent of the City; provided, however, -that any interest earned on the deposit shall belong to the Depositor. Financial Institution further acknowledges and agrees that upon written instructions from the City, Financial Institution shall immediately pay to the City such amount (not exceeding, in the aggregate, the sum specified above) as ivay be requested by City. Financial Institution further acknowledges and agrees that such funds shall be paid to the City notwithstanding any contrary instructions that may have been given by the Depositor. Financial Institution represents to City and warrants that the entire amount of the p,:, incipg;ls an ' , C depV5 J.L. ar proviCled herein is insured through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC). WHEREFORE, this acknowledgement and consent is executed this day of March 30,' 92 19 FINANCIAL INSTITUTION: Time Certificate Deposit attached. Sumitomo Bank of California By: – `Sumitomo Bank of California NON-NEGOTIABLE ENE'✓YABLE AUTOMATICALLY R jg' • H.H. #38 NON -TRANSFERABLE -'YPE OF ACCOUNT f, 12 Month TDA ACCOUNT NUMBER DEPOSIT DATE INITIAL MATURITY DATE TERM INITIAL INTEREST RATE INTEREST INTERVAL 038-468472-50 3-30-92 3-30-93 2 Months 3.900% at maturity THIS CERTIFIES THAT SUMITOMO BANK OF CALIFORNIA HAS RECEIVED FOR DEPOSIT THE SUM OF: AMOUNT DAM i1: s ,� *2 700.00*** PAYABLE TO: - INTEREST PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS: ***City of Diamond Bar'*** interest credit to #038-125281-87 depositor: Paul Ping S Wang or Mary Mei-Ni Wang T-251 (9191) rs, "IF Authorized Signature — Sumitomo Bank of California SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION Ff+�e.✓.g�\?+,)'AiNj.'.�1',�'�''�C),'- ' ��ji�, ,.'�'.... 4��R�RSp�"+�•'Ss-*'cs _'re`}sl.,t, •�'-�F�9ti5• �'• o•.r:.er c� such accou:t�. No funds `:hall be withdrawn from said account without the express, written consent of the City; provided, however, -that any interest earned on the deposit shall belong to the Depositor. Financial Institution further acknowledges and agrees that upon written instructions from the City, Financial Institution shall immediately pay to the City such amount (not exceeding, in the aggregate, the sum specified above) as "nay be requested by City. i Financial Institution further acknowledges and agrees that such funds shall be paid to the City notwithstanding any contrary instructions that may have been given by the Depositor. Financial Institution represents to City and warrants that the entire a4mount of the p incipla ozi deposi'%- aiS provided herain is insured through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or the.Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC). WHEREFORE, this acknowledgement and consent is executed this day Of March 30," 1 19 92 FINANCIAL INSTITUTION: Time Certificate Deposit attached. Sumitomo Bank of California By: �--- ('PPV 0r DI MOHD MR AGENDA REFGRT AGENDA NO. TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 REPORT DATE: August 30, 1994 FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer TITLE: Golden Springs Drive Landscape Medians from Westerly City Limit to Lemon Avenue. SUMMARY: On July 5, 1994, the City Council authorized staff to advertise for bids for the Golden Springs Drive Landscape Medians Project. At this time, the City proposes to award a contract to the lowest responsible bidder. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council award a contract to Advanced Construction in the amount not - to -exceed $247,822.90. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:_X Staff Report _ Resolution(s) Ordinances(s) X Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: _ Public Hearing Notification Bid Specifications (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? Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes _ No Which Commission? Traffic and Transportation Commission 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: Department of Community Services REVIEWED BY: Terr ce L. Belanger Frank M. Usher George A. Wentz City Manager Assistant City Manager Interim City Engineer C:1 WP60\LINDAKAY W GFND-9\GldspMed.920 CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Golden Springs Drive Landscape Medians from Westerly City Limit to Lemon Avenue ISSUE STATEMENT: The Golden Springs Drive Landscape Medians Project has been identified as part of the Landscaping Assessment District #38 improvements. This report requests the City Council's approval to award a landscape medians contract to Advanced Construction, the lowest responsible bidder. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council award a contract to Advanced Construction in the amount not -to -exceed $247,822.90. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: $260,000 of the Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 fund has been budgeted for this project. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION.- Golden ACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: Golden Springs Drive landscape medians between the westerly City limit and Gona Court have been identified as part of the Landscaping Assessment District #38 improvements. At this time, construction of said medians will be limited between the westerly City limit and Lemon Avenue. The remainder of these landscape medians will be done either by the developer or, if necessary, by the City at a later date. The work to be performed under the plans and specifications consists of construction of approximately 0.4 mile of median curbs, drainage facilities, landscaping, irrigation and other incidental improvements. On July 5, 1994, the City Council authorized staff to advertise and receive bids for the Golden Springs Drive landscape medians between the westerly City limit and Lemon Avenue. In response to the advertisements, a total of seven (7) contractors obtained plans and specifications for the project. Formal bids were received and opened on August 2, 1994 from two (2) contractors. The bids are as follows: COMPANY BID AMOUNT 1. Advanced Construction $247,822.90 2. Bopark Enterprises $270,429.51 1 Golden Springs Drive Landscape Medians Project September 6, 1994 Page Two The bid of $247,822.90 submitted by Advanced Construction has been determined by staff to be the lowest responsible bid. The engineer's estimate for the construction portion of this project was $260,000. It is anticipated that the construction will begin on October 3, 1994 and be completed by the middle of December. Prepared By: David G. Liu C:1W 260\1,MA Cgy�CCR-44\a1dSpMed.920 K AGREEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the following agreement is made and entered into, in duplicate, as of the date executed by the Mayor and the City Attorney, by and between Advanced Construction hereinafter referred to as the" CONTRACTOR" and the City of Diamond Bar, California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY." WHEREAS, pursuant to the City's request for proposals, bids were received, opened and declared; and WHEREAS, City did accept the bid of Contractor Advanced Construction and, WHEREAS, City has authorized the City Clerk and Mayor to enter into a written contract with Contractor for furnishing labor, equipment and material for the Golden Springs Drive landscape medians between the westerly City limit and Lemon Avenue in the City of Diamond Bar. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, it is agreed: 1. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK: Contractor shall furnish all necessary labor, tools, materials, appliances, and equipment for and do the work for the Golden Springs Drive landscape medians between the westerly City limit and Lemon Avenue. Said work to be performed in accordance with specifications and standards on -file in the office of the City Clerk and in accordance with bid prices hereinafter mentioned and in accordance with the instructions of the City Engineer. 2. INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED COMPLEMENTARY: The aforesaid specifications are incorporated herein by reference thereto and made a part hereof with like force and effect as if all of said documents were set forth in full herein. Said documents, together with this written agreement, shall constitute the contract between the parties. This contract is intended to require a complete and finished piece of work and anything necessary to complete the work properly and in accordance with the law and lawful governmental regulations shall be performed by the Contractor whether set out specifically in the contract or not. Should it be ascertained that any inconsistency exists between the aforesaid documents and this written agreement, the provisions of this written agreement shall control. 3. TERMS OF CONTRACT The undersigned bidder agrees to execute the contract within ten (10) calendar days from the date of notice of award of 1 the contract or -upon notice by City after ten (10) calendar days from the date of notice of award of the contract or upon notice by City after the 10 calendar days, and to complete his portion of the work within thirty (30) -working days from the execution of the first contract. The bidder agrees further too -the assessment of liquidated damages in the amount of two -hundred fifty ($250.00) dollars for each calendar day the work remains incomplete beyond the expiration of the completion date. City may deduct the amount thereof from any monies due or that may become due the Contractor under this contract. Progress payments made after the scheduled date of completion shall not constitute a waiver of liquidated damages. 4. INSURANCE: The Contractor shall not commence work under this contract until he has obtained all insurance required hereunder in a company or companies acceptable to City nor shall the Contractor allow any subcontractor to commence work on his subcontract until all insurance required of the subcontractor has been obtained. The Contractor shall take out and maintain at all times during the life of this contract the following policies of insurance: a. Compensation Insurance: Before beginning work, the Contractor shall furnish to the City a certificate of insurance as proof that he has taken out full compensation insurance for all persons whom he may employ directly or through subcontractors in carrying out the work .specified herein, in accord- ance. with the laws of the State of - California. Such insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect during the period covered by this contract. In accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code, every contractor shall secure the payment of compensation to his employees. Contractor, prior to commencing work, shall sign and file with the City a certification' as follows: "I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of work of this contract." b. For all operations of the Contractor or any sub- contractor in performing the work provided for herein, insurance with the following minimum limits and coverage: 2 1) Public Liability - Bodily Injury (not auto) $500,000 each person; $1;000,000 each accident. 2) Public Liability - Property Damage (not auto) $250,000 each person; $500,000 aggregate. 3) Contractor's Protective - Bodily Injury $500,000 each person; $1,000,000 each accident. 4) Contractor's Protective - Property Damage $250,000 each accident; $500,000 aggregate. 5) Automobile - Bodily Injury $500,000 each person; $1,000,000 each accident. 6) Automobile- - Property Damage $250,000 each accident. C. Each such policy of insurance provided for in paragraph b. shall: 1) Be issued by an insurance company approved in writing by City, which is qualified to do business in the State of California. 2) Name as additional insured the City of Diamond Bar, its officers, agents and employees, and any other parties specified in the bid documents to be so included; 3) specify it acts as primary insurance and that no insurance, held or owned by the designated additional insured shall -be called upon to cover a loss under said policy; 4) Contain a clause substantially in the following words: "It is hereby understood and agreed that this policy may not be canceled nor the amount of the coverage thereof reduced until thirty (30) days after receipt by City of a written notice of such cancellation or reduction of coverage as evidenced by receipt of a registered letter." 5) Otherwise be in a form satisfactory to the City. 1.1 d. The policy of insurance provided for in subparagraph a. shall contain an endorsement which: 1) Waives all right of subrogation against all persons and entities specified in subparagraph 4.c.(2) hereof to be listed as additional insureds in the policy of insurance provided for in paragraph b. by reason of any claim arising out of or connected with the operations of Contractor or any subcontractor in performing the work provided for herein; 2) Provides it shall not be canceled or altered without thirty (30) daysf written notice thereof given to City by registered mail. e. The Contractor shall, at the time of the execution of the contract, present the original policies of insurance required in paragraphs a. and b. hereof, or present a certificate of the insurance company, showing the issuance of such insurance, and the additional insureds and other provisions required herein. 5. PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public works is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, Suite 100, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, and are available to any interested party on request. City also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. The Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to City, not more than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general pre- vailing rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. 6. APPRENTICESHIP EMPLOYMENT: In accordance with the provisions of Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code as amended by Chapter 971, Statutes of 1939, and in accordance with the 4 regulations of the California Apprenticeship Council, properly indentured apprentices may be employed in the prosecution of the work. Attention is directed to the provisions in Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticeable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public works project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: a. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request for certificate, or b. When the number of.apprentices in training in the a, -Pa Pxneeds a ratio of one to five, or c. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or d. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contribution to funds established for the administrative of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticeable trade on such contracts and if other contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex -officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. 5 7. LEGAL HOURS OF WORK: Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract, and the Contractor and any sub- contractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to City, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any sub- contractor under him, upon any of the work hereinbefore mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. 8. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE PAY: Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreements filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 1773.8. 9. CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY: The City of Diamond Bar and its officers, agents and -employees shall not be answerable or account- able in any manner for any loss or damage that may happen to the work or any part thereof; or for any of the materials or other things used or employed in performing the work; or for injury or damage to any person or persons, either workmen employees of the Contractor, of his subcontractors or the public, or for damage to adjoining or other property from any cause whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the performance of the work. The Contractor shall be responsible for any damage or injury to any person or property resulting from defects or obstructions or from any cause whatsoever, except the sole negligence or willful mis- conduct of City, its employees, servants or independent contrac- tors who are directly responsible to City during the progress of the work or at any time before its completion and final acceptance. The Contractor will indemnify City against and will hold and�save City harmless from any and all actions, claims, damages to persons or property, penalties, obligations or liabilities that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm, entity, corporation, political subdivision, or other organization arising out of or in connection with the work, operation, or activities of the Contractor, his agents, employees, subcontractors or invitees pro- vided for herein, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part of City, but excluding such actions, claims, damages to persons or property, penalties, obligations, or liabilities arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its employees, servants or independent contractors who are directly responsible to City, and in connection therewith: 2. a. The Contractor will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees incurred in connection therewith. b. The Contractor will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the Contractor or City covering such claims, damages, penalties, obligations and liabilities arising out of or in connection with such work, operations or activities of the Contractor hereunder, and the Contractor agrees to save and hold the City harmless therefrom. C. In the event City, without fault, is made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against the Contractor for damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the work, operation or activities of the Contractor hereunder, the Contractor agrees to pay to City and any all costs and expenses incurred by City in such action or proceeding together with, reasonable attorneys' fees. So much of the money due to the Contractor under and by virtue of the contract as shall be considered necessary by City may be retained by City until disposition has been made of such actions or claims for damages as aforesaid. 10. NON-DISCRIMINATION: No discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons upon public works because of the race, color or religion of such persons, and every contractor for public works violating this section is subject to all the penalties imposed for a violation of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 of the Labor Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 1735 of said Code. 11. CONTRACT PRICE AND PAYMENT: City shall pay to the Contractor for. furnishing all material and doing the prescribed work the unit prices set forth in the Price Schedule in accordance with Contractor's Proposal dated August 1, 1994. 12. ATTORNEY'S FEES: In the event that any action or proceeding is brought by either party to enforce any term of provision of the Agreement, the prevailing party shall recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred with respect thereto. 13. TERMINATION: This Agreement may be terminated by the City upon the giving of a written "Notice of Termination" to Contractor at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of termination specified in said notice. In the event of such 7 termination, Contractor shall only be paid for services rendered and expenses necessarily incurred prior to the effective date of termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to .be duly executed with all the formalities required by law on the respective dates set forth opposite their signatures. State of California Contractor's License No. 661449 Advanced Construction 938 Lincoln Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90403 Date By: Vvyy Cre �r" TITLE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA By: MAYOR By: Date Contractor's Business Phone (310) 395-9622 Emergency Phone at which Contractor can be reached at any time APPROVED AS TO FORM: Date C:\WP60\Lindakay\Agree-94\Gldspmed.906 8 CITY CLERK CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 REPORT DATE: September 14, 1994 FROM: Bob Rose, Director of Community Services TITLE: Award of Contract for the Planting of Parkway Trees in the City of Diamond Bar SUMMARY: On August 16, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 94-38 authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids for the planting of Parkway Trees in the City of Diamond Bar. Bids were received from seven qualified contractors, and one non-qualified contractor whose bid was non-responsive. Bids were opened and publicly read on September 13, 1994, with bids ranging from a low of $14,930 to a high of $26,519. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council award the contract for the planting of Parkway Trees in the City of Diamond Bar to Green Giant Landscape, the lowest responsive bidder, in the amount of $14,930, plus an additional amount not to exceed $1,500 to serve as contingency, if needed. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Resolution(s) Ordinances(s) X Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other: Bid Opening Results 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: Terrence L. Belan Frank M. ser' Bob Rose City Manager Assistant City Manager Community Services Director C: \ WP60\lind&ay\agenda-9\sumBR.920 CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Award of contract for the Planting of Parkway Trees in the City of Diamond Bar ISSUE STATEMENT: On August 16, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 94-38 authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids for the planting of Parkway Trees in the City of Diamond Bar. Bids were received from seven qualified contractors. The bids were opened and publicly read on September 13, 1994 with bids ranging from a low of $14,930 to a high of $26,519. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council award the contract for the planting of Parkway Trees in the City of Diamond Bar to Green Giant Landscape, the lowest responsive bidder, in the amount of $14,930, plus an additional amount not to exceed $1,500 to save as a contingency, if needed. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: The planting of parkway trees is included in the budget for the 1994/95 Fiscal Year in the amount of $30,000. The bid of $14,930 plus a contingency not to exceed $1,500 is well within the total amount budgeted. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: There are 149 trees missing from established tree -wells along the major boulevards in Diamond Bar. This contract will provide the labor and materials to fill those empty tree -wells. The contingency allows for the possibility of planting additional trees, should the need be discovered, while the work in this contract is being completed. The contract work should be completed within 60 days of the award of contract. PREPARED BY: Bob Rose, Director of Community Services C:\WPWL1NDAKAY\CCR-94\8WwBR.705 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the following agreement is made and entered into, in duplicate, as of the date executed by the City Clerk and the Mayor, by and between Green Giant Landscape hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR" and the City of Diamond Bar, California, hereinafter referred to as "City". WHEREAS, pursuant to Notice Inviting Sealed Bids or Proposals, bids were received, publicly opened, and declared on the date specified in said notice, and WHEREAS, City did accept the bid of Contractor Green Giant Landscape and; WHEREAS, City has authorized the City Clerk and Mayor to enter into a written contract with Contractor for furnishing labor, equipment, and material for installation of Parkway Trees in the City of Diamond Bar. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, it is agreed: 1. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK: Contractor shall furnish all necessary labor, tools, materials, appliances, and equipment for and do the work for the Purchase and Installation of Parkway Trees in the City of Diamond Bar. Said work to be performed in accordance with specifications and standards on file in the office of the City Manager and in accordance with bid prices hereinafter mentioned and in accordance with the instructions of the City Manager. 2. INCORPORATED DOCLTMFNTS TO BE CONOID RF COMP FA�*;TA_itY The aforesaid specifications are incorporated herein by reference thereto and made a part hereof with like force and effect as if all of said documents were set forth in full herein. Said documents, the Resolution Inviting Bids attached hereto, together with this written agreement, shall constitute the contract between the parties. This contract is intended to require a complete and finished piece of work and anything necessary to complete the work properly and in accordance with the law and lawful governmental regulations shall be performed by the contractor whether set out specifically in the contract or not. Should it be ascertained that any inconsistency exists between the aforesaid documents and this written agreement, the provisions of this written agreement shall control. r : �� • • .rr; a. The undersigned bidder agrees to execute the contract within ten (10) calendar days from the date of notice of award of the contract or upon notice by City after ten (10) calendar days, and to complete the planting portion of the work within sixty (60) calendar days from the execution of the first contract. The bidder agrees further to the assessment of liquidated damages in the amount.of one -hundred ($100.00) dollars for each calendar day the work remains incomplete beyond the expiration of the completion date. City may deduct the amount thereof from any monies due or that may become due the Contractor under this contract. Progress payments made after the scheduled date of completion shall not constitute a waiver of liquidated damages. 4. INSURANCE- The Contractor shall not continence work under this- contract until he has obtained all insurance required hereunder in a company or companies acceptable to City nor shall the Contractor allow any subcontractor to commence work on his subcontract until all insurance required of the subcontractor has been obtained. The contractor shall take out and maintain at all times during the life of this contract the following policies of insurance: a. Compensation inaLma_cp: Before beginning work, the Contractor shall fiunish to the Engineer a certificate of insurance as proof that he has taken out full compensation insurance for all persons whom he may employ directly or through subcontractors in carrying out the work specified herein, in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Such insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect during the period covered by this contract. In accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code, every contractor shall secure the payment of compensation to his employees. Contractor, prior to commencing work, shall sign and file with the City a certification as follows: "I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of work of this contract." b. For all operations of the Contractor or any subcontractor in performing the work provided for herein, insurance with the following minimum limits and coverage: 1) Public Liability - Bodily Injury (not auto) $500,000 each person; $1,000,000 each accident. 2) Public Liability - Property Damage (not auto) $250,000 each person; $5(0,000 aggregate. 3) Contractor's Protective - Bodily Injury $500,000 each person; $1,000,000 each accident. 4) Contractor's Protective - Property Damage $250,000 each accident; $500,000 aggregate. 5) Automobile - Bodily Injury $500,000 each person; $1,000,000 each accident. 6) Automobile - Property Damage $250,000 each accident. Each such policy of insurance provided for in paragraph b. shall: 1) Be issued by an insurance company approved in writing by City, which is qualified to do business in the State of California. 2) Name as additional insured the City of Diamond Bar, its officers, agents and employees, and any other parties specified in the bid documents to be so included; 3) Specify it acts as primary insurance and that no insurance held or owned by the designated additional insured shall be called upon to cover a loss under said policy; 4) Contain a clause substantially in the following words: "It is hereby understood and agreed that this policy may not be canceled nor the amount of the coverage thereof reduced until thirty (30) days after receipt by City of a written notice of such cancellation or reduction of coverage as evidenced by receipt of a registered letter." 5) Otherwise be in form satisfactory to City. d. The policy of insurance provided for in subparagraph a. shall contain an endorsement which: 1) Waives all right of subrogation against all persons and entities specified in subparagraph 4.c.(2) hereof to be listed as additional insureds in the policy of insurance provided for in paragraph b. by reason of any claim arising out of or connected with the operations of Contractor or any subcontractor in performing the work provided for herein; 2) Provides it shall not be canceled or alteted without thirty (30) days' written . notice thereof given to City by registered mail. The Contractor shall at the time of the execution of the contract present the original policies of insurance required in paragraphs a. and b. hereof or present a certificate of the insurance company, showing the issuance of such insurance, and the additional. insureds and other provisions required herein. 5. PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby, given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, Suite 100 21660 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, and are available to any interested party on request. City also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1775, the contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to City, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. 6. APPRENTICESHIP EMPLOYMENT: In accordance with the provisions of Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code as amended by Chapter 971, Statues of 1939, and in accordance with the regulations of the California Apprenticeship Council, properly indentured apprentices may be employed in the prosecution of the work. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any appremiceable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public works project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: a. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request for certificate, or b. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1130 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or d. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contribution to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprentieeable trade on such contracts and if other contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex -officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. 7. LEGAL HOURS OF WORK _ Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract, and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours set forth in Division 2, Part 7, chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to City, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work hereinbefore mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. 8. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE PAY: Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreements filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 1773.8. 9. C'ONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY: The City of Diamond Bar and its officers, agents and employees shall not be answerable or accountable in any manner for any loss or damage that may happen to the work or any part thereof or for any of the materials or other things used or employed in performing the work; or for injury or damage to any person or persons, either workmen employees of the contractor or his subcontractors or the public, or for damage to adjoining or other property from any cause whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the performance of thework. The contractor shall be responsible for any damage or injury to any person or property resulting from defects or obstructions or from any cause whatsoever, except the sole negligence or willfid misconduct of City, its employees, servants, or independent contractors who are directly responsible to City during the progress of the work or at any time before its completion and final acceptance. The Contractor will indemnify City against and will hold and save City harmless from any and all actions, claims, damages to persons or property, penalties, obligations, or liabilities that may be asserted or claimed by an, person, firm, entity, corporation, political subdivision, or other organization arising out of or in connection with the work, opgration, or activities of the contractor, his agents, employees, subcontractors, or invitees provided, for herein, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part of City, but excluding such actions, claims, damages to persons or property, penalties, obligations, or liabilities arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its employees, servants, or independent contractors who are directly responsible to City, and in connection therewith: a. The Contractor will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims, damages, penalties, obligations, liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees incurred in connection therewith. b. The Contractor will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the Contractor or City covering such claims, damages, penalties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with such work, operations, or activities of the Contractor hereunder, and the Contractor agrees to save and hold the City harmless therefrom. C. In the event City, without fault, is made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against the Contractor for damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the work, operation, or activities of the contractor hereunder, the contractor agrees to pay to City any and all costs and expenses incurred by City in such action or proceeding together with reasonable attorneys' fees. So much of the money due to the Contractor under and by virtue of the contract as shall be considered necessary by City may be retained by City until disposition has been made of such actions or claims for damage as.aforesaid. 10. NON-DISCRMGNATION- No discrimination "be made in the employment of persons upon public works because of the race, color, or religion of such persons, and every contractor for public'works violating this section is subject to all the penalties imposed for a violation of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 of the Labor Code in accordance with the provisions of section 1735 of said Code. 11. CONTRACT PRICE AND PAYMENT: City shall pay to the Contractor for furnishing all material and doing the prescribed work the unit prices set forth in the Price Schedule in accordance with Contractor's Proposal dated ept . 12 1994, in the total amount of s $ 14,930.00 plus a contingency of $1,500.00. 12. ATTORNEY'S FEES: In the event that any action or proceeding is brought by either party to enforce any term or provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred with respect thereto. MONTGOMERY LAW OFFICE TEL:1.8�18-452 2 L -8323 Sep 15 94 16:26 No .005 P.02 IN AI MSS SOF, the pUda t Mo taw mused thm promM to be duly exeoutod with ad tht fOfMQ N mquind by law on IW montive dates so ft* opposite tb* tigitatur'es. . orcannia suto OUWI Lamm No. -7/,N Canv ,7 ,.�.�.,.C- - 2.7 c) lit v /,- _ �4 D" APPROVED AS TO FORM Chy AttWW Data Cotnrsowe BUAWN Namik CITY OF DIAMM HAA, CAWORM gy: City ciok 3a --) Bmaer�aM�yNP` ` be haN tR rv�lah_ . L �� -75 5 --n %? FM CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BID OPEMING LOG SHEET BID OPENING DATE: September 13, 1994 PROJECT NO.: purchase/Installation of Parkway Trees A Aden - 1�eyjw.S�a-t neer► 0 L a rte— �.cc Item Unit Item N% sin Description Quantity Price Total 7. 15 Red Flowering Gum 5 gallon Eucalyptus Fwifolia Plant in place per specifications 8. 15 Yew Pine 2 gallon Podoempas Macrophyma Plant in place per specifications 9. 15 Pittosporum 10 ��ov n ' /0- gallon P010spMUM Spp. Plant in place per specifications 10. 15 Bisbane Box 10. �o c, c3 CI Qa gallon Trlstania Confer to Plant in place per" specifications 11. Various Remove Dead Trees. 12 L oc 12. 35" x 35" Tree Well Covers 59 o� 15 cJ Place Per Specifications 13. 60 day tree maintenance period., Lump Sum .0a 5 0� C',, Zn + �rh^n 1J ► *1 �' Total Bid Amount Witten In Words: a. P P J-,a t -J 00 41W93o-- Bid Submitted by n J,� E R, 5 nw� Date Company Name C . a,S 4' >u �lT A AJ O Z C A D i � Address �� F M I S C� �. -C�City P-) P—L t: Zip Phone (9-71 - Fax ( b 97/-,22-30<5 Signature 6vvge 4l Payer- dU wLr C �l Y� 1 SS- 9H 7� SCHEDULE OF PRICES FOR THE STREET TREE PLANTING IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR In accordance with specifications therefore approved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar the undersigned bidder is herewith submitting the following bid prices for the performance of the entire work as described in these specifications and attached drawings subject to this furnishing all materials, as described in Exhibit "A". Item Unit Item NY. sin Descrintion Ou2ni tX him 10"i 1. 15 Carrot Wood 2 7s , 15 p •`!J 2. 9 Q gallon Capawiopsis 15 23 56 2377 17 �Go •�oo r; �� cam., Anacardiades Planting in place per specifications 15 Jacaranda gallon Jacaranda AFINWdfolia Planting in place per specifications 15 Bronze Loquat gallon ErioBoerya Def Baca Planting in place per specifications 15 Crape Myrtle - White 1 gallon I.agasaftw is Indica "wl iWff Platting in place per specificatioas 15 Canary Island Pine gallon Pinna Canarimds Planting in place per specifications 15 Crape Myrtle - Red gallon Lagashwmia Indica ,�w" Planting in place per specifications 15 23 56 2377 17 �Go •�oo r; �� cam., CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. C. TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 REPORT DATE: August 31, 1994 FROM: Frank M. Usher, Assistant City Manager Kellee A. Fritzal, Administrative Assistant TITLE: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION'S HOME OWNERSHIP PROGRAM FOR FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS SUMMARY: The Los Angeles County Community Development Commission has announced the availability of HOME funds for first time homebuyers to assist low and moderate income families through second trust deed financing. The maximum funding per participant is based upon purchase price, up to 20% of purchase price or $30,000, whichever is less. The County will administer the program at no cost to the City. (Continued from September 6, 1994 City Council Meeting) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No 94 -XX and authorize the Mayor to sign the Memorandum of Understanding. EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes X No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A _ Yes _ No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? N/A _ Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: Terre*L. Belang Frank M. Usher Kellee A. Fritzal City Manager Assistant City Manager Administrative Assistant CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: September 6, 1994 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY COAIMRJNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION'S HOME OWNERSHIP PROGRAM FOR FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS ISSUE STATEMENT: Should the City participate with the Community Development Commission (CDC) HOME - First time homebuyers Home Ownership Program? RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No 94 -XX and authorize the Mayor to sign the Memorandum of Understanding. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: There is no fiscal impact to the City for participation in the HOME Home Ownership Program other than minor cost for staff assistance with the identification of eligible residents, advertisement of the program and scheduling of interviews. BACKGROUND: The Community Development Commission has developed a Home Ownership Program (HOP) for low to moderate income residents through secondary financing. The program is designed to develop a commitment to the neighborhood through home ownership. The program is fully administered through the County and their selected lenders. The City would be responsible for promotion of the program, referring participants to the CDC or lenders, providing space for meetings (if needed). Below is a brief summary of the program: What is HOP CDC administered program Funding is based upon the initial purchase price, not including closing costs Funding is up to 20% of purchase price or $30,000, whichever is less, secured by a Second Trust Deed City Council Report - Home Ownership Program August 6, 1994 Page Two Who Qualifies Eligible participant cannot have owed a home in the proceeding three years. Participants must be at or below 80% of the County median income, adjusted for family size Owner occupants to purchase home in Diamond Bar Provisions Loan term is 20 years No interest, equity is shared on sliding scale over time. Loan is forgiven at 20 years Sale prior to 20 years, right of first refusal to CDC Purchase Price Limits Maximum price $170,000 (appraised value of a property cannot exceed $201,900) There is $5 million allocated for the HOP for Fiscal Year 1994-95. The program is a first come, first served program and money is not distributed to graphical areas. All eligible participants in the program will be required to attend a Home Buyers Education Program provided by the County. Attachments Resolution Memorandum of Understanding Fact Sheet RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION'S HOME OWNERSHIP PROGRAM FOR FIRST TIME BUYERS WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission has HOME funds available to facilitate the purchases of homes for first time buyers for low and moderate incomes; and WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar may participate in the program with the Community Development Commission providing staff and other assistance required at no cost to the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar agrees to participate in the program by signing the appropriate memorandum of understanding completing the necessary forms, promoting the availability of the program, assisting in identifying eligible homeowners and providing office space as may be necessary to interview perspective eligible residents; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does resolve as follows: SECTION 1. That the City of Diamond Bar does hereby express its intent to participate in the County of Los Angeles HOME Home Ownership Program. SECTION 2. That the Mayor of the City of Diamond Bar is authorized to sign the Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Los Angeles Community Development Commission and the City attached hereto as Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 1994. Mayor I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk for the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on day of , 1994 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 EXHIBIT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE Participating City The Participating City agrees to: 1. Promote the availability of the Home Ownership Program (H.O.P) for First Time Homebuyers and distribute informational materials regarding the Program to residents. 2. Provide office space for the CDC or its representatives to schedule interviews with prospective Home Ownership Program participants. 3. Assist in providing potential program participants. Responsibilities of the CDC: 1. The CDC shall perform, or cause to be performed, the duties of providing loans for First Time Homebuyers through the Home Ownership Program to residents of,the Participating City. This will be conducted as outlined in the Home Ownership Program Policy & Procedural Manual. Participating City Representative Date Community Development Commission County of Los Angeles Representative Taufiq "Syed" Rushdy COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRST-TIME HOME BUYERS SECOND TRUST GEED PROGRAM SUMMARY I NTRODUrTION The Community Development Commission of the County of Los Angeles (Commission) has created a First - Time Home Buyers Second Trust Deed Program under the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) to provide homeownership opportunities for low-income households. Financial assistance will be provided to qualified buyers In the form Of shoed equity participation loans. wowed by Deeds d Trust. The amount available to the individual borrower will represent the minkmxn amount needed to make an eligible property affordable to the particular household The Commission will 'serve as Program Administrator and mortgage lenders selected for program participation will be responsible for the processing/underwriting of home buys PPlba The Program criteria is as described below: PROGRAM CHARACTERISM3 I. ELIGIBILITY A. Eliot" PurchaFKst*m horse buyers are those who haw not held an owt»fship interest in a primary residence in the last 3 years. They must agree to OCCUPY the property as their principal residence for the tern d the loan or until sold. tpownasymed Reguired: Generally 3 to 5% of the purchase price or appraised value plus dosing coats. 2. Underwi ting Giteria: Meet credit income and loan requirements of the first trust deed lender and the mortgage insurer (as required). 3. H : Prior to the issuance of an apPmvd on a Connmission loan% home buyers rust complete � an educe f v cmm on tiorrteoywnersl+ip. o fared by lenders panic W*V In the;progran+- B. Eliaibla Income: Combined gross artrtual irncorrns of persona In a household carnrnat exceed 80% of the annual median income for the Los Angio "AArq. Beach metropolitan statistkal an& adjusted for hous6haid size, as established by the U.S. Cepart M11 Of Housing and urban Development (HUO►. r The eligibw incomes for the program are: H/H AnrAM Income b/H Size Annual -Inca! t $27.0505 $41,750 2 $30.900 6 $44,800 3 $34.800 7 $47.900 4 $38.6W 8 $51.000 Note: Qualifying income is determined by HUD. and revlu d annually C. Eligible Areas: Throughout the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles. and cities participating in the Los Angeles County Community Development Block Grant Program. • Designated Census Tracts: Areas with high concentrations of rental occupancy at 50% or more. Home buyers that purchase a home in these areas are eligible for a maximum loan as described on page 3. Attached are lists of the participating cities and designated census tracts. You may refer to a Los Angeles County Census Tract Thomas Guide in identifying eligible areas. p, Eligible Proverrims: New or existing properties to include a single-famly house, an attached or detached condominium unit. The maximum allowable purchase price is $170,000, which represents 80% d the median purchase price for single family housing In Los Angeles County. Pursuant to HOME Program regulations, the appraisal value of a property cannot exceed $201.900. • Qeveiooer Particlnat: oevelopera of affordable for -sale housing projects under construction may reserve funds to facilitate the marketing of their units to eligible purchasers. Prior to the issuance of an approval on a Commission loan: (1) An E nn*rdW review a review will be will be conducted by the Commission on a newly developed property, and performed on an existing property on a case by case basis. and (2) A property *6 be inspected by the Commission to ensure that it meets Federal Housing Quality Standards (HOS). LOAN TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. Maximum Loan Amounts: Designated Census Tracts Up to $40.000 or 25% of the purchase price, whichever is less. Other Eligible Areas Up to $30.000 or 20% of the purchase price. whichever is less g, Loan Renavm," The Commission's deferred loans will have a 2o -yew loan tern with no monthly payments at principal, and will not accrue interest The loans will be forgiveft provided tfte properties remain affordable for the full 20 -year loan temp. O"MISS, Upon the sale or the transfer of a property. or in the event a home buyer should videtaany Of the provisions contained in the Note and Oeed of Trust. the loan than becomes Immediately due and"yable. ShWKLEgUjtM; Upon sale. transfer. or default, the Commission will share (maximum 2596) in the appreciation of the property- The amount of the share will be determined by the Commission's initial investment and the number of years the home buyer occupied the property. 0. Rio of First f9efusaL• Ham buyers are required to $ign an agreement OWN the Comr osaion int option• to purchase the property in the event of sale. transfer or foreclosure. The Agreement wd be signed and recorded with the second Trust Oeed peNlthonrV+orne0ut► CITY Or, DIAMOND DAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. � , ` TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 1REPORT DATE: September 6, 1994 FROM: Kellee A. Fritzal, Administrative Assistant TITLE: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING A MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM IN COOPERATION WITH THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA DEBT LIMIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE IN 1994 FOR AN ALLOCATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATES AND THE TRANSFER OF SUCH ALLOCATION TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SUMMARY: In an effort to develop an affordable housing program, staff has been investigating different methods of funding for first time homebuyers. The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program is designed to assist the first time homebuyer in purchasing a single- family home. The program is specifically directed toward households which would not be able to purchase housing without assistance such as an MCC program. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolution 94- _, authorize the Mayor to sign the Cooperative Agreement and submit application to the County for the City's involvement in the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A _ Yes _ No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? N/A _ Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: , A�b � (� � ' Terrence L. Belani City Manager Frank M. Usher Assistant City Manager K 1 ee A. Fritzal Administrative Assistant CITY COUNCIL IZLPOIST AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1994 MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM ISSUE STATEMENT: Should the City participate in the Los Angeles County 1994 Mortgage Credit Certificate Program to assist first time homebuyers? RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolution 94- _, authorize the Mayor to sign the Cooperative Agreement and submit application to the County for the City's involvement in the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: The City would be required to make payment to the County for the City's proportionate share (based upon the number of participants in the Program) of administration costs applicable to each allocation received from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC), which share is estimated to not exceed $2,000. The $2,000 will be allocated from the General Fund Reserves. BACKGROUND: The City of Diamond Bar can apply to participate in the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program in cooperation with the Los Angeles County, Community Development Commission. The MCC is one potential component of a proposed affordable housing program, in addition to the Home Ownership Program (first time buyers) that the City can provide to the residents of the City of Diamond Bar. Participating through Los Angeles County, Cities will submit an application to the State of California to obtain authority for the issuance of Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC's). The MCC program will provide assistance to t he first-time home buyer by allowing an eligible purchaser to take up to 20 percent of his or her annual mortgage interest payment as a dollar -for -dollar tax credit against federal income tax. The Mortgage Credit Certificate is used to assist the qualifying homebuyer in obtaining an effective reduction in monthly mortgage payments. By adjusting the homebuyer's allowances on his or her W-4 to reduce the amount of tax withheld by the employer, the purchaser has more monthly income available to cover mortgage payments. Mortgage Credit Certificate subsided first mortgages may be used with the proposed Home Ownership Program second trust deeds to increase affordability. Attachments: Questions and Answers about MCC's Resolution, Cooperative Agreement Application QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT MCCS An MCC is a certificate awarded by the County authorizing the holder to take a federal income tax credit. A qualified Applicant who is awarded an MCC may take an annual credit against federal income taxes of up to twenty percent (20%) of the annual interest paid on the Applicant's mortgage. The value of the MCC must be taken into consideration by the mortgage lender in underwriting the loan and may be used to adjust the borrower's federal income tax withholding. This adjustment will result in an effective reduction in monthly housing costs, and therefore, an increased ability of the Applicant to afford a mortgage payment. A "tax credit" entitles a taxpayer to subtract the amount of the credit from his/her total federal income taxes owed, allowing the taxpayer to receive a dollar for dollar savings. This is different from a "tax deduction," which is subtracted from adjusted gross income before federal income taxes are computed. With a deduction, only a percentage of the amount deducted is realized in savings. An MCC produces a tax credit, not a tax deduction. 40, An MCC reduces the amount of federal taxes owed, thus increasing the qualified homebuyers after tax income to help qualify for a loan and to make the monthly mortgage payments. For example, a homebuyer with a 8.50% fixed rate 30 -year mortgage of $130,000 would make approximately $_2-000.00 in interest payments during the first year of the mortgage. With a 20% MCC, up to $2,400.00 (20% of $12.0001 of the payments would be allowed to be taken as a tax credit toward the applicant's federal income tax liability in the first year. This would effectively reduce the monthly mortgage payment, giving the Applicant greater ability to qualify and support. a mortgage. By increasing purchasing power, the MCC has the economic effect of reducing the interest rate on the mortgage. As shown in the illustration below, the MCC effectively reduces the interest rate. it is important to realize, that the total effect is achieved only when the MCC holder has sufficient income tax liability to receive the entire benefit of the MCC tax credit. TABLE -1 EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATES WITH & WITHOUT AN MCC First Mortgage Amount Mortgage Interest Rate Term Monthly Mortgage Payment (P&I) Monthly Credit Certificate Rate Monthly Credit Amount "Effective" Monthly Mortgage Payment "Effective" Interest Rate WITHOUT MCC WITH MCC $130,000 $130,000 8.50% 8,500,0 30 30 $1,000 $ 1,000 N/A 20% N/A 200 $1,000 $800 8.50% 6.50% Note- The effective interest rate is calculated by applying the reduced monthly payment to the original loan amount and term. When using the MCC tax credit rate (20%), the borrower is still eligible to deduct the remaining 80% of the annual mortgage interest payment not claimed as a credit. For example, assume the homebuyer pays $ 10,000 for the first year in mortgage interest. With a 20% MCC, the homebuyer could take a credit of $2,000 (201/o of $10,000), and a mortgage interest deduction of $8,000 (80% of $10,000). h•. 4•- I• -• ff Milm The MCC reduces the amount of federal income taxes otherwise due to the federal government from the borrower, however, if the credit is greater than the borrower's tax liability, the IRS will not make a cash payment. Therefore, the benefit to the borrower in a given year cannot exceed the amount of federal taxes owed for the year, after other credits and deductions have been taken into account. If the amount of the MCC credit exceeds the borrower's tax liability, the unused portion of the credit can be carried forward for the next three tax years or until used, whichever comes first. The borrower must keep track of the unused credit by year. The current year credit is applied first and the "oldest" credit is used next. • , 1 •' 1 - 1 • 11' 1 1_ ! t ! •ll • !1 • �• The borrower may adjust his or her federal income tax withholding to receive the benefit from the credit on a monthly basis. In this case, the homebuyer will refile a W-4 form with his or her employer reflecting the MCC credit. By taking this action, the number of exemptions will increase, reducing the amount of taxes withheld and thereby increasing the borrower's disposable income. The borrower also has the option of waiting until the end of the year to realize the tax credit savings in one lump sum when filing federal income tax returns. Regardless of whether the homebuyer adjusts the W-4 form or not, the tax credit will have to be listed when filing the federal income tax returns. An MCC can be used for single-family homes including single-family detached homes, condominiums, townhouses, two unit properties where the owner will occupy one unit (a duplex) or a manufactured home meeting the requirements of an Eligible Dwelling in the "Participating Cities" or unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. The residence must become the principal residence of the Applicant (i.e. the buyer must move into the home) within 60 days after the MCC has been issued. What are the MCC Ehizibility Requirements? ❑ First -Time Homebuyer Requirement: The MCC Applicant cannot have had an ownership interest in a Principal Residence at any time in the past three years. ❑ Income Requirement: In order to qualify for an MCC, the Applicant's household income must be below the following limits: All Areas 1 or 2 Person $56,859 3 or more Persons $65,388 ❑ Purchase Price Requirement: The Purchase Price of the house must be below the following amounts: All Areas New units (never previously occupied) $226,350 Existing units (resale) $227,592 ❑ Location: The Property to be purchased must be in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County or one of the participating cities. "Recapture," or the recapture tax, is a supplemental federal income tax to which MCC recipients may be subject if they =U the house they purchased with MCC assistance within nine years of such purchase. The recapture is designed to "recapture" some of the financial benefit of the MCC if (1) the recipient's household income has risen significantly and (2) the value of the purchased house has risen. An MCC can be used for single-family homes including single-family detached homes, condominiums, or townhouses. The residences must become the principal residence of the Applicant (i.e. the buyer must move into the home) within 60 days after the MCC has been issued. MCC's may be used with conventional, fixed-rate and variable rate loans, including FHA and VA loans, FNMA and FHLMC loans and privately insured loans. MCC's are not available with bond -backed loans such as California Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) that carry a below-market fixed interest rate or with refinanced loans. Refinancing are not permitted. RESOLUTION NO. 94 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING A MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM IN COOPERATION WITH THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA DEBT LIMIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE IN 1994 FOR AN ALLOCATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATES AND THE TRANSFER OF SUCH ALLOCATION TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES WHEREAS, there is a shortage in the County of Los Angeles (the "County") and in the City of Diamond Bar (the "City") of decent, safe and sanitary housing, particularly of housing affordable by first-time home buyers, and a consequent need to encourage the availability of homes affordable by such persons and otherwise to increase the housing supply in the City and in the County for such persons: and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County has declared its intent to engage in a mortgage credit certificate program (the "Program") pursuant to Part 5 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California (the "Act") and to issue mortgage credit certificates pursuant to the Act to provide funds for the Program; and WHEREAS, the City hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interest of the City to participate in the Program and to consent to the operation of the Program by the County within the geographic boundaries of the City pursuant to the Act; and WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the County to permit the operation of the Program within the boundaries of the City; and WHEREAS, section 146 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), limits the amount of mortgage credit certificates that may be issued in any calendar year by entities within a state and authorizes the governor or the legislature of such state to provide the method of allocation within such state; and WHEREAS, Chapter 11.8 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Government Code") governs the allocation of the state ceiling (as that term is defined in the Code) among governmental units in the State of California (the "State") having the authority to issue mortgage credit certificates; and WHEREAS, Section 8869.85 of the Government Code requires a local agency, to file an application for a portion of the state ceiling with or upon the direction of the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee ("CDLAC") prior to the issuance of mortgage credit certificates; and WHEREAS, the City has determined to transfer to the County pursuant to Section 8869.85(d) of the Government Code, the total amount, if any, of authority to issue mortgage credit certificates allocated to the City from the state ceiling; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar resolves as follows: SECTION 1 : Each of the foregoing recitals is true and correct. SECTION 2: The City hereby adopts the Program for the purpose of increasing the housing supply in the County and in the City and consents to the operation of the Program by the County with respect to all property located within the geographical boundaries of the City, including the payment to the County of the City -'s proportionate share (based upon the number of participants in the Program) of administration costs applicable to each allocation received from CDLAC, which share is estimated not to exceed $2,000. SECTION 3: The Cooperative Agreement between the County and the City (the "Agreement"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Agreement, for and in the name and on behalf of the City. The Mayor, with the advice and consent of the City Attorney, is authorized to approve any additions to or changes in the form of the Agreement deemed necessary or advisable, approval of such additions or changes to be conclusively evidenced by execution by the Mayor of the Agreement as so added to or changed. The Mayor, with the advice and consent of the City Attorney, is further authorized to enter into such additional agreements with the County, execute such other documents or take such other actions as they may deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of the Agreement or to cooperate in the implementation of the Program. SECTION 4: The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized, on behalf of the City, to submit an application, and such other document as may be required, to CDLAC for an allocation In 1994 or in 1995 in the amount of $2,000 for application to the issuance of mortgage credit certificates by the County. SECTION 5: The City hereby authorizes the transfer to the County of all of the principal amount, if any, of mortgage credit certificates allocated to the City by CDLAC. The City Manager or his designee, on behalf of the City, is authorized and directed to take such steps and execute such documents as are necessary to effect the transfer of such allocation to the County solely for application to the issuance of mortgage credit certificates, the proceeds of which are to be used to induce the origination of home mortgage loans to qualifying persons residing within the City and the County. SECTION 6: The officers and employees of the City are authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the purposes of this resolution or the issuance of the mortgage credit certificates by the County, and all actions previously taken by such officers and employees in connection with the application for the allocation authorized to be requested are ratified and approved. SECTION 7: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and, the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution. PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1994. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ) I, LYNDA BURGESS City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1994, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: AB SENT : COUNCILMEMBERS: Lynda Burgess, CITY CLERK CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council REPORT DATE: August 31, 1994 MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager TITLE: Resolution No. 94 -XX - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar authorizing and approving the exchange of $300,000 in uncommitted Proposition A (Local Return Transit Funds) to the City of Lancaster for $207,000 in unencumbered funds. SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar has approximately $300,000 in uncommitted Proposition A Local Return Funds from Fiscal Year 1992-93. The City of Lancaster has offered $0.69 on the dollar in exchange for the City's uncommitted Proposition A funds. The proposed exchange is mutually beneficial to both cities and will enable the City to fund additional library services. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the exchange of $300,000 in Proposition A Local Return funds to the City of Lancaster for $207,000 in unencumbered funds. It is further recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute, on the City's behalf, the necessary contractual documents with the City of Lancaster to complete this exchange. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X_ Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification X Resolution(s) — Bid Specification —Ordinances(s) _ Agreement(s) SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed by the City Attorney? X Yes _ No 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? 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: n Te ence L. Bela 0, er City Manager Frank M. Usher Trc Assistant City Manager As CITY COUNCIL REPORT MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution No. 94 -XX - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar authorizing and approving the exchange of Proposition A (Local Return Transit Funds) to the City of Lancaster for unencumbered funds. ISSUE STATEMENT: The City of Diamond Bar has approximately $300,000 in uncommitted Proposition A Local Return Transit Funds and has reached an accord with the City of Lancaster to exchange these funds for unencumbered funds at the rate of $0.69 on the dollar. RECONEMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the exchange of $300,000 in Proposition A Local Return funds to the City of Lancaster for $207,000 in unencumbered funds. It is further recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute, on the City's behalf, the necessary contractual documents with the City of Lancaster to complete this exchange. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: The City has a Proposition A carry over balance of $961,121 from Fiscal Year 1993-94. It is anticipated that the City's Fiscal Year 1994-95 Proposition A allocation will be about $538,600. As a result, the City will have an estimated $1,457,600 in Proposition A funds in Fiscal Year 1994-95. Within this fiscal year, the City Council has budgeted $837,600 from the Proposition A Transit Fund for various transit related projects including, but not limited to: the provision of paratransit services; bus pads along Diamond Bar boulevard; expansion of the Diamond Bar Boulevard Park -and -Ride; the holiday shuttle; and related transit services. BACKGROUND: Proposition A, the 1/2 cent sales tax for transit, was approved by voters in 1980. The revenues generated through this half cent sales tax are intended to be used towards the development of transit related programs, which are administered by the Los Angles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA). In administering the program, LACMTA has elected to distribute these "Local Returnfunds directly to cities on a per capita basis. The City must use its Local Return funds within three (3) years from the date of receipt or they will be reallocated to other cities. DISCUSSION: Local Return funds are designed to be spent solely on public transit projects. The City currently has in excess of $300,000 in uncommitted Local Return Funds from FY 1992-93 and has the option of exchanging these funds with another local agency to assist in providing transit related services. In August, the City received notice that the City of Lancaster was looking 'for approximately $1,500,000 in Proposition A funds for capital projects related to their Metrolink Station. Although the City has received a number of offers from other cities interested in exchanging Proposition A funds for unencumbered funds, the City of Lancaster has offered the highest exchange rate at $0.69 on the dollar. The City Council approved the City's Fiscal Year 1994-95 Budget in July. As part of this years' budget authorization, the City Council allocated $200,000 to the Los Angeles County Public Library to fund additional library services within the City. During the City Council's budgetary deliberations, it was proposed and approved that the City use funds received through the exchange of Proposition A funds to fund additional library services. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council accept the City of Lancaster's offer of $0.69 on the dollar, and exchange $300,000 in uncommitted Proposition A funds with the City of Lancaster for $207,000 in unencumbered funds. PREPARED BY: v •. Troy tzlaff Assistan a City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXCHANGE OF PROPOSITION A (LOCAL RETURN TRANSIT FUNDS) TO THE CITY OF LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA, FOR UNENCUMBERED FUNDS. WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar wishes to transfer $300,000 of its uncommitted Proposition A Local Return transit funds to the City of Lancaster to provide for public transit purposes and to improve the level, quality, safety, and/or accessibility of transit services to the general public or to any group which requires special transportation assistance; and WHEREAS, the City of Lancaster has offered to assign $207,000 in unencumbered funds to the City of Diamond Bar; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar has determined that the transit needs of the City can be adequately met if this fund exchange is approved; and WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar plans to expend these funds to augment the City's capabilities in meeting the general public's needs and other City expenses. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The exchange of $300,000 of Proposition A Local Return Funds in exchange for the assignment of $207,000 in unencumbered funds is authorized and approved. SECTION 2. The Mayor is authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, any required documents to effectuate this exchange of funds. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and send certified copies to the City of Lancaster. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on MAYOR 1994. I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on day of following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS - 1994, by the LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGen►DA v: honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 REPORT DATE: September 16, 1994 FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager TITLE: Consent to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Jones Intercable Incorporated to Bell Canada International Incorporated. SUMMARY: Jones Intercable has agreed to issue and sell to Bell Canada International, Incorporated a certain number of shares of Class A Common Stock of Jones Intercable which, when aggregated with the shares of Class A Common Stock currently owned by an affiliate of BCI, will equal 30% of the outstanding shares of Jones Intercable stock. Pursuant to Section 16.60.170 of Ordinance 88-0159F of the Los Angeles County Code, heretofore adopted by the City, Jones Intercable must notify and receive the City's consent for any sale or transfer which gives a 25% or more interest in Jones to any person or corporation which does not already have a controlling interest in Jones. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution 94 -XX approving the transfer by Jones Intercable Incorporated of certain shares of its stock to Bell Canada International Incorporated. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X_ Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification X Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification —Ordinances(s) — Agreement(s) 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? —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: Frank M. Usher Troy L. tzlaff Acting City Manager Assista to the City Aanae MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. k6.13 September 20, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager Consent to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Jones Intercable Incorporated to Bell Canada International Incorporated. ISSUE STATEMENT: Jones Intercable has agreed to issue and sell to Bell Canada International, Incorporated a certain number of shares of Class A Common Stock of Jones Intercable which, when aggregated with the shares of Class A Common Stock currently owned by an affiliate of BCI, will equal 30% of the outstanding shares of Jones Intercable stock. Pursuant to Section 16.60.170 of Ordinance 88-0159F of the Los Angeles County Code, heretofore adopted by the City, Jones Intercable must notify and receive the City's consent for any sale or transfer which gives a 25% or more interest in Jones to any person or corporation which does not already have a controlling interest in Jones. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution 94 -XX approving the transfer by Jones Intercable Incorporated of certain shares of its stock to Bell Canada International Incorporated. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: There are no known financial impacts. Jones Intercable, in accordance to Section 16.62.025 [21 of Ordinance 88-0159F, has remitted a check in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) as payment for any costs incurred by the City in reviewing their request. BACKGROUND: Bell Canada International Incorporated (BCI) has various operations and investments in the international telecommunications industry and provides international telecommunications services. BCI's parent company, BCE Incorporated, is the largest telecommunications company in Canada with more than seven million business and residential customers and 9.5 million network access lines. Although BCI has no direct cable television experience in the United States, they have extensive holdings in cable television systems in the United Kingdom, as well as in competitive telecommunications providers in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. On June 1, 1994, Jones Intercable signed a definitive agreement with BCI by which BCI agreed that it or one of its controlled affiliates would purchase 30% of the outstanding shares of stock in Jones Intercable for $261,250.00 million dollars. In addition to the purchase of stock, BCI has agreed to invest in any future equity offerings of Jones Intercable up to an additional $139 million dollars. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has promulgated rules requiring the approval of the franchising authority (e.g., City) prior to the transfer of control or assignment of a cable television franchise to another party. In addition to the federal requirements, Section 16.60.170 of Ordinance 88-0159F of the Los Angeles County Code, as adopted by the City, requires the City's consent prior to any sale, assignment or transfer which gives a 25% or more interest in the cable system to any person or corporation other than the controlling interest on the effective date of the franchise. Because the proposed sale of a certain number of shares of Class A Common Stock of Jones which, when aggregated with the shares of Class A Common Stock of Jones currently owned by an affiliate of BCI, will equal 30% of the outstanding shares of Jones Intercable stock, the franchise requires the City's consent to this transaction. The City's authority to refuse this request is quite limited. Specifically, Section 16.60.170 [4(c)] of the franchsie agreement states that "consent to any such transfer shall only be refused if the director (e.g., City Manager) finds that the franchisee is not incompliance with the terms and conditions of the franchise and/or the transferee is lacking in experience and/or financial ability to operate the cable television system authorized by the franchise." Staff has reviewed the franchise requirements and finds Jones to be substantially incompliance with the terms and conditions of the franchise agreement. Although there are several franchise related requirements within the franchise agreement that Jones has not complied with (e.g., Emergency Override, Service to Public Facilities), these requirements are considered minor and are being worked on or will be resolved shortly with changes in federal law. Staff has also reviewed extensive background and financial information provided by Jones on BCI, the transferee. Based on an examination of this information it would appear that BCI has the necessary experience in both telecommunications and cable television systems and the financial wherewithal to operate a cable system. Therefore, staff believes that it would be very difficult for the City to deny Jones' request and would recommend that the City Council approve the sale of stock to BCI. Should the City Council choose to deny this request, staff believes that Jones Intercable may be in a position to seek declaratory relief against the City for breech of contract and/or restraint of trade. The County of Los Angeles, which administers the cable system franchise for the unincorporated areas of the County (e.g., Rowland Heights), has tentatively approved Jones' request pending disclosure, by Jones or BCI, of the name of the actual company acquiring the stock. County staff does not envision any difficulties with this request and believes that the proposed transaction of stock to BCI will strengthen Jones' financial position, as well as their ability to capitalize equipment. As proposed, this transaction will not alter the existing franchise agreement nor should it affect the current operations or cable rates of the cable television system serving the community. Staff is very optimistic about the partnership between BCI and Jones and believes that BCI's telecommunications experience will be invaluable to Jones and the community as we enter into the next century. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council favorably consider Jones' request to sell 30% of its outstanding stock to BCI Incorporated. PREPARED BY: Tro B tzlaff Assista to the City nager RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE TRANSFER BY JONES INTERCABLE INCORPORATED OF CERTAIN SHARES OF ITS STOCK TO BELL CANADA INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED A. RECITALS (i) On April 22, 1980, the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors (the "County") adopted Ordinance 12,137 granting a cable television system franchise (the "franchise"), for a period of fifteen (15) years, to Western Cable Enterprises, Incorporated (dba Walnut Valley Cable Television); (ii) This franchise was subsequently sold to Jones Intercable of California, Incorporated and then to Jones Intercable, Incorporated ("Jones"); (iii) On April 19, 1989, the County notified Jones that a portion of the County of Los Angeles in which Jones was operating a franchise had been incorporated and that the City of Diamond Bar, California (the "City") had assumed responsibility over the franchise and would serve as the franchising authority for that portion of the franchise area served by Jones.; (iv) Jones is the current franchisee in the City, and Jones' franchise continues to be governed by Ordinance 12,137, as amended, of the Los Angeles County Code, and heretofore adopted by the City of Diamond Bar; (v) On June 1, 1994, Jones signed a definitive agreement with Bell Canada International, Incorporated ("BCI") by which BCI agreed that it or one of its controlled affiliates would purchase 30% of the outstanding shares of stock in Jones for $261,250.00 million dollars; (vi) Section 16.60.170 of Ordinance 88-0159F of the Los Angeles County Code, as adopted by the City, requires the City's consent prior to any sale, assignment or transfer which gives a 25% or more interest in the cable system to any person or corporation other than the controlling interest on the effective date of the franchise; (vii) Jones has requested, pursuant to Section 16.60.170 of Ordinance.88-0159F, that the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar approve (i) the change in ownership of Jones described herein and (ii) any subsequenL Lrausrers UL uie nil Shares to any Affiliate of BCI; and (viii) 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 RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby consent to (i) the sale by Jones to BCI and the purchase by BCI from Jones a certain number of shares of Class A Common Stock of Jones which, when aggregated with the shares of Class A Common Stock currently owned by an affiliate of BCI, will equal 30% of the outstanding shares of Jones stock and (ii) any subsequent transfers of the BCI Shares to any Affiliate of BCI. SECTION 2. The foregoing consent shall be effective upon the closing of the sale of the BCI Shares by Jones to BCI. Written notice of the closing date shall be given to the City by Jones. Any subsequent transfer of the BCI Shares from BCI to any Affiliate of BCI or between Affiliates of BCI shall be effective upon written notice being given to the City by the entity then holding the Franchise. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby confirms that, to its knowledge, (a) the Franchise is currently in full force and effect; (b) Jones is substantially incompliance in all materials respects with the Franchise; and (c) no event has occurred or exists which would permit the City to revoke or terminate the Franchise. Subject to compliance with the terms of this resolution, all action necessary to approve (i) the change in ownership of Jones described herein and (ii) any subsequent transfers of the BCI Shares to any Affiliate of BCI, has been duly and validly taken. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2_Q day of September, 1994. MAYOR T, LYNDA RTTRgF-qS, C"i. t C'1 o -i, oP tk,o r_ity r» n i - - - - " f-i- - "- hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on 20 day of September, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS ATTEST: Lynda Burgess, City Clerk CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. �a_L�- TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager REPORT DATE: September 14, 1994 MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 FROM: Bob Rose, Director of Community Services TITLE: Ratification Valley Unified District Facilities ties for Recreation Programs. School S SUMMARY: At its meeting on July 7, 1992, the City Council approved a joint use agreement with the Walnut Valley Unified School District granting staff the authority to schedule recreation programs in school district facilities. Each fiscal year, an open purchase order is issued to encumber the funds budgeted for rental of the school district facilities. For the past two fiscal years, an average of $50,000 was spent for the rental of Walnut Valley Unified School District facilities. It is expected that a similar amount will be expended during the 1994/95 fiscal year. The Purchasing Ordinance limits the City Manager's authority to sign purchase orders at $10,000. Only fee based programs capable of cost recovery are scheduled in school district facilities. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council ratify the purchase order for use of Walnut Valley Unified School District Facilities for Recreation Programs for an amount not to exceed $50,000 and authorize the City Manager to sign the Purchase Order. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification _ Resolution(s) Bid Specifications Ordinances(s) X Other: Purchase Order X Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes — No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority No Yes X 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? — 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? — YesX No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? — Yes X No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: J Ter a ce L. B nger Frank M. Ushe Bob Rose City Manager Assistant Cit Manager Community Services Director c:\WP60\LINDAKAY\AGENDA-9\treeMAIN.808 CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Ratification of Purchase Order for Use of Walnut Valley Unified School District Facilities for Recreation Programs ISSUE STATEMENT: Shall the City Council ratify the purchase order for use of Walnut Valley creation Unified 501,000sandcauthorizeDitrit 1es thefor cityeManager torograms for an siamount to exceedd$ $ sign the Purchase Order? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council ratify the purchase order for use of s for Recreation Walnut Valley ot to ex e d $50,000tandtauthorizeePrograms the city Manager to sign the an amount Purchase Order. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: There is $70,000 budgeted in the 1994/95 fiscal year budget for rental of facilities in which to conduct recreation programs. Only fee based programs capable of cost recovery are scheduled in these facilities. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: At its meeting on July 7, 1992, the City Council approved a joint use agreement with the Walnut Valley Unified School District granting staff the authority to schedule recreation programs in school district facilities. Each fiscal year, an open purchase order is issued to encumber the funds budgeted for rental of the school district facilities. For the past two fiscal years, an average of $50,000 was spent each year for the rental of Walnut Valley Unified School District facilities. It is expected that a similar amount will be expended during the 1994/95 fiscal year. The Purchasing Ordinance limits the City Manager's authority to sign purchase orders at $10,000. Only fee based programs capable of cost recovery are scheduled in school district facilities. PREPARED BY: Bob Rose Community Services Director z �, C > Q ° Co C O p M C4 00 o U N�Q� 0 a y a a C vLy. ado � ix 9 L • L°9 � O U C� y� I • c LE 0 8 y c �� o c. 'm � c � • -8 a N y G m . N C E y C O N O r Ewoovaci aci y 2 .Ly+ ` � H C C C E cc "y E--m 0U y y y c U iE d �y I- 4) Y L= `y t C? C W 3 a N a._ Eov0Q) CO O C Z N O $ 3 E wo £ A U LL N C O y_ N CT t6 ' N d V T EY -61 T3 any ) r <�. mr y N Lh 4 u! (D 2 a a r z U 0 Z ^ .n7• W ¢ a H W LE Ela M. - / LL. O r W > o W CL o ca Y w a d O O a Lu U J, z �, C > Q ° Co C O p M C4 00 o U N�Q� 0 a y a a C vLy. ado � ix 9 L • L°9 � O U C� y� I • c LE 0 8 y c �� o c. 'm � c � • -8 a N y G m . N C E y C O N O r Ewoovaci aci y 2 .Ly+ ` � H C C C E cc "y E--m 0U y y y c U iE d �y I- 4) Y L= `y t C? C W 3 a N a._ Eov0Q) CO O C Z N O $ 3 E wo £ A U LL N C O y_ N CT t6 ' N d V T EY -61 T3 any ) r <�. mr y N Lh 4 u! (D 2 a o 2 0 z� az o cc d U Q >s r W > rN y O cc • O a U J, m o s O 1 w G? W z Y W iR lUw QIr J �a 7 m X g© 0a a z �, C > Q ° Co C O p M C4 00 o U N�Q� 0 a y a a C vLy. ado � ix 9 L • L°9 � O U C� y� I • c LE 0 8 y c �� o c. 'm � c � • -8 a N y G m . N C E y C O N O r Ewoovaci aci y 2 .Ly+ ` � H C C C E cc "y E--m 0U y y y c U iE d �y I- 4) Y L= `y t C? C W 3 a N a._ Eov0Q) CO O C Z N O $ 3 E wo £ A U LL N C O y_ N CT t6 ' N d V T EY -61 T3 any ) r <�. mr y N Lh 4 u! (D WT -4-7451 FOR USE OF FACILITIES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 7th day of July 1992, by and between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a public body, hereinafter referred to as "City," and the WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a school district organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "Walnut Valley." RECITALS Whereas, Sections 10900 et seq. and 40040 et seq. of the Education Code of the State of California authorizes and empowers cities, counties, and school districts to cooperate with each other in organizing, promoting and, conducting programs of community recreation; and Whereas, City and Walnut Valley desire to establish a basis for the cooperative development and use of their respective recreational and educational facilities located in the community; and whereas, it is in the public interest that the recreational and educational facilities located within the City of Diamond Bar are put to their fullest possible use. NOW, TNERXFORN, Walnut Valley and City hereby agree and covenant as follows: A. Princicless 1. City and Walnut Valley may cooperatively plan in the development, use, and maintenance of certain school and recreation areas, facilities, and buildings, hereinafter referred to as "facilities" to ensure their maximum joint -use for the benefit of the residents of City. 2. This agreement covers general requirements needed to effectively implement the overall cooperative program for the City and Walnut Valley. Agreements affecting the development, use and maintenance of specific facilities may be accomplished by an agreement executed for each such facility as currently referenced in Attachment I, or as amended to reflect future improvements. The conditions of such agreement become a part of this facilities use agreement, and are subject to the general requirements specified herein. 3. Representatives of the City and Walnut Valley shall confer regularly with regard to the development, use, and maintenance of the facilities referenced in Attachment I, to ensure their maximum acceptable community use. The Superintendent of Walnut Valley and the City Manager of City are hereby authorized and directed by the respective parties to develop necessary schedules and details in connection with the operation and use of the facilities for community recreation purposes, which schedules and details shall be consistent with the purpose stated herein. B. Use of Facilities: 1. walnut Valley agrees to grant to the City, upon application, the use of any facilities located within the boundaries of the City of Diamond Bar which are owned by Walnut Valley, which the City may require in connection with its community recreation program, provided that the use of such facilities for community recreation purposes shall not interfere with its use by Walnut Valley for public school purposes, as defined by Walnut Valley, or constitute a violation of provisions of the California Education Code or Title V of the Administrative Code of the State of California. 2. Due to the advanced planning necessary for community recreation programs, the City agrees to submit requests for its recreation activities to the designated Walnut Valley staff member on a quarterly basis, no less than 30 days in advance of the first date of use for that quarter, with the exception of activities planned for the Fall season of 'any year. Requests for activities planned for the Fall season must be submitted no later than May 31 of that year. Submission of a schedule in no way confers or implies the approval of that schedule. 3. The use of school sites or facilities pursuant to this agreement shall be granted subject to the existing rules and regulations.of the respective owners of the facilities, except in cases where this Agreement conflicts with existing rules, in which. case this agreement will supersede those rules. 4. The Superintendent of Walnut Valley and the City Manager of City may delegate the responsibility for establishing schedules for facilities use to the appropriate members of their respective staffs. 5. Permits authorizing use of facilities owned by Walnut Valley to the City shall be considered official and fall under the terms of this agreement only when signed by the Principal of the school site requested and the Assistant Superintendent of Fiscal and Facilities Management, representing Walnut Valley, or their designated representatives. 6. During use of facilities owned by Walnut Valley, pursuant to this agreement, the City shall furnish qualified personnel deemed necessary by Walnut Valley for the proper conduct and supervision of the activity taking place at the time. 7. Subsequent to the City's use of any facilities owned by Walnut Valley, pursuant to this agreement, the City shall repair, or cause to be repaired, or shall reimburse Walnut Valley for the cost of repairing damage to said facilities occurring during the period of such use, other than that attributed to ordinary and reasonable use. 8. The City shall indemnify and hold harmless Walnut Valley, and its officers, agents, servants, and employees, from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, damages or liability for injury to or 'death of persons, or for damage to facility, resulting from or arising out of any acts or omissions of the City or its officers, agents, servants or employees in the use of Walnut Valley facilities or in the exercise of any other right or privilege granted to the City by the Walnut Valley under or pursuant to this agreement. The Walnut Valley shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents, servants, and employees, from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, damages or liability for injury to or death of persons, or for damage to facility, resulting from or arising out of any act or omissions of Walnut valley or its officers, agents, servants or employees in the exercise of any right or privilege granted to the Walnut Valley pursuant to this agreement. 9: Except as may be otherwise provided for by existing agreement referenced in Attachment II, City agrees to reimburse Walnut Valley, pursuant to Section H, articles 11 and 12, for expenses incurred by Walnut Valley in relation to or arising out of use of the City's use of facilities. 10. Reimbursement to Walnut Valley, for the City's use of facilities owned by Walnut valley, will be based an the current Walnut Valley facility use foe schedule, which shall be in compliance with and based on Section 40040-40058 of the California Education Code, in force at the time the use occurs. Charges for use occurring on weekends, holidays, and hours during which Walnut valley staff would not normally be scheduled to work, will be based on the highest rate appropriate for the facility, according to the fee schedule, at the time the use occurs. All other use shall be charged at the current reduced fee rate for the facility, according to the fee schedule, at the time the use occurs. Walnut Valley reserves the right to reduce the rate of charge for the City's use of Walnut Valley facilities in such circumstances as Walnut Valley determines that the existing rate of charge unfairly exceeds the actual cost to Walnut Valley. 11. Walnut Valley shall prepare an estimate of, and submit an invoice to the City for, the cost of facilities use occurring during the current quarter, within' thirty ( 30 ) days of the start of the quarter. The City agrees to pay any amounts due within thirty days of receiving an invoice for those amounts due. Any changes in the amount due for a quarter occurring as a result of a change in use after the preparation of the invoice will be corrected on the invoice for the subsequent quarter. 12. As an alternative to cash reimbursement for use of facilities, the City may contribute to Walnut Valley such capital improvements, equipment, materials, or supplies, as Walnut Valley, in its discretion deems appropriate and useful. The value of any contributions will be applied to the amount due for facilities use by the City on a pro-rated basis according to the proportion of expected use by each party, such proportions to be agreed on prior to the acceptance of any contributions. It is agreed that the value of a contribution shall be equal to the actual cost of the contribution. If the value of contributions made by the City in any one fiscal year exceeds the total amount due from City for use of facilities for the same year, the excess amount may be applied towards payment for use of facilities for subsequent years and shall be treated as a Prepaid Rent. At the written request of City, the value of any contribution may applied to the amount due to Walnut Valley by a third party. 13. City agrees to maintain an insurance policy, or self- insurance fund with liability limits or reserves, respectively, as may be deemed by the Superintendent of Walnut Valley to be adequate and appropriate for the activities taking place. C. Use of Eauimwnt 1. Walnut Valley may, upon request, grant to the City the use of any equipssent owned by Walnut Valley which the City may require for community recreation purposes, provided that the use of such equipment for community recreation purposes shall not interfere with its use by Walnut Valley for public school purposes, as defined by Walnut Valley, or constitute a violation of provisions of the California Education Code or Title V of the administrative Code of the State of California. 7. City agrees that in the event of a request for the use of any equipment belonging to Walnut Valley, .Walnut valley shall charge rent for such use, unless rent is waived at the time of the request. All rental rates shall be established prior to the use of equipmwnt and shall be based on the amortized value of the equipment used. Rent waivers shall be in writing and shall specify the equipment and the date(s) of use for which the rent is waived. 3. The party using equipment of the other, pursuant to this agreement,-shall repair, or cause to be repaired, or shall reimburse fte owner for the cost of repairing damage to said equipment occurring during the period of such use, other than that attributed to ordinary and reasonable use. D. Planninas 1. It is contemplated that the respective staffs of the City and Walnut Valley may perform minor and short tern planning work for the other pertaining to the use of facilities conducted pursuant to this agreement. E. Maintenance: 1. Facilities shall be adequately maintained by Walnut Valley to ensure the appearance, longevity, and - the. proper and safe conditions for maximum use of each facility. 2. ,joint maintenance of facilities should not be practiced except in emergency situations and specialized cases as may be specified by an amendment to this agreement. F.Terms Of Agreement: 1. This agreement shall become operative on the date signed, and shall remain in effect until terminated. Either party may terminate this agreement at any time upon one hundred and eighty (180) days written notice to the other party. G. Amendment and Modification of Agreement: 1. If either party sees a need for modification of this agreement for financial or other reasons, they may initiate amendment proceedings of this Agreement at -any time, with thirty (30) days written notice. 2. Should either party, during the term of this Agreement, determine that it is necessary and in the best interests of the public purposes which it is authorized and empowered to carry out, to terminate, in the manner prescribed by this agreement, the community recreation use of any or all of the facilities listed in Attachment I, upon such termination all improvements installed or constructed on said facility shall be left in place. 3. If at the termination of this agreement walnut Valley has a liability in the fors of prepaid renis received from. City, the amount of such prepaid rents may, at the mutual agreement of the both parties, be contributed towards the payment of use fees arising out of subsequent Facility Use Agreements. Alternatively, City may designate that such amounts be contributed to a third party for the payment of use fees owed by or prepayment of future use fees for said third party. 1. Afy notice, demand, request, consent, approval, designation, or other communication which either party is required or desires to give or make or communicate to the other Party shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, at the following addresses: City: City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, California 91765 Attn: City Manager Walnut Valley: Walnut Valley Unified School District 880 South Lemon Walnut, California 91789 Attn: Superintendent This Agreement has been approved and authorized to be executed by: Action of the Governing Board of Walnut Valley taken at its meeting of , 1992 : Action of the Diamond Bar City council taken at its meeting of .T„iy 7 ,-1992 and executed the date set forth below. ATTEST: Walnut valley Unified School District /�VOOI* r. - Date i. ATTEST: Mayor Date: Approved a to rm: City Attorna City of Dia&nd Bar City Manage Date: Attachment I Agreement for use of Facilities between walnut valley unified school District and the City of Diamond Bar As per Section A, articles 2 and 3, of the above named agreement, the recreation areas, buildings, and facilities at the locations named below are intended to be available, except as noted below, for use by City, according to the conditions set forth in said agreement, for the conduct of a community recreation program: Castle Rock Elementary School 2975 Castle Rock Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Chaparral Middle School 1405 S. Spruce Tree Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar High School 2400 E. Pathfinder Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Evergreen Elementary School 12450 Evergreen Springs Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Maple Hill Elementary School 1309 S. Maple Hill Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Quail Summit Elementary School 23330 Quail Summit Diamond Bar, CA 91765 South Point Middle School 20671 Larkstone Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Walnut Elementary School 841 S. Glemick Diamond ear, CA 91765 Attachment II Agreement for Use of Facilities between Nalnut Valley Unified school District and the City of Diamond Dar As per Section A, article 4 of the above named agreement, the facilities named below are operated under previously existing agreements which are independent of the agreement named above. These facilities, as described in the agreements affecting their use, are not intended to be subject to the terms and conditions of agreement. Facilities Location Agreement Number and date No such agreements are in effect as of June 23, 1992 ;48C0t'; (Moved from Policy 4800) FEE SCHEDULE . Civic Center Usw $2.75 per hour Effective 8.1.90 The Following fees are those to be charged for use of facilities when no extra- ordinary costs are anticipated for added staffing. set-up, clean-up of security. in addition to the appropriate fee, which is payable in advance of usage, a clean- up/damage deposit may be required at the discretion of the Director of Recreation. Pace 13 FACS MINIMUM FEE BEYOND MINIMUM Multi -Purpose Room Fair Rental $64 (2 hrs or less) $32 per hour Reduced Fee' per hour 'Reduced Fee in all cases applied to --------------- Category B users. Classroom Fair Rental $32 (2 hrs or less) $16 per hour Reduced Fee $24 (2 hrs or less) $12 per hour Gymnasium Fair Rental $80 (2 hrs or less) $40 per hour Reduced Fee $40 (2 hrs or less) $20 per hour Gym Scoreboard $3 per hour Tennis Courts $60 (4 hrs or less) $15 per hour Group use for 6 or fewer courts Tennis- Courts Individual court use, evenings and weekends Kitchen Playing Fi*WWSchool Playgrounds a) Social or Recreational Use b) Youth Sports Organized Leagues Playing Field Lights Football Stadium Football Stadium with Lights Football Scoreboard Swimming Pool $1.50 per hour $60 (2 hrs or less) $30 per hour $30 (2 hrs or less) $15 per hour See below" $2.75 per hour $80 (2 hrs or less) $40 per hour $100 (2 hrs or less) $50 per hour $4.00 per hour $60 (2 hrs or less) $30 per hour REF 8-16 7-18-90 Pace 13 Diamond Bar 22615 Lazy Meadow Drive Diamond Bar Country Estates California 91765 09 861-4114 Association Fax (909) 861-2968 September 20, 1994 Gary H. Werner, Mayor Clair W. Harmony, Mayor Diamond Bar City Hall 21660 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765 Re: Development of Tract 51169 Dear Council Members: The Diamond Bar Country Estates Associations' Board of Directors has a serious concern with the development of tract 51169. We would like for the City Council to require the developers to comply with the Transamerica Development Company Agreement (TADCO). This agreement simply states that: "The CC & R's pertaining to the TADCO lots will, to the fullest extent possible, be identical to those established for the Country in terms of lot size, use and other factors". In addition, it is important that they agree to full annexation into the Diamond Bar Country Estates or agree to fully pay for the use of the Country's recreation facilities. If the developer chooses not to agree to these conditions it is imperative that they be required to develop their own recreation facilities. These should include a community swimming pool, tennis courts, clubhouse and other amenities. The Diamond Bar Country Estates Association respectfully requests your attention to our serious concerns. Sincerely, ROBERT NELKE, President for the Board of Directors DIAMOND BAR COUNTRY ESTATES ASSOCIATION RN:sp cc: City Manager, Terrance Bellenger Community Development Director, Jim Destesano Council Members, Eleen R. Ansari, Gary Miller, Phyllis E. Papen City Engineer (City of Diamond Bar), George Wentz Department Managers CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 FROM: James DeStefano, Community AGENDA NO. -7 .1 REPORT DATE: September 14, 1994 TITLE: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51169, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3, Zone Change No. 92-2, Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3, and Certification of Environmental Impact Report 92-2 SUMMARY: The proposed project is a request for approval of a 13 unit single family subdivision a 20 acre site located in Significant Ecological Area No. 15. Additionally, the application is for the removal of one oak tree, a zone change to bring the project into conformance with the General Plan (1992) and the certification of the environmental document. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing and direct staff to prepare all documents necessary for final approval. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification _ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerks Office) X Other (EIR and other support items) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed N/A Yes No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? X Yes No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ X Yes No Which Commission? Planning Commission 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes No Report discussed with the following affected departments: Public Works Department and Building and Safety Department REVIEWED BY: Aar -Terrence L. Belanger Frank Usher J DeStefano City Manager Assistant City Manager Co unity Development Director CITY COUNCIL F,- rUXT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51169, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3, Zone Change No. 92-2, Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3, and Certification of Environmental Impact Report 92-2 ISSUE STATEMENT: The proposed project is a request for approval of a 13 unit single family subdivision a 20 acre site located in Significant Ecological Area No. 15. Additionally, the application is for the removal of one oak tree, a zone change to bring the project into conformance with the General Plan (1992) and the certification of the environmental document. BACKGROUND: Project Overview The 14 lot, 13 unit residential subdivision project is located adjacent to the gated community known as "The Country Estates", at the southeasterly terminus of Blaze Trail Drive. The project is located within Significant Ecological Area (SEA) No. 15, in the northern portion of Tonner Canyon. Two ridges and valleys that fall southerly from Blaze Trail Drive into upper Tonner Canyon comprise the site. The application request for this project includes the following required permits: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51169 for the subdivision of the 20 acre site into the 13 residential lots and one common space lot designated for the sewer pump station; Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3 required for development in an SEA and Hillside Management Areas; Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3 for the relocation of one oak tree; and Zone Change No. 92-2 to modify the existing zoning classification from A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture) to R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential -one acre minimum lot size) in order to develop the project site in conformance with the adjacent residential development. Approval of these permits will be premised on the certification of EIR No. 92-2 which has been prepared by the City's environmental consultant, Michael Brandman Associates. This application was filed with the City of Diamond Bar in July of 1992 after the adoption of the 1992 General Plan during the window of opportunity and prior to the filing of referendum petitions on the document. In accordance with the opinion set forth by the City Attorney at that time and the Interim City Attorney, this project is vested in the development standards in effect at the time the 1992 General Plan was adopted. Subsequent actions that successfully forced the adoption of 1993 General Plan do affect the vesting of this project nor the standards by which this project is required to conform. The Zone Change application is in conformance with the 1992 General Plan. The processing of this application follows the processing of the subdivision application. As such, the City is allowed to continue processing this application is the same manner as other applications with similar components, such as Vesting Tentative Tract Map 32400, have proceeded. The determination that this project meets the requirements of the 1992 General Plan and the development standards in 1 effect at the time the project was filed has been made. The DIojps mhogntially development standards related to density, land form grading, the maintenance of open space amenities, and the conservation of protected plant communities and the maintenance of migratory paths. The project proposes to recreate the walnut woodland habitat on-site and to contribute funds to maintain or create additional habitat off-site. Additionally, staff has determined that the approval of this project will not be detrimental to the contemplated General Plan. LVA -USA The proposed 13 residential lot subdivision is designed with lots that range in size from 1.0 acre to 2.43 acres and an overall density of approximately .65 units per acre. The lots have been designed to yield pads with a minimum 10,000 square feet of net area with an average pad size of approximately 17,000 square feet. The pads additionally offer an average of 100 feet of depth. The front property lines are a minimum 125 feet in length except for two lots located on the radius of the cul-de-sac and lot No. 5. Lot No. 5 is located at mid -block of Street "A" and because of grading and pad slope separation is designed with 105 feet of frontage. All other aspects of the lot conform to the remaining character of the subdivision. The project is proposed to extend the terminus of the existing Blaze Trail to intersect with Gullrock Lane. The easement for this road is existing and provides access to the adjacent property (Tentative Tract Map No. 46485). Additionally, the proposed subdivision will has an east -west cul-de-sac design from which eight of the 13 lots will take access. All streets are proposed to be private streets and are designed to meet the City's typical private street section. Street grades range from 2 percent to a short run of 12 percent at the extension of Blaze Trail. The majority of the street grades are however 10 percent or below. There is a sewer pump station required for this project in order that the this project and the adjacent proposed development can connect to the existing system. The pump station will be designed with a carrying capacity large enough for both projects. The pump station is located on Lot "A" at the end of the proposed Gullrock Lane. The pump station will be developed down grade from the road surface and will be designed to be unobtrusive as possible. Access to the urban pollutant basin will also be achieved from this lot. Access to both facilities is required to be all weather in nature and are not projected to generate more than five trips per year for general maintenance purposes. Grading (Geotechnical Grading for the project is projected to entail a total of approximately 185,000 cubic yards over 16 acres of the site. All cut (35 ft.) and fill (40 ft.) operations will be balanced on-site and will leave approximately six acres of the site in an undisturbed state. Lot No. 3, 7 and 8 have cut and fill proportions which bisect the pad in approximately 50 percent of the area. These lots will be required to comply with a minimum over -excavation of the pad pursuant to the requirements of the geotechnical report to reduce the potential of uneven settlement. There are no landslide areas identified on-site. There are no other geologic conditions that require remedial grading. The topography of the site varies from gently rolling slopes to steeper slopes in the eastern and southern areas of the project that are slated to be left in an undisturbed state. The project has been designed in conformance with the landform grading requirements of the Hillside Management Ordinance (HMO) and exhibits manufactured fill slopes with a maximum height of 40 feet and varying gradients ranging from 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1. There will be some off-site grading required to complete this project. The off-site grading is related to the construction of Gullrock Lane. The geometrics of the road have been agreed to by the adjoining property owners. The grading will not be achieved within the slope maintenance easements and the requires agreements with the adjoining property owners and has been obtained. During the review by the Planning Commission, the subject of off-site geotechnical issues arose. The focus on this matter revolved around a significant landslide located on the adjacent Tract No. 46485 west facing slope. The geotechnical engineers were charged with investigating the potential impacts to Tract No. 51169, the residential lots and Gullrock Lane. The geotechnical reports conducted have stated that there is no potential for adverse impacts to be imparted on the residential lots if a complete failure were to occur. The focus then narrowed in on the potential adverse impacts to the road itself. Again the soils investigation found that the project, as proposed, will reduce the weight upgrade thereby relieving some of the slide potential. If additional investigation identified a more severe problem, the remediation necessary to correct the situation will not adversely affect the road. Furthermore, if Tract No 46485 is ever to develop, the remedial grading necessary for development of the site will require the removal of this landslide and thereby removing the potential impact. ignificant Ecological_ Area Technical Advisory Committee Although the project falls within the SEA No. 15, this project clearly exhibits less concentration of the valuable habitat shared by most of the acreage to the south of the subject site. The site exhibits only one small oak tree that is located on the primary ridge of the project. The walnut woodland on-site is the major flora habitat although the current condition of the habitat is not in extremely good condition because of the intrusion of grazing over the site in historical times as well as recent fire damage and yearly discing for fuel modification. There is one blueline stream on-site which will be disturbed as a part of the grading. All required permits must be obtained from the Army Corp. of Engineers and the California Fish and Game prior to issuance of grading permits. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission held the first public hearing on this project in December of 1993 which coincided with the conclusion of the public comment period for the draft EIR. At that hearing the applicant acquiesced to a 90 day continuance in order that the City could adopt a new General Plan. The public hearing was then continued to March, 1994 and subsequently continued to May of 1994. The public hearing was again continued to June 13, 1994 in anticipation of the SEATAC Final Report being completed. On June 13, 1994 the Planning Commission opened the public hearing, received testimony, and closed the public hearing directing staff to address issues related to the geotechnical aspects of the project. The final public hearing was held on July 25, 1994 at which time the Commission adopted the Resolutions of Approval recommending that the City Council approve the project as conditioned. Environmental Impact Report Process The preparation of the document was initiated at the conclusion of staff's review of the initial study. The initial study questionnaire identified areas that the project may produce impacts of significance, significant but capable of mitigation to acceptable levels or insignificance. The conclusion of the study can indicate that the project will not have a significant impact or that an EIR is required to address the impacts and to provide the appropriate mitigation measures. The procedure for the preparation of an EIR includes the distribution of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) which is sent to agencies who have or may have responsibility for providing a service to the project or may be impacted by the implementation of the project. The NOP requests that interested agencies forward comments to the City concerning issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Agencies typically have 30 days from the date of receipt of the NOP to respond. The EIR is then prepared using the initial study and comments received in response to the NOP to guide the analysis in areas of particular interest although the EIR is not limited to these areas. At the conclusion of the preparation of the draft EIR, it is then distributed to the City, State Clearinghouse, and agencies requesting copies of the document and to the public for review. The review of the EIR is from 30 to 45 days depending on the nature of the project and the local versus regional significance of the proposal. January 25, 1993 was the closing date for public comments. At the conclusion of the public comments phase, the comments are responded to and included in the EIR that is reviewed by the decision makers. Certification of the final EIR is attained when the legislative body gives the document acknowledgement that it adequately identifies potential impacts, measures to mitigate those impacts, and also impacts 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 19, 1994 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Robert Searcy, Associate Pla e SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51169 In reviewing the City Council packet for the September 20, 1994 public hearing, I have found the need for a significant correction in the text of the staff report. I have made the correction and highlighted the revision on the report and cover sheet. Additionally, in speaking with the City Clerk's staff, I was informed that only the reduced copies of the tract map were distributed to Council. Enclosed please find the revised staff report and the full size Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51169. CC: Frank Usher, Acting City Manager James DeStefano, Community Development Director RS:dbm CALETTEMYEHREVIS.CC CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51169, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3, Zone Change No. 92-2, Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3, and Certification of Environmental Impact Report 92-2 ISSUE STATEMENT: The proposed project is a request for approval of a 13 unit single family subdivision a 20 acre site located in Significant Ecological Area No. 15. Additionally, the application is for the removal of one oak tree, a zone change to bring the project into conformance with the General Plan (1992) and the certification of the environmental document. BACKGROUND: Proiect Overview The 14 lot, 13 unit residential subdivision project is located adjacent to the gated community known as "The Country Estates", at the southeasterly terminus of Blaze Trail Drive. The project is located within Significant Ecological Area (SEA) No. 15, in the northern portion of Tonner Canyon. Two ridges and valleys that fall southerly from Blaze Trail Drive into upper Tonner Canyon comprise the site. The application request for this project includes the following required permits: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51169 for the subdivision of the 20 acre site into 13 residential lots and one common space lot designated for the sewer pump station; Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3 required for development in an SEA and Hillside Management Areas; Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3 for the relocation of one oak tree; and Zone Change No. 92-2 to modify the existing zoning classification from A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture) to R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential -one acre minimum lot size) in order to develop the project site in conformance with the adjacent residential development. Approval of these permits will be premised on the certification of EIR No. 92-2 which has been prepared by the City's environmental consultant, Michael Brandman Associates. This application was filed with the City of Diamond Bar in July of 1992 after the adoption of the 1992 General Plan during the window of opportunity and prior to the filing of referendum petitions on the document. In accordance with the opinion set forth by the City Attorney at that time and the Interim City Attorney, this project is vested in the development standards in effect at the time the 1992 General Plan was adopted. Subsequent actions that successfully forced the adoption of 1993 General Plan do affect the vesting of this project nor the standards by which this project is required to conform. The Zone Change application is in conformance with the 1992 General Plan. The processing of this application follows 1 the processing of the subdivision application. As such, the City is allowed to continue processing this application is the same manner as other applications with similar components, such as Vesting Tentative Tract Map 32400, have proceeded. The determination that this project meets the requirements of the 1992 General Plan and the development standards in effect at the time the project was filed has been made. The project substantially complies or exceeds the minimum development standards related to density, land form grading, the maintenance of open space amenities, and the conservation of protected plant communities and the maintenance of migratory paths. The project proposes to recreate the walnut woodland habitat on-site and to contribute funds to maintain or create additional habitat off-site. Additionally, staff has determined that the approval of this project will not be detrimental to the contemplated General Plan. Land Use The proposed 13 residential lot subdivision is designed with lots that range in size from 1.0 acre to 2.43 acres and an overall density of approximately .65 units per acre. The lots have been designed to yield pads with a minimum 10,000 square feet of net area with an average pad size of approximately 17,000 square feet. The pads additionally offer an average of 100 feet of depth. The front property lines are a minimum 125 feet in length except for two lots located on the radius of the cul-de-sac and lot No. 5. Lot No. 5 is located at mid -block of Street "A" and because of grading and pad slope separation is designed with 105 feet of frontage. All other aspects of the lot conform to the remaining character of the subdivision. The project is proposed to extend the terminus of the existing Blaze Trail to intersect with Gullrock Lane. The easement for this road is existing and provides access to the adjacent property (Tentative Tract Map No. 46485). Additionally, the proposed subdivision will have an east -west cul-de-sac design from which eight of the 13 lots will take access. All streets are proposed to be private streets and are designed to meet the City's typical private street section. Street grades range from 2 percent to a short run of 12 percent at the extension of Blaze Trail. The majority of the street grades are however 10 percent or below. There is a sewer pump station required for this project in order that the project and the adjacent proposed development can connect to the existing system. The pump station will be designed with a carrying capacity large enough for both projects. The pump station is located on Lot "A" at the end of the proposed Gullrock Lane. The pump station will be developed down grade from the road surface and will be designed to be unobtrusive as possible. Access to the urban pollutant basin will also be achieved from this lot. Access to both facilities is required to be all weather in nature and are not projected to generate more than five trips per year for general maintenance purposes. Grading/Geotechnical Grading for the project is projected to entail a total of approximately 185,000 cubic yards over 16 acres of the site. All cut (35 ft.) and fill (40 ft.) operations will be balanced on-site and will leave approximately six acres of the site in an undisturbed state. Lot No. 3, 7 and 8 have cut and fill proportions which bisect the pad in approximately 50 percent of the area. These lots will be required to comply with a minimum over -excavation of the pad pursuant to the requirements of the geotechnical report to reduce the potential of uneven settlement. There are no landslide areas identified on-site. There are no other geologic conditions that require remedial grading. The topography of the site varies from gently rolling slopes to steeper slopes in the eastern and southern areas of the project that are slated to be left in an undisturbed state. The project has been designed in conformance with the landform grading requirements of th6 Hillside Management Ordinance (HMO) and exhibits manufactured fill slopes with a maximum height of 40 feet and varying gradients ranging from 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1. There will be some off-site grading required to complete this project. The off-site grading is related to the construction 2 of Gullrock Lane. The geometrics of the road have been agreed to by the adjoining property owners. The grading will not be achieved within the slope maintenance easements and the requires agreements with the adjoining property owners and has been obtained. During the review by the Planning Commission, the subject of off-site geotechnical issues arose. The focus on this matter revolved around a significant landslide located on the adjacent Tract No. 46485 west facing slope. The geotechnical engineers were charged with investigating the potential impacts to Tract No. 51169, the residential lots and Gullrock Lane. The geotechnical reports conducted have stated that there is no potential for adverse impacts to be imparted on the residential lots if a complete failure were to occur. The focus then narrowed in on the potential adverse impacts to the road itself. Again the soils investigation found that the project, as proposed, will reduce the weight upgrade thereby relieving some of the slide potential. If additional investigation identified a more severe problem, the remediation necessary to correct the situation will not adversely affect the road. Furthermore, if Tract No 46485 is ever to develop, the remedial grading necessary for development of the site will require the removal of this landslide and thereby removing the potential impact. Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee Although the project falls within the SEA No. 15, this project clearly exhibits less concentration of the valuable habitat shared by most of the acreage to the south of the subject site. The site exhibits only one small oak tree that is located on the primary ridge of the project. The walnut woodland on-site is the major flora habitat although the current condition of the habitat is not in extremely good condition because of the intrusion of grazing over the site in historical times as well as recent fire damage and yearly discing for fuel modification. There is one blueline stream on-site which will be disturbed as a part of the grading. All required permits must be obtained from the Army Corp. of Engineers and the California Fish and Game prior to issuance of grading permits. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission held the first public hearing on this project in December of 1993 which coincided with the conclusion of the public comment period for the draft EIR. At that hearing the applicant acquiesced to a 90 day continuance in order that the City could adopt a new General Plan. The public hearing was then continued to March, 1994 and subsequently continued to May of 1994. The public hearing was again continued to June 13, 1994 in anticipation of the SEATAC Final Report being completed. On June 13, 1994 the Planning Commission opened the public hearing, received testimony, and closed the public hearing directing staff to address issues related to the geotechnical aspects of the project. The final public hearing was held on July 25, 1994 at which time the Commission adopted the Resolutions of Approval recommending that the City Council approve the project as conditioned. Environmental Impact Report Process The preparation of the document was initiated at the conclusion of staff's review of the initial study. The initial study questionnaire identified areas that the project may produce impacts of significance, significant but capable of mitigation to acceptable levels or insignificance. The conclusion of the study can indicate that the project will not have a significant impact or that an EIR is required to address the impacts and to provide the appropriate mitigation measures. The procedure for the preparation of an EIR includes the distribution of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) which is sent to agencies who have or may have responsibility for providing a service to the project or may be impacted by the implementation of the project. The NOP requests that interested agencies forward comments to the City concerning issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Agencies typically have 30 days from the date of receipt of the NOP to respond. The EIR is then prepared using the initial study and comments received in response to the NOP to guide the analysis in 3 areas of particular interest although the EIR is not limited to these areas. At the conclusion of the preparation of the draft EIR, it is then distributed to the City, State Clearinghouse, and agencies requesting copies of the document and to the public for review. The review of the EIR is from 30 to 45 days depending on the nature of the project and the local versus regional significance of the proposal. December 13, 1993 was the closing date for public comments. At the conclusion of the public comments phase, the comments are responded to and included in the EIR that is reviewed by the decision makers. Certification of the final EIR is attained when the legislative body gives the document acknowledgement that it adequately identifies potential impacts, measures to mitigate those impacts, and also impacts which may occur as a result of the project but are unable to be mitigated. PREPARED BY: Robert Searcy Associate Planner Attachments: Application Vesting Tentative Tract Map Planning Commission Staff Report Planning Commission Resolutions EIR 92-2, Response To Comments, and Mitigation Monitoring Program (transmitted under separate cover.) 0 Diamond Bar Country Estates Association September 20, 1994 Gary H. Werner, Mayor Clair W. Harmony, Mayor Pro Tem Diamond Bar City Hall 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765 Re: Development of Tract 51169 Dear Council Members: 22615 Lazy Meadow Drive Diamond Bar California 91765 (909) 861-4114 Fax (909) 861-2968 The Diamond Bar Country Estates Associations' Board of Directors has a serious concern with the development of tract 51169. We would like for the City Council to require the developers to comply with the Transamerica Development Company Agreement (TADCO). This agreement simply states that: "The CC & R's pertaining to the TADCO lots will, to the fullest extent possible, be identical to those established for the Country in terms of lot size, use and other factors". In addition, it is important that they agree to full annexation into the Diamond Bar Country Estates or agree to fully pay for the use of the Country's recreation facilities. If the developer chooses not to agree to these conditions it is imperative that they be required to develop their own recreation facilities. These should include a community swimming pool, tennis courts, clubhouse and other amenities. The Diamond Bar Country Estates Association respectfully requests your attention to our serious concerns. Sincerely, ROBERT NELKE, President for the Board of Directors DIAMOND BAR COUNTRY ESTATES ASSOCIATION RN:sp cc: City Manager, Terrance Bellenger Community Development Director, Jim Destesano Council Members, Eleen R. Ansari, Gary Miller, Phyllis E. Papen City Engineer (City of Diamond Bar), George Wentz Department Managers CITY OF DIAMOND DAR AGENDA REPORT TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 (Applicant: SEMA) AGENDA NO. REPORT DATE: September 14, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval to subdivide a 4.39 acre parcel located at 1575 Valley Vista Dr. into two lots of 3.5 acres and .89 acres. No development projects are included as a part of this application. The project site is located in Gateway Corporate Center and is zoned CM-BE-U/C (Commercial Manufacturing, Billboard Exclusion, Unilateral Contract Zone). RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Tentative Parcel Map via the attached Resolution No. 94 -XX. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification -2L Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerks Office) Other Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed by the City Attorney? Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Has environmental impact been assessed? Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? Which Commission? Are other departments affected by the report? Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: X Yes _ No MAJORITY X Yes _ No X Yes _ No Planning Commission X Yes _ No Public Works Department ', /^Terrence . Belanger FranhesU h es rDeStefano City M ager Assistant City Manager Community Developmenj Director CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 ISSUE STATEMENT: The applicant, Specialty Equipment Marketing Association (SEMA), has filed a request to subdivide a 4.39 acre parcel located at 1575 Valley Vista Dr., Diamond Bar, into two lots of 3.5 acres and .89 acres. No development projects are included as a part of this application. The project site is located in Gateway Corporate Center and is zoned CM-BE-U/C (Commercial Manufacturing, Billboard Exclusion, Unilateral Contract Zone). BACKGROUND Currently the site is developed with a two story office building. The application to subdivide the site was originally submitted to the City in 1990. The Planning Commission approved that application which proposed two parcels with the smaller of the two designed at approximately three quarters of an acre in size. The City Council denied the application and directed the applicant to work with staff to create a more marketable design. This project was remanded back to the Planning Commission by the City Council as a result of the decision rendered at the January 21, 1992 public hearing. The City Council denied the project, finding the project had not demonstrated that the subdivision would create two independent viable lots. Subsequent to that action the applicant redesigned the tentative map to provide a larger gross area from the originally proposed .77 acres. This request is to subdivide one existing parcel into two lots of 3.50 acres and .89 acres. The site is located in Gateway Corporate Center overlooking the SR 57 Fwy. The revised map was submitted to the City and proceeded through a staff review. This review examined the viability of the subdivision and additionally reviewed a conceptual plan that envisioned a two story commercial office building with approximately 12,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The applicant has worked with staff in designing a hypothetical development project for the site. That possible development scenario was reviewed by staff as any potential project would be reviewed through the future Development Review process. As a part of this staff review, preliminary concept plans are reviewed for compliance with applicable development standards and policies. The staff analysis determined that a viable commercial office building could be developed on the smaller of the two parcels without negatively impacting the existing office building on lot No. 1. The conceptual plan was reviewed by the Public Works Department and Community Development Department to assess areas of concern that ranged from compliance with development standards to the provision of a marketable project. The staff determined that the two proposed lots could stand independently if a single shared access between the parcels was guaranteed. Following that review, the applicant submitted the tentative parcel map, absent any development plans, to the City for processing. On July 25, 1994 the Planning Commission took action to approve the application with conditions. The conditions primarily revolve around the provision of infrastructure and access to the site. There are other parcels within Gateway Corporate Center which contain comparable acreage to the smaller of the two proposed lots. The multi -unit development at the corner of Valley Vista Drive and Gateway Center Drive are currently developed with commercial office buildings that are in operation. The proposed project is not in conflict with the Gateway Center Design Guidelines which serve to provide explicit development criteria for the office park. The Design Guidelines have been codified pursuant to the County's creation of a Unilateral Contract (U/L) overlay zone. The effect of the U/L overlay has been to codify all of the Conditions Covenants and Restrictions (CC&.R's) placed on the office park over the last 10 years. The review of any future development is therefore required to conform to the Design Guidelines and must be approved via Development Review by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has completed the initial study and has determined that there is no probability that the project will create any unmitigatable significant impacts and therefore staff has prepared a Negative Declaration. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: All legal prerequisites for the public hearing have been met. The public hearing notice was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and San Gabriel Valley Tribune on August 26, 1994. Public hearing notices were mailed to three property owners within a 500 feet radius of the project site. PREPARED BY: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report Application Negative Declaration Tentative Parcel Map W RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22102, AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO (2) PARCELS LOCATED AT 1575 VALLEY VISTA DRIVE - LOT 13, TRACT 30379 AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. RECITALS. (i) Bryan Stirrat and Associates have filed an application for a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) for property located at 1575 Valley Vista Drive, Diamond Bar, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Parcel Map application is sometimes referred to as "the Application". (ii) On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California. Thereafter, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14 (1990), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contain the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. (iii) 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 an Office of Planning and Research Extension of Time pursuant to California Government Code Section 65360 and 65361(a). (iv) The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, on September 20, 1994, conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said public hearing on that date. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 1 2. Based on substantial evidence presented to this Council during the public hearing, and by written and oral testimony provided at the hearing, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The Application applies to property presently zoned C-M-BE-U/C, located at 1575 S. Valley Vista Drive, City of Diamond Bar, California. (b) Generally, the property to the north of the subject site is zoned CM-BE-U/C; to the south of the subject site is zoned CM-BE-U/C and R-1-10000; to the east of the subject site is zoned C-M-BE-U/C; and west of the subject site is zoned CM-BE-U/C and the Orange Freeway. (c) The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Action was taken on the Application as to consistency with the contemplated General Plan pursuant to the terms and provisions of Government Code, Section 65360 and 65361(a). On such basis there is a substantial probability that the approval of this project as proposed in said Application will not be a substantial detriment to, nor interfere with the preparation of the contemplated General Plan because the site has been developed in conformance with the Gateway Corporate Center Design Guidelines. Further, the City of Diamond Bar is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan. Pursuant to such preparation, it appears that there is a reasonable probability that the division of the subject parcel located within the Gateway Corporate Center will be consistent with the land -uses and policies, goals and objectives set forth in the General Plan as presently considered in the Draft General Plan. As a substantial portion of the Gateway Corporate Center has previously been developed with complementary uses, there is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the finally adopted General Plan if this action is ultimately inconsistent with the General Plan. Further, this project conforms to all other applicable requirements, state law, and local ordinances. (d) The Tentative Parcel Map will not have an adverse impact on adjacent or adjoining residential and commercial uses. It will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity and conforms to the applicable standards applicable to the Gateway Corporate Center project. (e) The Tentative Parcel Map will not adversely affect the health or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area. (f) The nature, condition, and size of the site has been considered and determined to satisfy all applicable standards. (g) That the proposed map is consistent with the proposed General Plan and specific plans as specified in Section 65451. (h) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 2 (i) The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project on July 11, 1994 and concluded the public hearing on July 25, 1994. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the project to the City Council and forwarded a Resolution to that effect. 0) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (k) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (1) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (m) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided , and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 3. The City Counil further finds that an environmental review has been conducted with respect to the Application in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder. Further, this Council has reviewed and considered such information and has determined, and hereby adopts, the determination that this Application is a Negative Declaration and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and as amended, and guidelines promulgated thereunder, and, that further the Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the said Negative Declaration with respect to the application. 4. Based upon the findings recited hereinabove and conditions set forth herein below, this Council, in conformance with the terms and provisions of California Government Code Section 65360 and 65361(a), approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 and the Negative Declaration, subject to the following conditions: (a) This project shall be developed in substantial conformance with Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 which has been submitted for this case, dated September 20, 1994 and as amended by the following conditions as may be shown on said map. K3 (b) Prior to expiration of the Tentative Parcel Map and prior to filing with the County Recorder, a Final Map shall be processed through the office of the City Engineer. (c) Details or notes shown on the Tentative Map which are inconsistent with the requirements, policies, or ordinances of the City are not approved. (d) 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. (e) The Soil Engineer's and Engineering Geologist's name, address, phone number, signature and stamp must be shown on the Final Map. (f) Each parcel shall be served by a separate sewer lateral which shall not cross any other property lines. The Subdivider, at the Subdivider's sole cost and expense, shall construct/extend the mainline sewer system in accordance with plans approved by the City Engineer, Los Angeles County Public Works Department and County Sanitation District. Mainline shall extend to not less than 10 ft. beyond the common line between Parcel No. 1 and No. 2. All sewer hook-ups shall be provided prior to recordation of the Final Map. (g) All drainage devices shall be installed prior to recordation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Provide hydrology calculations and capacity of existing devices for any proposed future development and provide drainage facilities to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department prior to approval of the Final Map. (h) Reciprocal drainage easements for both parcels shall be recorded at the time the Final Map is recorded. (i) A reciprocal access easement shall be shown along the common property line of Parcel No. 1 and No. 2 and recorded at the time the Final Map is recorded. (j) It is hereby declared and made a condition of this Tentative Parcel Map that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the Tentative Parcel Map shall be suspended and the privileges granted shall lapse; provided that applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. (k) Any future development of Parcel No. 1 or Parcel No. 2 is required to comply with the Gateway Corporate Center Design Guidelines and shall obtain Development Review approval from the City. 4 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANTIPROPERTY OWNER: BACKGROUND: City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report 3 June 24, 1994 July 25., 1994 Parcel Map No. 22102 A request to subdivide a 4.39 acre parcel located at 1575 Valley Vista Dr., Diamond Bar, into two lots of 3.5 acres and .89 acres. No development projects are included as a part of this application. The project site is located in Gateway Corporate Center and is zoned CM-BE-U/C (Commercial Manufacturing, Billboard Exclusion, Unilateral Contract Zone). 1575 S. Valley Vista Specialty Equipment Market Association 1575 S. Valley Vista Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 This project has been remanded back to the Planning Commission by the City Council as a result of the decision rendered at the January 21, 1992 public hearing. The City Council denied the project, finding the project had not demonstrated that the subdivision would create two independent viable lots. The public hearing for this project was continued from June 27, 1994 because of a lack of quorum and from July 11, 1994 to July 25, 1994, at the applicant's request, in order for the Planning Commission to initiate the public hearings on the General Plan. APPLICATION ANALYSIS: This is a request to subdivide one existing parcel into two lot of 3.89 acres and .89 acres. The site is located in Gateway Corporate Center overlooking the SR 57 Fwy. Currently the site is developed with a two story office building. The application to subdivide to the site was originally submitted to 1 the City in 1990. The Planning Commission approved that application which proposed two parcels with the smaller of the two designed at approximately three quaters of an acre in size. The City Council denied the application and directed the applicant to work with staff to create a more marketable design. In the intervening period, the applicant has worked with staff in designing a hypothetical development project for the site. That possible development scenario was reviewed by staff as any potential project would be reviewed through the First Stop process. As a part of this staff review, prelinminary concept plans are reviewed for compliance with applicable development standards and policies. The staff analysis determined that a viable commercial office building could be developed on the smaller of the two parcels without negatively impacting the existing office building on lot No. 1. There are other parcels within Gateway Corporate Center which contain comparable acreage to the smaller of the two proposed lots. The multi -unit development at the corner of Valley Vistea Drive and Gateway Center Drive are currently developed with commercial office buildings the sre in operation. The proposed project is not in conflict with the Gateway Center Design Guidelines which serve to provide explict development criteria for the office park. The Design Guidelines have been codified pursuant to the County's creation of a Unilateral Contract (U/L) overlay zone. The effect of the U/L overlay has been to codify all of the Conditions Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) placed on the office park over the last 10 years. The review of any future development is therefore required to conform tothe Design Guidelines and must be approved via Development Review by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has completed the initial study and has determined that there is no probability that the project will create any unmitigatable significant impacts and therefore staff has prepared a Negative Declaration. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: This application was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on June 6, 1994. Three (3) property owners within a 500 foot radius of the site were mailed notices of the public hearing on June 17, 1994. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing and adopt the attached Resolution of Approval. PREPARED BY: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner 2 CITY OF DLVNIOtiv BAR DEPARTNM'N" T OF PLA. -NTT G 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-7427 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION Record Owner(s) Applicant Case# 7—W i Filed S/�C—/9 Fee $ Receipt By Nam& SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT MARKET ASSOCIATION (Last naiad first) Addressl r,75 q yAT,T.F.y VTSTA DR. SMITE us\s zip 91765 Phone(904 lq6 0289 Applicant's Agent (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 reco owners) CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Printed Name (Applicant o pent) %-s=9y signed Date (Applicant or Agent) Location1575 S. VALLEY VISTA DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765/LOT 13 TR39679 (Street address or tract and lot ro-wber) MB 1083/14-21 between GATEWAY CENTER DRIVE and (Street) BRIDGEGATE DRIVE (Street) Zoning CM—BE—UC HNK, Previous Cases TENTATIVE MINOR LAND DIVISION NO. 22102 PresentUseof Zito (2—STORY OFFICE BUILDING) Us* applied for DIVISION OF ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS Domestic Water Source MUNICIPAL Company/District WALNUT VALLEY WATER DI; Method of Sewage Disposal SEWER Sanitation District NO. 21 Grading of Lots by Applicant? YES NO }{ Amount (Show necessary grading design on site plan or tent. map) 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: A ' ACRES Tentative Hap Number 92102 Gross Ares Lots: Existing 4: Proposed 2 Area devoted to : Structures 2.63 ACRES Open Space Residential project N/A and N Gross Ares No. of floors Proposed Density N/A Units/Acre Number and types of Units NZA Residential Parking:Type Required Provided N/A Total 2.03 r C - .y o! Diamond Bir lNus! Strr pago0 Yes No Possibly 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance? have the terrtial to degrade the query of the environment, a. Does the proposed project cause a Ash or substardlaily reduce the habitat of a h or wildlife SW des men to eliminate or wiidrde-population to drop below aeA sustain raduee the number or restrict sK3nificanth/ reduce a plant or arwnat comma red Lvt or . the range of a rare or endangof atAamia history or prehistory? rtant -- examples of the major periods sed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage / b. goes the props , p 1 - ✓ of long -terra, environmental goals sed project pose impacts which are individually tirnited but cumuiattvety ✓ c. Does the Pro Pd -- considerable? `d. Does the project pose environmentai effects which will cause substantial adverse / — effects on human beings, either directly or indiredty? __ — III Discussion of Environmental Evaluation: (Attach Karrattve) Iv. Determination: I. On the basis of this tnRW evaluation: I find that the pr�o NE OON p b prepared.significant effect on the environment, EGAT and a N I find that although thescProPoEod project could have a significant effect on the environment, there raft not be a gndicact effect in this �e t)ecouse the mitigation measures described OPOS on the attached sheet have been incori:arN w L the REP A MITIGATED NEGATIVE Di C&ARATION WlLL 6E PREf'AR I rind that the proposed pro ect MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL OACT REPORT is required. Signature: Date: Ilect� Title: For the AY of Diamond Bar. Cai'domia cly of Diamond Bar k9tlal Sm p� 6 t1• Mandatory Findings of Significance? sed project have the potential to degrade the cNafty of the environment, L Does the prrol�uCe the habit of a itch or wiidi'de spades, ceruse a fish or substantially self sustain: levels, threaten to eUrninate or Wildlife -population to drop below commututy, reduce ON number or restrict significantly reduce a PiaM or animal the range of a r major. Pe Of as °m historY or dant P hre isbo�rtant examples - b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of tong -term, environmental goals? c. Does the proposed project pose impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 111 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation: (Attach Narrative) Nn Pflssibiv N. Determination: i - on the basis of this initial evaluation: / 1. find that the proposed�pN will be �fep a s •nificant effect on the environment, ✓ and a NEGATIVE D could have a signiflcant effect on the environment, I find that although the proposed Project sed projetx. there will not be a s reposed effect to c case because the mitigatlon measures described on the attached sheet have been in ON LL the R ProPo A MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION WtLL BE PREPARED. . 1 find that the proposed proiect MAY haveRT is fgnirce t effect on the environment. and an — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPO / Signature: c/ Date* A G� Title: Cal'dcmia For the dY of Diamond Bat• CJiy & Diamond Bar!nitW Study Fom Pag Yes No Possibly 17. Hunan Health. WIU the proposal result in: alth hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? a. Creation of any he b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? — 18. Aesthetics. 11V111 the proposal result in: / — in a. The obstruction of any scenic vistai or view open to the puba Proposal result the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public 19. Recreation. W111 the proposal result In: a. An imp act upon the quality arquantity of existing recreational opportunities? -" 20. cultural Resources- Will the proposal result in: . site.? --"- a. The atteraiion of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object?__ b —�C. a physical change which wcuid affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Restrictions on existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. CJry of Diamond BarinJWl Sal Pspe I yes No Possibly 1. Population. Will the proposal: ufation of an area? —� L After the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human pop 12. Housing. VIII the proposal affect: L Existing housing, or create a -demand for addftional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. VAU the proposal result in: �— a.�Generation of Substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? of circulation or movement of people and goods.. d. Alterations to present patterns e. Alterations to waterbome, ran or air traffic? f. increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bic/crisis or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal: a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: 1. Fire protection? 2. Police protection? 3. Schools? 4. Parks or other recreational fades? 5. Maintenance of pubac facilities, includrng roads? 6. other governmental services? 15. Energy. NAU the proposal result In: a. Use of substantial arnounts of fuel or energy? b. Subsiantkal increase in demand upon existing energy sources or require the development V — of new sources of energy? 16. Utllltles. Wlli the proposal msutt in: a A need for new systems, or Substantkal aiteratbns to public utilities? V crry or cr,mand 8u ri rrtr Study r -o Ne Posstbty 11. Population. Will the proposal: / human population of an area? ,��—�• L Alter the location, dlistribution, density. or growth rate of the 12. Housing- Will the proposal affect: a. Existing housing, or create a -demand for additional housing? 13. Transportaticn/Circulaticn. Wil the proposal result in: a..Generation of Substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parbn9 facilities or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? at circulation or movement of people and goods. d. Alterations to Present patterns e. Alterations to waterbome, rain or air tuaffic? f. increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Public Services. Will the proposal: _ it in the need for new or altered govemmental.services in any a. Have an effect upon, or resu of the following areas: 1. Fre protection? 2. Police protection? 3. Schools? h - - 4. Packs or other recreational fa�liies? & Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? 6. ether governmental services? 15. Energy. Wl(1 the propos reSWt in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing energy sources or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. W111 the proposal result in: a. A need for new systems, or Substantial alterations to public utilities? City of Diamond Bar initial Study form Pago 3 Yes No Possibly 4. Plant Ulle. van the proposal result In: a Change in diversity of species, tic r number of any species of plants (including trees, / 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? LZ 5. Animal Ufa. viii the proposal result in: a. Ch a in the divers. of species, or number of arty species of animals (birds, land = kxAldrig reptittes, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms 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. Witt the proposal result In: a. Sioriftard increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels 7. LIght and Glare. Will the proposal result In: a. Significant new fight and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of light and glare? s. Land Use. Wttl 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? M Risk of Upset. W1111 the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited _.. to, oH, pesticides. chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? b. Probable intede.r�ence with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation. plan?,__ — Wry o/ Diamond Bar. Induct Study Form Pno T Il. Environmental Impacts: (Explanations and addlt/onal Infornmatlon to supplement all "yes" and 'possibly" answers are required to be submltted on attached sheets) Yes No Possibly 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, cUsplacements, compaction or overcovering of the sod? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction. covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition, erosion of stream banks or land adjacent to standing water, changes in siltation, deposition or other processes which may modify the channel of constant or intermittently r flowing water as well as the areas surrounding permanent or irrtermiltent standing water? g.. Expose m of people or property to geologic hazards such s earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result In: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any changes in ciima-te,. either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Wlil the proposal result In: a. Changes in currents or the course or direction o>iwater movements? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage Patterns, or the rate and amount of surface run-off? c. Alterations of the course or flow of flood watem? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any body of water'? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality incWding but not limited to dissolved oxygen and turbidity? . f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? L Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? a ✓ ✓ _— City of Diamond Bar WtW Study Form Pap& Z If. Environmental Impacts: (Exp/anatlons and add/donal Infornradon to supplement all "Yes" and 'possibly" answers are required to be Submitted on attached sheets) Yes No Possibly 1. Earth. van the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements. compaction or overcovering of the son? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of arty unique geologic or physical feature? e. Arty increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either an or off the site? f. Changes in deposition, erosion of stream bar*4 or land adjacent to standing water, changes in siltation, deposition or other processes which may modtfy the channel of constant or intermittently flowing water as well as the areas surrounding permanent or intermittent standing water? g.: Expose m of people or property to geologic hazards such s earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or sirrular hazards? 2 Air. Will the proposal result In: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any changes in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result In: a. Changes in currents or the course or direction orwater movements? b. Changes in absorptlon rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface run-off? c. Alterations of the course or flow of flood waters? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any •alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to dissolved oxygen and WrbidW. - f. Alteration of the direction or rade of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either ugh dueci additlons orwdhddrawals, or through interception of an aqutier by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? L Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as fio~ t✓ i✓ t✓ t✓ 21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE - SUITE 100 DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-4177 714-860-2489 - FAX 714-861-3117 1. Background: 1. Name of.AppGcant: Sf CI�LT Fowpif2e-7-17r 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: rS2them 3. Name, Address and one of ProjectContact: C' �iQk2L�s �Nl 4. Date- of -Environmental information Submittal: 5. Date of Environmental Checklist Submittal 6. Lead gency enceq..irrq Cht):� 7. Name f Proposal if applicable ( Tract No. if Subdivis;on): S. Related Apprications (under the authonly of this environmental determination): Yes No Variance: Conditional Use Permit: —�— Zone Change: General Pian Amendment: (Attach Completed Eaviramnental lnfor maflon Form) Parcel Mgp No. 22102 Applicant: Specialty Equipment Market Association 1575 S. Valley Vista Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Proposal: A request to subdivide a 4.39 acre parcel located at 1575 Valley Vista Dr. in Gateway Corporate Center into two lots of 3.5 acres and .89 acres. Lot No. 1, the 3.5 acre lot, is currently developed with a two-story office building. Lot No. 2, the .89 acre lot, is currently graded with minor drainage improvements but devoid of structures. No development projects are included as a part of this application. Location: 1575 Valley Vista Dr. Environmental Findings: The proposed project, as determined by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, will not have a significant effect on the environment. This conclusion is based on the attached environmental checklist. Lead Agency: City of. Diamond Bar Negative Declaration No. 94-4 All "No" answers. 1. Earth. (a,b,c,d,e) Explanation: The site is graded and is not proposing any grading as a part of this application, therefore no impacts are identified. Mitigado Measures:. No mitigation measures are are required. 2. Air. (a,b,c) Explanation: The site is vacant and no development of the site is proposed as a part of this application, therefore no impacts are identified. Miti¢ation Measures: No mitigation measures are are required. 3. Water. (a,b,c,d,e,f,g,hJ) Explanation• There will not be an increase in non -permeable surfaces as a result of the application, thus no decrease in the absorption rates will result. Mi igation Measures_ No mitigation measures are are required 4. Plant Life. (a,b,c,d,e) F-xpianatiom There is no grading or earthwork proposed as a part of this project therefore no impacts re;ated to this project will result. 2 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are are required. 5. Animal Life. (a,b,c,d) Explanation: There will be development an increase in non -permeable surfaces as a result of the application, thus no decrease in the absorption rates will result. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are are required. 6. Noise. (a,b) EUlanation There will be no noise impacts generated as a result of this project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 7. Light and Glare. (a) Expianation: There will be no impacts related to light and glare generated as a result of this project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 8. Land Use. (a) Explanation: There will be no impacts related to light and glare generated as a result of this project. 3 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 9. Natural Resources. (a) Explanation: There will be no impacts related to natural resources generated as a result of this project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 10. Risk of Upset. (a,b) Explanation: There will be no impacts related to the subdivision of the site as it is located in an existing professional office park. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 11. Population. (a) Explanation: There will be no impacts related to population as a result of this project as there is no proposed development of the site which might create adverse impacts. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 12. Housing. (a) Explanation: There will be no impacts related to housing as a result of this project because there is no proposed development of the site which might impart adverse impacts. 4 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 13. Transportation/Circulation. (a,b,c,d,e,f) Explanation: The development of this site as a commercial retail location was contemplated when the development of the corporate center was conceived. The projected traffic generation will not be affected by this project as no development is proposed at this time. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required for this project. 14. Public Services. (1,2,3,4,5,6) Explanation: This project will not directly create demands for public services.- Future development will require additional analysis and possible improvements in order to meet new or increased demands for services. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required for this project. 15. Energy. (a,b) Explanation: The development of this site as a commercial retail location was contemplated when the development of the corporate center was conceived. The projected energy consumption will not be affected by this project as no development is proposed at this time. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required for this project. 5 16. Utilities. (a) Explanation: The development of this site as a commercial retail location was contemplated when the development of the corporate center was conceived. The projected provision of utility services will not be affected 'by this project as no development is proposed at this time. If future develoment is to occur, an evaluation will be conducted at that time. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required for this project. 17. Human Health. (a,b) Explanation: No development is proposed and no land use changes are contemplated as a part of this project, therefore no significant impacts have been identified. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required for this project. 18. Aesthetics. (a) Explanation: No visual obstructions will occur as a part of this project. Mitigation Measures- No eadres•No mitigation measures are required for this project. 19. Recreation. (a) Explanation: This project will not create an additional demand , on the recreation facilities or opportunities within the city. 6 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required for this project. 20. Cultural Resources. (a,b,c,d) Exnlana 'on• There has been no documentation of any historical, ethnic/cultural, or religously signifcant opportunites within the area of the project which have a potential to be impacted by this project. Mitigation MPacz.—.- No mitigation measures are required for this project 7 B. EN'V RCN-ME:N:A:. :N F CRHA IICN 1. Environmental Setting --Project Site a. Existing use/structures 0�4�c_E aN FEST b. Topography/ slopes '/'-3 dG l�C�A4- �7 S1�P�S AWA'l A'C a'• � *c. Vegetation *d. Animals *e. Watercourses t. Cultural/historical resources moa r Other 2. Environmental Setting -- Surrounding Area a. Existing uses structures (types, densities): Sc��2cuw�D�� A¢tA . �S OuS�NESS Pr�2K. awe. 2e4z T'..10 (ac_e% b. Topography/slopes *c. Vegetation *d. Animals *e. Watercourses !. cultural/historical resources o� E other AMVM M M i I V 68 . &N Sot oaf MMML UdrvdVW fnt 3. Are there any major. trees on the site, including oak trees? YES NO If yes, type and number: 4. Will any natural watercourses, surface flow patterns, etc., be changed through project development?: YES NO If yes, explain: 5. Grading: Will the project require grading? YES G�) If yes, how many cubic yards? Will it be balanced on site? where will dirt be obtained or If no deposited? 6; Are there any identifiable landslidesor otherng major geologic hazards on the property ompacted fill)? YES NO If yes, explain: YES NO t balanced, Is the property located within a high firehazard area ?. (hillsides with moderately dense vegetation)?. YES Distance to nearest fire it $. Noise: Existing noise sources at site: 0'a-! w Noise to be generated by project: Fumes: Odors generated by project: Could toxic fumes be generated? 9. what energy -conserving designs or material will be used? 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 pesented are true and correct to.the best of my knowledge and belief. Aate signature For: OAK TREE STATZMZliT 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. ( ] 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. (Applfeantls stpnature) Date) Staff use Project No. ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE A. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Applicant (Owner): Project Representative: "2?V.CAPN-�'I �Q �PMC�� t�I�AQ.1� T AssoUPtT�a.\ rEl�2�Cs Q . h3L ur.� NAME NAME \S`�S S• u3por-.E`I u1S74 02 ADDRESS ADDRESS Q:p'4, °too "35b o a �`t �c tib oaa� PHONE PHONE f 1. Action requested and project description:�,�,oQ�s%ow� oG o�E _ . •-0'71 2. Street location of project:I E)uiS s.yA�.�.E-_�! 3a. Present use of site: a- STORE 3b. Previous use of site or structures: y Ac-PCO 4. Please list all previous cases (if any) related to this project: V1 6. 5. Other related permit/approvals required. Specify type and granting agency. 6. Are you planning future phases of this project? Y If yes, explain: 7. Project Area: Covered by structures, paving: Ac - Landscaping: orC- Open space: Total area: Ac- a. c 8. Number of floors: a 9. Present zoning: c N.- g?nL -yc 10. Water and sewer service: Public Does service exist at site? N If yes, do purveyors have capacity to meet demand of project and all other approved projects? N Domestic Water YZ N OY N Sewers O If domestic water or public sewers are not available, how will these services be provided? Residential Projects$ 11. Number and type of units: 12. Schools: What school district(s) serves the property? Are existing school facilities adequate to meet project needs? YES NO If not, what provisions will be made for additional classrooms? lion -Residential projects$ 13. Distance to nearest residential use or sensitive use (school, hospital, etc.) C) s IN 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 radioactiv aterials? YES NO If yes, explain 20. Do your operations require any pressurized tanks? YES NO If yes, explain 21. Identify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on-site. �o Q S 22. Will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest highway? YES NO If yes, explain PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMNIISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22102, AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO (2) PARCELS LOCATED AT 1575 VALLEY VISTA DRIVE - LOT 13, TRACT 30379 AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. RECITALS. (i) Bryan Stirrat and Associates have filed an application for a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) for property located at 1575 Valley Vista Drive, Diamond Bar, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Parcel Map application is sometimes referred to as "the Application". (ii) On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal, corporation of the State of California. Thereafter, the -City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted. its Ordinance No. 14 (1990), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of _the Los Angeles County Code contain the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. (iii) 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 an Office of Planning and Research Extension of Time pursuant to California Government Code Section 65360 and 65361(x).; (iv) The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on July 11, 1994, conducted a duly noticed public hearing and continued said hearing to and concluded the public hearing on July 25, 1994, on said Application. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 1 2. Based on substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the public hearing, and by written and oral testimony provided at the hearing, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The Application applies to property presently zoned C-M-BE-U/C, located at 1575 S. Valley Vista Drive, City of Diamond Bar, California. (b) Generally, the property to the north of the subject site is zoned CM-BE-U/C; to the south of the subject site is zoned CM-BE-U/C and R-1-10000; to the east of the subject site is zoned C-M-BE-U/C; and west of the subject site is zoned CM-BE-U/C and the Orange Freeway. (c) The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Action was taken on the Application as to consistency with the contemplated General Plan pursuant to the terms, and provisions of Government Code, Section 65360 and 65361(a). On such basis there is a substantial probability that the approval of this project as proposed in said Application will not be a substantial detriment to, nor interfere with the preparation of the contemplated General Plan because the site has been developed in conformance with the Gateway Corporate Center Design Guidelines. Further, the City of Diamond Bar is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan. Pursuant to such preparation, it appears that there is a reasonable probability that the division of the subject parcel located within the Gateway Corporate Center will be consistent with the land -uses and policies, goals and objectives set forth in the General Plan as presently considered in the Draft -General Plan. As a substantial portion of the Gateway Corporate Center has previously been developed with complementary uses, there is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the finally adopted General Plan if this action is ultimately inconsistent with the General Plan. Further, this project conforms to all other applicable requirements, state law, and local ordinances. (d) The Tentative Parcel Map will not have an adverse impact on adjacent or adjoining residential and commercial uses. It will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity and conforms to the applicable standards applicable to the Gateway Corporate Center project. (e) The Tentative Parcel Map will not adversely affect the health or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area. (f) The nature, condition, and size of the site has been considered and determined to satisfy all applicable standards. (g) That the proposed map is consistent with the proposed General Plan and specific plans as specified in Section 65451. (h) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (i) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. 6) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (k) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 0) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (m) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided , and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply to, easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 3. , The Planning Commission further finds that an environmental review has been conducted with respect to the Application in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder. Further, this Commission has reviewed and considered such information and has determined, and hereby adopts, the determination that this Application is a Negative Declaration and has been prepared in compliance -with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and as amended, and guidelines promulgated thereunder,, and, that further the Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the said Negative Declaration with respect to the application. 4. Based upon the findings recited hereinabove and conditions set forth herein below, this Commission, in conformance with the terms and provisions of California Government Code Section 65360 and 65361(x), hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, approval of TPM No. 22102 and the Negative Declaration, subject to the following conditions: (a) This project shall be developed in substantial conformance with Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 which has been submitted for this case, dated July 25, 1994 and as amended by the following conditions as may be shown on said map. (b) Prior to expiration of the Tentative Parcel Map and prior to filing with the County Recorder, a Final Map shall be processed through the office of the City Engineer. (c) Details or notes shown on the Tentative Map which are inconsistent with the requirements, policies, or ordinances of the City are not approved. (d) 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. (e) The Soil Engineer's and Engineering Geologist's name, address, phone number, signature and stamp must be shown on the Final Map. (f) Each parcel shall be served by a separate sewer lateral which shall not cross any other property lines. The Subdivider, at the Subdivider's sole cost and expense, shall construct/extend the mainline sewer system in accordance with plans approved by the City Engineer, Los Angeles County Public Works Department and County Sanitation District. Mainline shall extend to not less than 10 ft. beyond the common line between Parcel No. 1 and No. 2... All sewer hook-ups shall be provided prior to recordation of the Final Map. (g) All drainage devices shall be installed prior to recordation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Provide hydrology calculations and capacity of existing devices for any proposed future development and provide drainage facilities to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department prior to approval of the Final Map. (: Reciprocal drainage easements for both parcels shall be recorded at the time the Final M ip is recorded. (i) A reciprocal access easement shall be shown along the common property line of Parcel No. 1 and No. 2 and recorded at the time the Final Map is recorded. (j) It is hereby declared and made a condition of this Tentative Parcel Map that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the Tentative Parcel Map shall be suspended and the privileges granted shall lapse; provided that applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. (k) Any future development of Parcel No. 1 or Parcel No. 2 is required to comply with the Gateway Corporate Center Design Guidelines and shall obtain Development Review approval from the City. 4 0) The Subdivider shall, at the Subdivider's sole cost and expense, construct sidewalks along the full frontage of the.subdivision in accordance with the plans approved by the City Engineer, prior to recordation. 5. The Planning Commission Secretary is hereby directed to: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution and, (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Bryan Stirrat and Associates, 1575 S. Valley Vista Drive, Diamond Bar , California 91765. ADO APPROVED this 25th day of July, 1994. D vid eyer, hairman G \, ATTEST ✓. - iL— James DeStefano, Secretary I, James DeStefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly'introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of July, 1994, by the following vote -to -wit: " AYES: [COMbIISSIONERS:] NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSTAIN: [COW IISSIONERS:] ABSENT: [CON IISSIONERS:] Flamenbaum, Fong, Plunk, and , Meyer Schad k, MTV 1317 BllkmaNIs IlkR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. �. TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 REPORT DATE: September 16, 1994 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: Development Agreement No. 92-2, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400, Conditional Use Permit No. 91-5, and Oak Tree Permit No. 91-2; the South Pointe Master Plan; and Environmental Impact Report No. 92-1 (applicant: Arciero & Sons, Inc.) Continued from August 16, 1994. SUMMARY: On July 5, 1994, the City Council approved the applicant's 91 unit project, in concept. The Council directed the preparation of environmental findings, project conditions, and appropriate resolutions for subsequent review and final action. Several project issues are unresolved. The applicant received a continuance from the August 16, 1994, meeting to September 20, 1994. The applicant requests an additional continuance to October 4, 1994. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council continue Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400, and its related applications to October 4, 1994. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:_ Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification Resolutions) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other: Letter from Applicant dated September 16, 1994 EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: Project Applicant, Walnut Valley Unified School District SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed N/A _ Yes No by the City Attorney? _ 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? Yes X No Which Commission? _ 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: PUBLIC WORKS REVIEWED BY: 'f _ o _. /'09 --Terrence t. Belanger Frank Usher ames DeStefano City Manager Assistant City Manager Community Devel pment Director J.C.D. J. C. DABNEY & ASSOCIATES LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS 671 S. BREA CANYON ROAD SUITE 5 WALNUT, CALIFORNIA 91789 909 594-7568 FAX - 909-594-5090 September 16, 1994 Mr. James DeStefano Community Development Director City of Diamond Bar Reference: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400 Scheduled for the September 20 Council Agenda Dear Mr. DeStefano, While the developer's staff and the City Staff have been working diligently to prepare for the scheduled meeting on the 20th, I think we all agree that we need to continue processing data and reports that have just arrived late this week to properly prepare for the upcoming hearing. As you are aware, we are also waiting for input from the Walnut Valley Unified School District that will not be available until after the meeting scheduled for the 20th. Since this project has been processing for several years with much controversy, the developer would request that this item be carried over until the next scheduled meeting on October 4th to allow for necessary review of data just arriving. Mr. Arciero would like to allow the City Council ample opportunity to review this new and additional information prior to rendering a decision on his project. p tfu I lyn� abney, RCE cc: Mr. Frank Arciero Jr., Arciero & Sons Inc. ;:�2 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: September 20, 1994 REPORT DATE: September 16, 1994 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: Tentative Tract No. 51253, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12, and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9; the South Pointe Master Plan; and Environmental Impact Report No. 92-1 (applicant: Sasak Corporation). Continued from August 16, 1994. SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval of a 21 unit single family residential development proposed on 6.7 acres located adjacent to Morning Sun Drive. On July 5, 1994, the applicant requested and received a continuance to August 16, 1994, in order to respond to City Council comments. The applicant requested and received an additional continuance to September 6, 1994. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council continue this project to a future date. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:_ Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other: Letter from Applicant dated September 8, 1994 X Other: Revised Tract Map No. 51253, dated September 13, 1994. EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: Project Applicant SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed N/A _ 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: City Manager Assistant City Manager es DeStefano Community Devel pment Director MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. September 20, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager Tentative Tract No. 51253, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12, and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9; the South Pointe Master Plan; and Environmental Impact Report No. 92-1 (applicant: Sasak Corporation). Continued from August 16, 1994. ISSUE STATEMENT: The applicant requests approval of a 21 unit single family residential development proposed on 6.7 acres located adjacent to Morning Sun Drive. The proposed map would supercede a previously recorded tract map that prohibited the constuction of more than one dwelling unit upon each of the three existing lots. The Conditional Use Permit is required for development within a hillside area. The Oak Tree Permit is requested in order to remove several oak trees on the development site. BACKGROUND: On July 5, 1994 the City Council reviewed Tentative Tract Map No. 51253. The applicant, Sasak Corporation (Mr. Armut Patel), requested and received a continuance to August 16, 1994 in order to respond to several City Council comments. Subsequently, the applicant received an additional continuance to September 6, 1994. In August the Walnut Valley Unified School District closed escrow and purchased the 78 acre RNP Development, Inc. site adjacent to TTM 51253. In addition, the applicant has retained a new Civil Engineer. The applicant maintains his desire to utilize a portion of the adjacent property for grading purposes and has met with the School District to discuss this matter. A revised tentative tract map was received on Tuesday, September 13, 1994 for City review and processing. City staff has not had sufficient time to examine and comment on this latest proposal. A cursory review indicates the 21 lot proposal requires a lot line adjustment and grading easements or a purchase of residential restricted land from the School District. The off-site grading is necessary to support the 21 lot proposal, as presently designed. Sasak's previous tentative map also required off-site grading and was designed in concert with RNP's proposal (VTM 51407). 1 The revised tentative map must be reviewed for compliance with City planning, engineering, and environmental requirements (ie. lot and pad size, grading, street configuration., environmental impact, etc.). City staff is unable, at this time, to provide a professional recommendation on the merits of the revised map. The applicant has, however, requested that this project remain on the September 20, 1994 City Council agenda for review. Staff recommends a continuance of TTM 51253 and its related applications for at least 30 days in order to review the submittal and outstanding issues. PREPARED BY: James DeStefano Community Development Director Attachments: TTM 51253 dated May 6, 1993 Revised TTM 51253 dated September 13, 1994 Letter received from Mr. Armut Patel dated September 8, 1994 Letter received from Dr, Ron Hockwalt dated September 8, 1994 SEP 09 '94 09:23 SASAK INC 985-7520 .1S' --AS- CORPORATION 858 West 9th St, Upland, California, 917,85-11 53. September 8, 1994 W. Jim DeSte&io Director of Community Development City of Diamond Bar 21660: East Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765-4177 Re: Tehtative Tract Map No 51253 N kn Dear Mr. DeStefno: i I spoke with George Wentz City Engineer confirming 1.5: gr and hd .did have knowledge regarding allowing the 1.5: grade. He said withou>�'a110 my er.5: grade it was not possible to build the project. In any event he said ask m � , ,. iginee� ! ; ° � to explain the same if council ask this question. However since ci, planningcommission had approved it and recommended it there shall not be d issue anymore. I Furthermore I called Mr. Michael Montgomery, but be was o4t .of they Office. there for I was unable to speak I s oke with a ,, 1 f ' p up e o expenen Z engx�nea s :IM ; .; : I : attorneys who said that the planning commission is only adversar:Moininendation ' I to council and council to take up this matter for final ipproval the>?e f decide for approval of 22 lots instead of 21 lots, considering the cirdumstances, o purchasing the land in addition to obtaining of the land for off site: einent: i. Please note that if city is charter city lice Los Angeles, still c unci � t have . ability for approval with their power. However owner have appeal t to councd for such approval; if not approved without appeal. I. i I Leader in Lodging Indust Development jjI 9 9 N Pmentand Mana ement I i .1 J. 9 l ,N'4 i 09-08-1994 10!31AM FROM WALNUT VLY tUSD — DEC TO 8613117 P.01 FECEIVED COMMUNITY DEVEi (�p,",EiiT Walnut Valley chool DiStftc#8 AM 10: 42 B80 South Lemon Avenue, Wdlnut. California 91780 • (909) 595-1261 • Fax (909) 596-9628 • Ronald W. Hcckwalt, Ed. D., Superintendent September 8, 1994 E- Amut Patel, President L , Sasak Corporation P.O. Box 1153 =' Upland, CA 91784 t -TI Dear Mr. Patel: Last night, the. Board of Trustees for the Walnut Valley Unified. School District considered selling sufficient real estate for a lot line adjustment -and easement for grading immediately adjacent to the Sasak Property. It is our understanding that such a transaction of real estate and easements will only accommodate plans to build on your immediate property.. At this time, we do not know the price of the real estate. We will inform you shortly as to the price of the real estate and easement. I also need to check with legal counsel regarding whether we need to go to bid as part of this transaction. Sincerely, 4 JV-) Ronald W. Hockwalt, Ed.D. Superintendent RWH jh cc: Board of Trustees TOTAL P.01 t N -D CD i W 0 LD < U Q Q o 0 6 U. p Juj o HW Z O Z r = 0 H Oo S n L AUG 29 194 16:17 SASAK INC 985-7522 P.01 ........... 'SA',SAKCORPORATION 858 West 9th St, Upland, California, 91785-1163! (T14Y981-644t � X- - August 29, 1994 -7: Mr. Robert Searcy Associate' Planner City of Diamond Bar 216-60 E. Copley dr. Suite 100 Diamond Bar CA. 9765-4177 Re: Tentative Tract Map 51253 on Morning Sul Drive Dear Mr. Searcy: Last week your telephone conversation with -,me you -hid fox indicated that I should write an4, askcontinuation::,; Therefore considermyproject in September] -20, 19-94. Council meeting for final approval of the tentativeIRAP..; 'to Thanking you for your assistance this mater. Sincerely, Amrut Patel A Leader in Lodging Industry Development and Marm ( 4. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger SUBJECT: Resolution No. 9440 DATE: September 15, 1994 The City Council asked that this matter be placed on the September 20, 1994, agenda. TLB.jac Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 94_40- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DECLARING ITS DffENTION TO DENY A DEFENSE TO CITY COUNCIL. MMBERS RELATING TO CERTAIN LAWSUITS ALLEGING LEM OR SLANDER AND DECLARING SAM TO BE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF DUTY Part 7 of Division 3.6 of the C9ftxTi9Gonrarament Com &tSection 995, ma forth certain re*&mneate for the Provision of s dean to City Council Members who are acting within the scope of the duties of their offlM and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar wishes to dmly We@* and ddw certain acbm which an not to be considared m being within the scope of drabs, of OEM sad not to be defended at PuWia eo ORM NOW, TIMEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. that the City Cormmj of the C ky o[ Diamood Bae declares its intootim that the City AMR not P WWde s defense at P kk aocpa to any CAY Council Member if the emn.ofsdm rekm to m shag dm of" or dmWWrftou&dm publicsaoa of s communicstios of general Gk6d&d= which ho not been spoarorrd and auth oriaed by the City of Diemmil 84K and which dma not b* bamddsed a activity wig the scope of duties of dM City Coueod mambes:' PASSED, ADOPTED sod APPROVED by the City Comd of Diamond Bar, CaUx,* this 16th day of August - -1994. L LYNDA BURGESS, City Cleric of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on i , h day of a„g�, G* . 1994, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAWED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Miller, Papen, and M/Werner COUNCII.MEMMERS: MPT/Harmony COUNCmL MEMBERS: None COUNCEL HERS: Ansari INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger SUBJECT: Consideration of City Council Standards - Parenthetically 91-71 DATE: September 15, 1994 This matter has been requested to be placed on the September 20, 1994, agenda for consideration. Included is a draft proposal submitted by Dr. Lawrence Rhodes - Standards of Operation. TLB.jac Attachment REQUESTED AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, the Diamond Bar City Council does occasionally deviate from the normal order before the Council, and on occasion fails to act in a manner of proper decorum, BE IT PROPOSED the following amendments be made to the City Council Norms of Operation (Resolution #91-71) as follows: Section 1 - OPERATION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS be amended to add new item P. P. The City Council shall meet and act within the general constraints of the governmental sections of Roberts Rules of Order (ref. Jove Book, September 1977 printing). 2. Section 6 - INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES be amended to add new item G. G. The members shall conduct themselves in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order, Article V, Section 36, "Decorum Debate." Add new Section 7 - PARLIAMENTARIAN - The City Attorney shall act as Parliamentarian. The speaker having the floor may at any time request of the Parliamentarian the rules of order, or procedures to be followed. The Chair may at any time interrupt the proceeding to request a ruling from the Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian is obliged to interrupt the speaker and Council if a significant deviation of the general rules or the minimum of decorum occurs. Dr. Lawrence Rhodes INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger SUBJECT: Consideration of City Council Standards - Parenthetically 91-71 DATE: September 15, 1994 This matter has been requested to be placed on the September 20, 1994, agenda for consideration. Included is a draft proposal submitted by Dr. Lawrence Rhodes - Standards of Operation. TLB:jac Attachment COUNCIL STANDARDS Page Two Section 1. OPERATION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS (CONIT) E. In order to ensure that all members of the public have an opportunity to speak, pertaining to issues that are not on the meeting agenda, and that the Council is able to complete the public's business, there shall be a five-minute limitation on comments by the public unless otherwise prohibited by law. The Mayor will be responsible for enforcing the time limits as suggested. Any Council Member may request an extension of the five-minute time limitation. If the Council concurs that the nature of the issue warrants an extension of time, the time. limit may be extended. F. The Council will not hold a public hearing on items scheduled under Departmental Reports or Council Concerns. If just one or two people desire to speak on the item, the Council will listen to their comments. If more than two persons at the meeting desire to speak on an item, the Council may reschedule the item on the agenda of a subsequent meeting. G. with Council approval; Mayor may schedule Council review of. agenda .items out of their prescribed order on the printed agenda. H. Significant proposed changes to City ordinances shall be set for public hearing. I. The Council Member making a motion shall either restate the motion or have the City Clerk restate :the motion, before the vote, to clarity the motion for the, public and staff. J. council Members should not get into a debate with a member of the public or staff at a Council meeting. K. The City Council will, on a quarterly basis, agendize and prioritize those significant items to be scheduled as future Council study session topics. L. If an applicant submits a new site plan for a development or if the City Council requests changes in the submitted site plan, the public hearing will be continued at least two weeks to allow time for staff review. M. Any written correspondence or other materials received at a City Council meeting (from the public or staff) will be documented with a receipt time and date by the City Clerk and distribution indicated. if the City Clerk does not receive a copy of the written submittal, it will not be considered to have been received or acted upon by the City Council. RESOLUTION NO. 91-71 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY or DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL STANDARDs OF oVMTION QSERMM, it is important to the successful operation of any public organization that standards be established to define the roles, responsibilities and expectations of the governing board and staff in the operation of the organization; and WZMLRU, the establishment of standards. by the city Council will promote understanding and trust among members of the City Council and staff concerning their roles, responsibilities and expectations for the operation of thr City;.and WKERE/, the establishment and periodic review of these City Council policy standards will assist new members of the city Council to better understand their role and responsibilities as Council Mambers. NOW, fit, sN IT XOLVRp by the City of Diamond Bar as followss ;1 •' M two•� • M •Il. 1 y A. The Council shall most the first and third Tuesdays of each month, commencing at 6:00 p.m. If the Council desires to proceed past•11:30 p.m., the Council,- at 11:00 p.m., will determine which issues will be completed at that meeting and which items will be continued to thpe next Tuesday meeting. B. Public Comments are to be scheduled'tor ffOO p.m., immediately following the Flag salute, Roll Call and Council Comments. C. No action is to be taken on items raised under Public Comments. Besides oral requests, citizens - may also be requested to put concerns in writing, it that the item(s) is to be agendized, for a later Council meeting date, at the discretion of the Council and City Manager. D. At the beginning of the meeting, if there are a number of people requesting to speak on a particular subject under Public Comments, the Mayor may request that there be a spokesperson and that the others limit their eomments,'speak at the and of the meeting or contact Council or City Manager. This does not apply to scheduled agenda items. COUNCIL STANDARDS Page Three N. All minutes of City Council meetings shall be composed utilizing an action -taken format; rather than a transcript format. All meetings shall be audictaped, in their entirety, for Council, public and staff reference. City Council and Planning Commission tapes shall be retained for two years, from the date of the meeting. All other Commission and Committee meeting tapes shall retained, until the approved minutes of a meeting have been reported to the City Council. o. Any concerns by a Council Member over the performance of a City employee during a Council meeting should be privately directed to the City Manager to ensure the concern is properly addressed. section a. COI ITTEE ASSIONS PRESS A. Individual Council Members will have the right to attend meetings but are cautioned about becoming involved in the. meeting's discussions and/'or violating the drown Act. B. Written committee reports will be given •to the Council on significant committee recommendations and/or actions.. C. Vew ideas or suggested programs will be presented to the full Council before presenting to the media. sevtion 3. PRESLrNTATIONB - AT oTgzR J1(iLNCIES AND Grams A. If a member of the City Council represents the City before another gowrnmsntal agency, organisation, the Council Member will first indicate the majority position of the. Council. Personal opinions and coaents may be expressed only if the Council Member clarifies that these statements do not represent the position of the City Council. section 1. CITY COUNCIL ps i1ITg CITY STIrr A. There will be mutual respect from both staff and Council - members of their respective roles and responsibilities, when expressing criticism in public session. 8. In public session, City staff members will address Council members, utilising Mayor, Councilman or Councilwoman= and, Council members will address all staff members, utilising Mr. or Ids. rather than the person's first names. COUNCIL STANDARDS Page Four Section 4. CITY COUNCIL RELATIONSHIPS WITH CI'T'Y STAFF (CON'T) C. city staff acknowledge that the Council is the City's policy making body. The City Council acknowledges that staff administers the Council's policies. D. The Council, as the overall policy body, holds the City Manager responsible for the administration of the City Departments. The overall internal administration by the City Manager is necessary in order to assure efficient and economic operations of the various departments per Clouneil direction. E. The. Council will direct the City Manager on all major or new issues. A council Member will not initiate any action or have prepared any report that is significant in nature or initiate any project or study, without the approval -of a majority of the City Council. F. All written informational material requested by individual Council Members will be submitted by staff to all Council - members, with the notation indicati.nq which: Council Member requested the�lnformation. G. council will not attempt to coerce or influence -staff in the making of appointments, the awardinq of contracts, the selection of consultants, the processinq of development applications, or the granting of City licenses or permits. H. .,Mail that is addressed to the Mayor and City Council will be circulated by the City Manaqer to the City Council with a comment as to which staff person will be asaistinq the Mayor and/or Council 11.ember in preparing a response. I. The Mayor's response,when appropriate and the original communication, will be submitted to Council members for their information. Mail addressed to individual Council Members may be responded to, by that Council Member. K. Staff team sensitivity and support is important. once a final decision is reached by the Council, Planning commission or other City body, it will be accepted, supported and implemented bg staff. section S. t.TTTGITTON ANn CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATUM A. city council Members will keep all written and verbal information provided on matters that are confidential, under State law, in strict confidence to insure that.- the City's position is not compromised. No dissemination of information or materials will be made to anyone, except Council Members, City Attorney, City Manaqer or Assistant City. Manager. COUNCIL STANDARDS Page Five section S. LITIGATION AND CONFTnENTIAL INFORMATION (CON'T) B. If the City Council in closed session has provided direction to City staff on proposed terms and conditions for any type of negotiations whether it be related to property acquisition or disposal, a proposed or pending claims or litigation, and/or employee negotiations, all contact with the other party will be the designated City person(s) representing the City in the handling of the negotiations or litigation. A Council Member will not have any contact or discussion with the other party or its representative involved with the negotiation during this time and will not communicate any discussion conducted in closed sessions. section s. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MOMsa RRSPDNSTSTf T1w+sw A. Frequent communication is an important and integral part of council relationships and will be the standard of operation. e. Respect for each individual Council Meabers interpersonal style will be a standard of operation. . Courtesy and sensitivity to individual points of view will be a standard of operaticn.- C. on areas where Council Members disagree, especially on the process to be used, discussions will occur to facilitate a clear direction. D. Council approach to authority is collegial rather than individual. E. Council Members will keep an open mind on all issues. F. Individual Council Mexbers, on mature pertaining to upcoming or anticipated iters; where a public fearing will be held, will maintain, as near neutral position as possible to assure not only the appearance but the actual degree of openness that is attendant to our community responsibility. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 1991. poemDD , A"ROVID AAD YMM this 3rd day of December -_, COUNCIL STANDARDS Page Six I, Lynda Burgess, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoinq Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meatinq of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on_�d day of December 3 vote: 1992, by the following AYES: COUNCILMBMBERS: Miller, Forbinq, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT:: COUNCILit=ERS: Papen, Werner ABSTAINED: COVNCIINMRRS: None LY BUIUMN, *City C erk City of Diamond Bar September 19, 1994 Hand Delivered The Office of Tom Ortiz 3308 Hawkwood Road Diamond Bar, California 91765 Re: Issues Before the Traffic & Transportation Commission Dear Mayor, Gary H. Werner: I was saddened to see at the September 8, 1994, meeting of the Traffic & Transportation Commission that the only item in the agenda was an issue put forward by Commissioner Todd Chavers. If not for Todd's action, there apparently would have been no meeting of the Traffic & Transportation Commission in September. Since we are a City with substantial traffic issues, which I don't have to mention here, we collectively are looking bad should we not deal quickly with those issues. Can the Council help to direct issues to the Traffic & Transportation Commission for public meetings? I personally feel that increased public discussion of the issues is beneficial both to the Community and the Council. Sincerely, C)`�e Tom Ortiz Traffic & Transportation Commissioner Chairman AV cc: Terry Belanger Traffic & Transportation Commissioners September 19, 1994 Hand Delivered The Office of Tom Ortiz 3308 Hawkwood Road Diamond Bar, California 91765 Re: Issues Before the Traffic & Transportation Commission Dear Mayor Pro Tem, Clair W. Harmony: I was saddened to see at the September 8, 1994, meeting of the Traffic & Transportation Commission that the only item in the agenda was an issue put forward by Commissioner Todd Chavers. If not for Todd's action, there apparently would have been no meeting of the Traffic & Transportation Commission in September. Since we are a City with substantial traffic issues, which I don't have to mention here, we collectively are looking bad should we not deal quickly with those issues. Can the Council help to direct issues to the Traffic & Transportation Commission for public meetings? I personally feel that increased public discussion of the issues is beneficial both to the Community and the Council. Sincerely, Tom Ortiz Traffic & Transportation Commissioner Chairman /IV cc: Terry Belanger City Staff Traffic & Transportation Commissioners September 19, 1994 Hand Delivered The Office of Tom Ortiz 3308 Hawkwood Road Diamond Bar, California 91765 Re: Issues Before the Traffic & Transportation Commission Dear Council Member, Eileen R. Ansari: I was saddened to see at the September 8, 1994, meeting of the Traffic & Transportation Commission that the only item in the agenda was an issue put forward by Commissioner Todd Chavers. If not for Todd's action, there apparently would have been no meeting of the Traffic & Transportation Commission in September. Since we are a City with substantial traffic issues, which I don't have to mention here, we collectively are looking bad should we not deal quickly with those issues. Can the Council help to direct issues to the Traffic & Transportation Commission for public meetings? I personally feel that increased public discussion of the issues is beneficial both to the Community and the Council. Sincerely, Tom Ortiz Traffic & Transportation Commissioner Chairman AV cc: Terry Belanger City Staff Traffic & Transportation Commissioners September 19, 1994 Hand Delivered The Office of Tom Ortiz 3308 Hawkwood Road Diamond Bar, California 91765 Re: Issues Before the Traffic & Transportation Commission Dear Council Member, Phyllis E. Papen: I was saddened to see at the September 8, 1994, meeting of the Traffic & Transportation Commission that the only item in the agenda was an issue put forward by Commissioner Todd Chavers. If not for Todd's action, there apparently would have been no meeting of the Traffic & Transportation Commission in September. Since we are a City with substantial traffic issues, which I don't have to mention here, we collectively are looking bad should we not deal quickly with those issues. Can the Council help to direct issues to the Traffic & Transportation Commission for public meetings? I personally feel that increased public discussion of the issues is beneficial both to the Community and the Council. Sincerely, Tom Ortiz Traffic & Transportation Commissioner Chairman AV cc: Terry Belanger City Staff Traffic & Transportation Commissioners September 19, 1994 Hand Delivered The Office of Tom Ortiz 3308 Hawkwood Road Diamond Bar, California 91765 Re: Issues Before the Traffic & Transportation Commission Dear Council Member, Gary G. Miller: I was saddened to see at the September 8, 1994, meeting of the Traffic & Transportation Commission that the only item in the agenda was an issue put forward by Commissioner Todd Chavers. If not for Todd's action, there apparently would have been no meeting of the Traffic & Transportation Commission in September. Since we are a City with substantial traffic issues, which I don't have to mention here, we collectively are looking bad should we not deal quickly with those issues. Can the Council help to direct issues to the Traffic & Transportation Commission for public meetings? I personally feel that increased public discussion of the issues is beneficial both to the Community and the Council. Sincerely, Tom Ortiz Traffic & Transportation Commissioner Chairman AV cc: Terry Belanger City Staff Traffic & Transportation Commissioners 861-0161 allI t it" I 64VA"" © DZAMKOND BAR CALZP'03R 111rIA From The arm of Mayer Pro -Tem: pair W Harmony * * Subembem 2,430 A A July 10, 1994 Minimum Audit Demands • Investigative Audit • Immediate Executive Personnel Review • Implement Open & Honest Program Budget. • Re -appoint myself as Finance Committee Chairman. • Give Finance Committee more than Rubber Stamp Authority. • Auditors report directly to City Council. • Establish Accountability. PLEASE T %/1 a %r" RIONMW the %%isti! City Council Denies Any Wrongdoing Detailed Reports Pointing Out Abuses ofintemal Accounting Procedures Are Ignored he City of Diamond Bar has misspent hundreds of thousands of dollars and has a serious problem with its accounting procedures. As a member of the Finance Committee since being elected to the Council in Nov. `93, it became painfully clear that something was wrong. I resigned from the committee when it became apparent that the Council was going to ignore and cover-up the problem. A few glaring examples have broadened into a problem which is endemic to the system -- accountability is lax, and the internal audit control procedures (How we Pay Our Bills) are not adequately followed. EARLY INDICATORS I was shocked to find that the City had agreed to pay for Councilman Gary Miller's legal defense in a lawsuit that resulted in a cross complaint from his own privately filed slander case against several homeowners. The decision, just before the election, was never publicly announced -- an "oversight." A sewer design for the Diamond Bar Country Estates was also out of control. The city had spent more than $225,000 designing a system, which homeowners oppose, and would cost $30,000 per house connection. There is nothing in writing to retrieve this money. Incumbent Council members have low admitted knowing there was a risk. Homeowners have presented technical arguments that the problem may be a natural artesian spring condition and not be approved publicly. Examples: $18,000 for a computerized electronic forum (City On -Line) from AQMD grants; and Prop- A funds for the Metrolink bus connection. HOW WE PAY OUR BILLS With these and many more examples, I began to question the basic accounting practices that involved the Warrant Registers we were approving twice a month. When the Brown Act went into effect in April, public members began to attend our Council Finance Committee meetings and to ask questions. With the assistance of a volunteer CPA (I've been a city manager and published nationally a professional city management newsletter and hold a Master's degree in Public Administration 1 emphasis Finance) we began to log staff responses as to how the bills were being paid. Based on random samplings over several weeks, there was a consistent pattern of abuse of internal control procedures as outlined in our city codes. These included many cases in varying degrees of missing or no Purchase Orders, no bids, missing receipts for goods or services, no evidence of checking for available budget appropriations, exceeding contracted amounts, and more. The Committee followed up on some items, such as Councilwoman Phyllis Papen's recent Palm Springs trip and the missing condominium receipts, an expense the City had pre -paid, as well as receipts for her per diem. GOING PUBLIC Copies of the detailed memos to the City Council are now available to the public. Contact my office at 861-0161 and we will mail you a set. We have edited out employee recommendations.