Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/1995rcit'19 oUnCi i AGENDA Tuesday, March 21, 1995 6:30 P.M. Regular Meeting South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Council Member Council Member City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Phyllis E. Papen. Gary H. Werner Eileen R. Ansari Clair W. Harmony Gary G. Miller Terrence L. Belanger Michael Jenkins 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' re The City of Diamond Bar uses cled paper in the Council Chambers. . - and encourages you to do the same. PUBLIC INPUT The meetings of the Diamond Bar City Council are open to the public. A member of the public may address the Council on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of which aro within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar City Council. A request to address the Council should be submitted in writing to the City Clerk. As a general rule the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chair. However, in order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit the public input on any item or the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Council. Individuals are requested to refrain from personal attacks toward Council Members or other persons. Comments which are not conducive to a positive business meeting environment are viewed as attacb against the entire City Council and will not be tolerated. If not complied with, you will forfeit your ren*-+ning time as ordered by the Chair. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. In accordance with Government Code Section 54954.3(s) the Chair may from time to time dispense with public comment on items previously considered by the Council. (Does not apply to Committee meetings.) In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the City Council must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Council meeting. In can of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Council may act on an item that is not on the posted agenda. CONDUCT IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Chair shall order removed from the Council Chambers any person who commits the following acts in respect to a regular or special meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council. A. Disorderly behavior toward the Council or any member of the thereof, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting. B. A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting. C. Disobedience of any lawful order ofthe Chair, which shall include an order to be sated or to refrain from addressing the Board: and D. Any other unlawful interference with the due and orderly conduct of said meeting. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL Agendas for the regular Diamond Bar City Council meetings are prepared by the City Clerk and are available 72 hours prior to the meeting. Agendas are available electronically and may be accessed by a personal computer through a phone modem. Every meeting of the City Council is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapea are available for a nominal charge. ADA REQUIREMENTS A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impai ==0 who cannot access the public speaking area. Sign language interpreter services are also available by giving notice at last three business days in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 860-2489 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Council, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 860-2489 Computer Access to Agendas (909) 860 -LINE General Information (909) 860-2489 NOTE: ACTION MAY BE TARN ON ANY ITEM IDEN'rl mm ON THE AGENDA. Next Resolution No. 95-14 Next Ordinance No. 04(1995) 1. CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Papen ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Werner and Mayor Papen 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES: 2.1 Proclaiming April as "YMCA Month." 2.2 Proclaiming April as "American Red Cross Month." 3. PUBLIC CONWNTS: "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 Cara And give it to the City Clerk (completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five min►ite maxim»m time limit when Addressing the City Cornncil. 4. COUNCIL CObMNTS: 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 - March 23, 1995 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION - March 27, 1995 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - April 4, 1995 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.4 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - April 6, 1995 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.4 PLANNING COMMISSION - April 10, 1995 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.5 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - April 13, 1995 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.6 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - April 18, 1995 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. MARCH 21, 1995 PAGE 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 6.1.1 Regular Meeting of February 21, 1995 - Approve as submitted. 6.1.2 Special Meeting of February 23, 1995 - Approve as submitted. 6.1.3 Special Meeting of February 28, 1995 - Approve as submitted. 6.1.4 Special Meeting of March 6, 1995 - Approve as submitted. Requested by: City Clerk 6.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 6.2.1 Regular Meeting of January 23, 1995 - Receive and File 6.2.2 Regular Meeting of February 13, 1995 - Receive and File 6.2.3. Regular Meeting of February 27, 1995 - Receive and File Requested by: Community Development Director 6.3 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated March 21, 1995 in the amount of $789,816.90. Requested by: City Manager 6.4 CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES: 6.4.1 Filed by Margaret J. Buchan on March 1, 1995. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council reject the request and refer the matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 6.4.2 Filed by Susan M. Goode on March 2, 1995. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council reject the request and refer the matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 6.4.3 Filed by Babbie R. Mayo on February 10, 1995. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council reject the request and refer MARCH 21, 1995 PAGE 3 the matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. Requested by: City Clerk 6.5 PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND, PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AUDITS FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 1994 AND 1993 - The City's Prop A Local Return and Prop C Local Return and Transportation Development Act Funds (TDA) are required to be audited on an annual basis. The audit for fiscal year ended June 30, 1994 was completed in December 1994 by Simpson & Simpson, C.P.A. The final version was received in March 1995 and is being presented to Council for review. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council receive, accept and file Prop A, Prop C and Transportation Development Act Fund Audit Reports for FY year ending June 30, 1994 and 1993. Requested by: City Manager 6.6 RECONSTRUCTION/REHABILITATION OF DIAMOND BAR BLVD. FROM GRAND AVENUE TO BREA CANYON ROAD - Total construction costs for the D.B. Blvd. reconstruction/rehabilitation Project are $1,254,657.23. This represents the actual contract amount of $1,128,997.15 and project change orders of $125,660.08. During construction, groundwater was encountered and further extra work due to unsuitable ground materials, installation of geotextile fabric, additional removal/replacement of asphalt -concrete work and traffic control was necessary. Furthermore, the revised construction schedule, due to groundwater activities, necessitated an extended inspection period. Based on a previously -agreed upon hourly rate of $42 and the additional sixteen (16) work days as requested by the contractor, DL&A has submitted a fee proposal of an additional not -to -exceed amount of $6,720. Recommended Action: It 'is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager up to $190,000 for project change orders with Griffith Co. and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with Dewan, Lundin & Associates to increase the contract amount from $15,000 to $21,720. Requested by: City Engineer 6.7 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HANDICAP ACCESS RAMPS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS - On February 7, 1995, the MARCH 21, 1995 PAGE 4 City Council approved plans and specifications for con- struction of handicap access ramps at various locations in D.B. Council authorized and directed the City Clerk to advertise to receive bids. Notice to bidders was published on February 8, 1995. 17 bids were submitted and opened on March 2, 1995 and the lowest apparent bidder was Keiter Construction Co., of D.B. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council award a contract to Keiter Construction Co. for construction of handicap access ramps at various loca- tions in D.B., in an amount not to exceed $55,200. Furthermore, it is recommended that the Council authorize a contingency amount of $9,000 for project change orders to be approved by the City Manager. Requested by: Community Services Director 6.8 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR DIAL -A -CAB SERVICE - The Council authorized the dissemination of Requests for Proposals for Dial -A -Cab services for eligible elderly and persons with disabilities. The RFP was prepared after a review of current transportation opportunities and how those services can best be accomplished. The City received two proposals for the service which were reviewed and site/ field investigations and interviews were conducted. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council enter into a contract with Diversified Paratransit, Inc. for a 16 -month period (March 1995 through June 30, 1996) with four one-year extensions available upon mutual agreement. The contract will be funded with Proposition A funds. Requested by: City Manager 6.9 RESOLUTION NO. 90-45I: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SETTING FORTH PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF SALARIES, SICK LEAVE, VACATIONS, LEAVES OF ABSENCES AND OTHER REGULATIONS - On March 7, 1995, Council approved the amendment to the City Manager's contract, which amends the City Manager salary. Council also approved the creation of Municipal Information Systems (MIS) Assistant and creation of Community Leader II classifications. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 90-45I, amending the salary of the City Manager and adding the classifications of Municipal Information Systems Assistant and Community Services Leader II, as well as related salary ranges. MARCH 21, 1995 PAGE 5 Requested by: City Manager 6.10 (a) RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDERING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND TO FILE A REPORT RELATED TO MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 AND ANY ASSESSMENTS THEREON FOR FISCAL, YEAR 1995-96 (b) RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDERING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND TO FILE A REPORT RELATED TO MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 AND ANY ASSESSMENTS THEREON FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 (c) RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDERING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND TO FILE A REPORT RELATED TO MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 AND ANY ASSESSMENTS THEREON FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 - The City has an annual program for maintenance of public improve- ments and intends to continue the program by special assessments upon lands within the City's Landscaping Assessment District Nos. 38, 39 and 41. Funds must be provided to enable these Districts to continue operation during FY 1995-96. Proceedings for maintenance of said improvements will be pursuant to the provisions of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution Nos. 95 -XX, 95 -XX and 95 -XX initiating proceedings for Districts 38, 39 and 41 and ordering the preparation of the appropriate engineer reports. Requested by: City Engineer 6.11 RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE GRAND AVENUE STREET REHABILITATION, TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION & INTERSECTION MODIFICATION PROJECT FROM GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LINE, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS - Grand Ave., between Golden Springs Dr. and the San Bernardino County line, is in need of pavement rehabilitation and/or reconstruction. The existing MARCH 21, 1995 PAGE 6 pavement on Grand has been analyzed and evaluated in order to determine the most practical and economical approach for the roadway improvements. Furthermore, synchronization of nine traffic signals along Grand, from SR 57 to easterly City limit, and intersection modifica- tions of Grand Ave./D.B. Blvd. and Grand Ave./Golden Springs Dr. have been incorporated as part of the street rehabilitation project. Plans and specifications have been prepared and completed. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX approving plans and specifications for the Grand Ave. street rehabilitation, traffic signal synchronization and intersection modifica- tion project and authorize the City Clerk to advertise the project for bids. Requested by: City Engineer 6.12 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR STREET MAINTENANCE SERVICES CONTRACT - The City has been contracting with L.A. County for street maintenance services since June 11, 1990. This was a five-year contract which will expire on June 30, 1995. Since the services can be provided by several other providers, staff believes that it is timely to bid these services to address several considerations includ- ing: a work program and budget to tie the work performed to the budget; a formal reporting method to compare budget versus actual expenditure; a formal reporting method to compare the best ways available for the activities being completed at the least cost; timing of billings from contractor; etc. A draft Request for Proposals is attached for Council review and comment. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council authorize distribution of a Request for Proposals for street maintenance services. Requested by: City Engineer 6.13 RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING SENATE BILL 387 (MOUNTJOY) PROHIBITING AN ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FROM ISSUING A SOLID WASTE FACILITY PERMIT FOR A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY, IF THE FACILITY MEETS SPECIFIED CONDITIONS, AS DEFINED - Sen. Mountjoy has introduced Senate Bill No. 387 which would prohibit the location of a Materials Recovery Facility if such facil- ity causes unmitigated environmental impacts on at least one neighboring city with a population of 30,000 or more residents and where 90% or more of the land is zoned for MARCH 21, 1995 PAGE 7 residential uses. SB387, if adopted, would prevent location of the proposed City of Industry MRF at the proposed Grand Ave. location. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX supporting SB387 and authorizing and directing the Mayor to appear before appropriate Senate and Assembly committees to present testimony in support of SB 387. Requested by: Mayor Papen 7. PUBLIC HEARING: None 8. OLD BUSINESS: None 9. NEW BUSINESS: 9.1 ASSESSMENT ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NOS. 38, 39 AND 41 - The City has an annual program for maintenance of public improvements and intends to continue said program by special assessments upon lands within the City's Landscaping Assessment District Nos. 38, 39 and 41. Funds must be provided to enable these Districts to continue operation and maintenance during the 1995-96 Fiscal Year. Furthermore, to accomplish the work, it is necessary to secure the services of a qualified engineering firm to provide the annual assessment engineering services. Staff has received and evaluated six proposals for such services. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council award a professional engineering services contract to GFB-Friedrich & Associates, Inc. in an amount not -to -exceed $10,000, $8,925 and $9,250 for Fiscal Years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 respectively, a contract total of $28,175 plus a contingency amount of $3,000. Requested by: City Engineer 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 11. CLOSED SESSION: May convene to consider: Matters of pending Litigation (G.C. 54956.9), Personnel Items (G.C. 54957), or purchase/sale of real property (G.C. 54956.8). Records not available for public inspections. 12. ADJOURNMENT: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK 1,✓ FROM: / ti' 4 '� St �� C. ` a�� � DATE: 3 �i I C% t ADDRESS: PHONE: J �q ORGANIZATION: C 14 X, r� u ti-- 'V S o� p 6 AGENDA #{SUBJECT: �'" �� �'\ �., �' ` d 0 �' AAA, a ~' SU� -.IL ,7 otoV I k�as 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: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK geC�\JA L�'f�, e S f /)g2 DATE: S' a P g 5 PHONE: U Nltil "% 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: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT CITY CLERK f�Yl%rl0) ���� L 1)>> )6-) Cr Lx 0 ,ti'© 'n �— DATE: 2 PHONE: R 0 LY) S, t o -fn 1a. n-1--) /� l --1r) ki G� S � (— 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 2 3. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR r FEBRUARY 21, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: M/Papen called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m , in the South Coast AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Eagle Scouts Stephen Elfelt, Aaron Greusel and Eagle Scout -Elect Patrick Zubiate, Troop 737. Patrick Zubiate stated that he had been in the Boy Scouts since 5th grade and his experience had been very positive. He chose his Eagle project to benefit his community. Steven Elfelt stated Scouting had been a very influential experience for him during the 7 years that he had been involved and he encouraged others to be involved. Aaron Greusel felt that he had learned to enjoy and respect his community through the 10 years that he had been a Scout. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Miller, Mayor Papen. Mayor Pro Tem Werner was excused. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Frank Usher, Assistant City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney; George Wentz, City Engineer; James DeStefano, Community Development Director, Bob Rose, Community Services Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES: 2.1 PRESENTED COMMENDATION - To Lou Esposito for her service on the Traffic & Transportation Commission. 2.2 PROCLAIMED FEBRUARY, 1995 AS BLACK HISTORY MONTH. 2.3 INTRODUCTION OF NEW SHERIFF TEAM MANAGER - Lieutenant Henson, Walnut Sheriff, announced that he would no longer be team Manager for D.B. and introduced Lieutenant David Stothards, who will take over the position. Lt. Stothards reported that he had been in law enforcement for 28 years with 12 of those years as a Lieutenant. 2.4 M/Papen announced that Michael Jenkins, of Richards, Watson & Gershon, will become the permanent City Attorney effective March 1, 1995 and that ICA/ Montgomery would continue as the Attorney for completion of the General Plan. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., expressed frustration that his microphone was turned off during the General Plan meeting. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., commented on roller blade hockey and how the FEBRUARY 21, 1995 PAGE 2 community could make it safe for children. He advised that Larkstone Park would be an ideal site for this game. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., commented on the "prayer issue" being brought back during meetings and felt that meetings would get off to a better start. He stated that on Item 6.8, the money could be spent elsewhere in the City, since this particular area isn't a real need. As for Item 6.9 regarding extension of library services, he asked to see a statement of how the balance of the $52,500 will be used. M/Papen advised that Item 6.9 addresses the construction of sidewalks and that a Public Hearing was held in January on this issue and no opposition was expressed. The funding source for these sidewalks is Federal Community Block Grant funds. As for Item 6.9, she reported that the $52,500 was approved to keep the library open two additional days a week through June 30, 1994. Bob Arceo, President, D.B. Senior Citizens, thanked the Council for being present at the Seniors' New Year's party. Nick Anis expressed concern regarding the misconduct of certain Council Members in faxing materials to businesses/individuals without approval. He advised that if an unsolicited document is faxed, it is breaking Federal Law. George Barrett asked the Council to expedite the purchase of a car for the Senior Patrol. Al Rumpilla felt that M/Papen was not properly conducting the Public Comment portion of meetings and asked that the display showing Council vote results remain posted for longer periods of time so that the audience can make note of the way Council Members voted. Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., commented on a letter on City letterhead dated February 14, 1995 from M/Papen accepting an invitation to China and asked if the trip would be at the expense of the City and why it had not been addressed before. Jack Healy, 23041 Aspen Knoll Dr., expressed concern regarding M/papen's China trip. Joseph Shu, 1820 Derringer Ln., introduced a petition signed by 57 residents in favor of keeping Open Space open. C/Miller advised that the lots behind his neighborhood is restricted area. Michael Morris, Maple Hill Rd., commended M/Papen for her comments regarding the band program at South Pointe. He asked that the Council refrain from personally attacking each other. Grace Lin, 2901 Steeple Chase, stated she was concerned about the traffic problem on D.B. Blvd., the open space in the City being used for commercial development and development of Tonner Canyon. FEBRUARY 21, 1995 PAGE 3 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: C/Harmony agreed with Mr. Schad's idea for developing Larkstone Park for roller blade hockey. He also agreed that the Senior Patrol needs a car and asked staff to look for extra funds for this purchase. He agreed with Mr. Shu's comments regarding Open Space and felt that Open Space is a very important issue and any land should remain open. He reported that, in the third quarter, the City showed an increase of 5.1% in sales tax production (local sales) with consumer services up by 25.3% Further, since he received a number of complaints regarding the striping and center median on Lemon Ave., he brought this to staffs attention and they are in the process of correcting the problem. He announced that the next Household Toxic Waste Round -up will be on Saturday, March 4, 1995 at Mt. Sac.; that Sidewalk City Hall will be on February 25, 1995 from 11:30 to 2:00 p.m. at K -Mart and that he has installed a new "voice mail system" to inform the community of current issues and allow the public to leave messages for him. He read a letter from the Thompson L.A. News Group regarding negative remarks made against him and commented on an item on the Agenda regarding his censorship. C/Ansari expressed excitement about the South Pointe Middle School and D.B. High School music programs. She commented on the status of the housing program that the City started this year through the L.A. County Community Development Commission. She announced that funding is available for HOV lanes on the 60 fwy. as well as for the Rt. 30 Foothill fwy. She announced the following events: the 2nd Annual Wine Tasting to support the Library to be held on Sunday, April 2, 1995 from 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. at Generations Restaurant; the D.B. Sister Cities' Fundraiser on Thursday, April 6, 1995, with donation of $1.00. She stated that the China trip was scheduled in order to increase economic development and that she was not against the trip as long as it doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. She congratulated Rose and Ray Ledbetter on the recent marriage of their daughter to Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys. C/Miller advised that the Calvary Chapel's bookstore is one of the most popular in the community and provides much sales tax revenue for the City. M/Papen suggested that all faxes provide a statement that allows the receiver to indicate whether he or she does or does not want to be on the mailing list. She advised that she has also received unsolicited faxes. She stated that next month the MTA Board will be considering adoption of a revised plan for transportation expenditures for the next 20 years which is updated or revised every 2 years. On March 8, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. at the AQMD, the City will host a briefing for D.B., Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights residents on the 20 year plan and programs that will affect the San Gabriel Valley. 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN HEARING - February 23, 1995 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - February 23, 1995 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive. 5.3 PLANNING COMMISSION - February 27, 1995 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. FEBRUARY 21, 1995 PAGE 4 5.4 CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN HEARING - February 28, 1995 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.5 CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN HEARING - March 6, 1995 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.6 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - March 7, 1995 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.7 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - March 9, 1995 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Miller moved, C/Ansari seconded to approve the Consent Calendar with the removal of Item 6.9. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Werner 6.1 APPROVED MINUTES - Regular Meeting of January 3, 1995 - as submitted. 6.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 6.2.1 Regular meeting of November 14, 1994 - received & filed 6.2.2 Regular meeting of December 12, 1994 - received & filed 6.2.3 Regular meeting of January 9, 1995 - received & filed 6.3 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES: 6.3.1 Regular meeting of November 10, 1994 - received & filed 6.3.2 Regular meeting of December 8, 1994 - received & filed 6.3.3 Regular meeting of January 12, 1995 - received & filed 6.4 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated February 21, 1995 in the amount of $289,749.38. 6.5 REJECTED CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES: 6.5.1 Filed by Edward Wayne Goode on January 25, 1995 - rejected the request and referred the matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 6.5.2 Filed by Insurance Co. Of North America/Carrara Marble Co. on September 13, 1994 - rejected the request and referred the matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 6.5.3 Filed by Meredith M. Melton on January 25, 1995 - rejected the request and referred the matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 6.6 ACCEPTED PARKWAY TREES PLANTED ALONG MAJOR BOULEVARDS - by Green Giant Landscape; directed the City Manager to sign the Notice of Completion and authorized the release of $1,640 thirty-five days after filing the FEBRUARY 21, 1995 PAGE 5 Notice. 6.7 APPROVED PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS FOR MAINTENANCE OF LIGHTING & LANDSCAPE DISTRICTS 38,39 AND 41: (a) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 95-08: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 38 AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS. (b) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 95-09: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 39 AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS. (c) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 95-10: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 41 AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS. 6.8 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 95-11: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS ON DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD FROM FOUNTAIN SPRINGS ROAD TO PATHFINDER ROAD. MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.9 EXTENSION OF LIBRARY SERVICES AGREEMENT - In response to C/ Harmony, CM/Belanger advised that the Council allocated $160,000 to fund two additional days of library services and that the Council agreed to fund the library at a six-day level and the $52,000 funded the period of time from July 30 through October 1994 for the additional two days allocated in the 1994-95 budget. L.A. County picked up the entire six-day program subsequent to that date. C/Harmony moved, C/Miller seconded to ratify an extension of the agreement for Thursday and Saturday service at a rate of $1,500 per day for the period of July through October, 1994. Payment of the invoice for this period is included in the current Warrant Register. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Werner RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 8:10 p.m. FEBRUARY 21, 1995 PAGE 6 RECONVENE: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None 8. OLD BUSINESS: 8.1 VERBAL STATUS REPORT ON WILDLIFE CORRIDOR MEMBERSHIP - C/Miller reported that the City's Joint Powers Agreement was not formally accepted. He stated that he had gone on a tour that included Chino Hills, Chino Hills State Park, Brea, D.B., Whittier, Rowland Heights, Hacienda Heights and Anaheim Hills. He then showed a map of the "Proposed Wildlife Corridor Study Area" and advised that the governing board adopted a criteria based on the premise that any acquisition program must optimize the balance between resource protection and opportunity to purchase. He advised that Chino Hills State Park, 91 Freeway corridor at Anaheim Hills, Chino Hills, D.B. Tonner Canyon, Scout Reserves, Brea, Fullerton Rd. Connector, La Habra Heights, Whittier and the Colima Connector are the future open space for wildlife and the corridor is headed in that direction. M/Papen asked if the City is a part of the Corridor and if they accepted the amendments. C/Miller stated that the City is not yet an official member, but that he had received positive feedback that the City would become a voting member and not an Ad Hoc Committee. M/Papen suggested that C/Miller take back language describing no -liability by the cities for the Joint Power's Authority's activities. C/Miller advised that he thought that this language was in the JPA agreement; however, the JPA can defend themselves and its members from activities within the JPA. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., advised that Whittier's wildlife migration corridor was established and with the City on the threshold of joining, the need for preservation of wildlife will finally be realized. He asked the Council to sign and approve joining the JPA. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., asked that C/Miller make his notes, reports and paperwork available for public review. He expressed concern on funding for the JPA and where it was coming from. 8.2 ORDINANCE NO. 02 (1995) - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING A PURCHASING SYSTEM AND REPEALING ORDINANCES 20 (1989) AND 20A (1989) - ACM/Usher presented the proposed Purchasing Ordinance for second reading. He advised that this ordinance better qualifies purchasing regulations of the City, makes them more easily understood and FEBRUARY 21, 1995 RECESS: PAGE 7 followed and that staff is presently following the new Ordinance. RECONVENE: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 9:05 p.m. M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 9:13 p.m. 8.2 ORDINANCE NO. 02(1995) (CONTD.) - C/Harmony expressed concern regarding the provision for side-by-side requisitions and a provision enforcing it. C/Ansae advised that she and C/Miller worked with staff on this issue and the questions that C/Harmony and Ms. Birrell were concerned about were addressed. ACM/Usher advised that Section 3.24.190 indicates that the City Manager is authorized to contract where the amount does not exceed $10,000 with any single vendor within a fiscal year provided there exists an unencumbered appropriation in the fund account against which said expense is to be charged. C/Miller moved, C/Ansan seconded to approve for second reading by title only, waive fii l reading and adopt Ordinance No. 02(1995) entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING A PURCHASING SYSTEM AND REPEALING ORDINANCES 20 (1989) AND 20A (1989). With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Werner 9. NEW BUSINESS: 9.1 CITY -ON-LINE REPORT - Asst. to CMButzlaff presented the seven basic tasks to be accomplished by the end of FY 1995: 1) on-line access to the Municipal Code; 2) on-line registration for recreation programs; 3) on-line agenda packets; 4) on-line access to the General Plan; 5) provision of part-time staff person to handle City -on -Line and MIS support; 6) establishment of training courses; and 7) promotion of City -on-line. M/Papen commented that she and MPT/Werner supported the work plan and understood that there will be costs involved. It is important to direct staff in the event any budget amendments need be made. C/Miller advised that Mr. Anis started City -on -Line and asked Mr. Anis to give his opinion on the seven tasks discussed. Mr. Anis advised that there are many public bulletin boards throughout the world and many states are now making arrangements for local governments to be connected to the super -highway. He commented on the history of City -on -Line and how it all FEBRUARY 21, 1995 PAGE 8 began with donations of equipment. He suggested that the City have a system person who could do more with the computer system. C/Harmony asked Mr. Anis how many people use City -on -Line. Mr. Anis indicated that he didn't have those statistics. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., stated that he supported the work plan but would like to see regulations for citizens using City -on -Line regulating their messages or statements. He also stated that some privacy should be accessible. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., asked what and where the "freebie" equipment is located. Al Rumpilla stated that he supported the task presented; however, he asked that "freedom of speech" be set as a policy and included on City -on -Line. Ken Anderson, MIS Director for USC, advised that he has donated some time for development of tasks and suggested that the City include a kiosk at Heritage Park and salvage extra hardwarelsoftware. He also stated that the majority of the community doesn't have the equipment to access the system; therefore, there will not be a lot of users. He asked if the part-time MIS person would be from the outside or an inside employee. M/Papen advised that once these tasks are completed by the due date, then the Committee can move into other projects. She also reiterated Mr. Anderson's comments regarding the City including a kiosk at Heritage Park. C/Ansari stated that she was in favor of City -on -Line and felt that the training course is vital for everyone. She asked what the cost is for the program and that an inventory be provided for all equipment used for the City -on -Line. C/Harmony commented that he was also in favor of City -on -Line; however, he was not in favor of putting more money into the program when its the same number of people using the program. He also asked for an inventory report. In response to C/Miller, CMJBelanger advised that an inventory list exists but that it had not been received by C/Harmony. M10er moved, M/Papen seconded to approve the proposed work plan as specified and direct staff to take the necessary action to complete each task by the end of FY 94-95 and include a kiosk at Heritage Park, salvage extra softwarethardware, include budget adjustments for any items not currently in the budget in the mid -year budget review. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Miller, M/Papen FEBRUARY 21, 1995 PAGE 9 NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Werner 6. CONSENT CALENDAR (CONTD.) 6.10 CONFIRMED APPOINTMENT OF ANNETTE FINNERTY TO THE PARKS & RECREATION CONMSSION - C/Ansari introduced Annette Finnerty as the new Commissioner for the Parks & Recreation Commission. CC/Burgess administered the Oath of Office to Mrs. Finnerty. 8. OLD BUSINESS: 8.3 DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING RULES - Continued to March 7, 1995. 8.4 (a) CONSIDER AMENDMENTS/REVISIONS TO RESOLUTION NO. 91-71 ENTITLED: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL STANDARDS OF OPERATION - Continued to March 7, 1995. (b) CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX ENTITLED: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CENSURING COUNCILMAN CLAIR W. HARMONY - Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., expressed concern over the procedures that the City is following in deciding to support the item. Al Rumpilla was concerned that the Council could censor other Council Members and believed that the Council does not have that power. Michael Morris, Maple Hill Rd., stated that the Council has no right to censor another Council Person when the community voted this person in office. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., asked what right the Council has to censor another member based on allegations. Frances Meehan, Season's Apartment Complex, commented on the positive things C/Harmony has done for the senior community and does not want to see him lost from the Council. Nick Anis commented that the conduct of the Council is important and each Council Member should be held accountable for his/her actions. The following persons also spoke against the proposed censorship of C/Harmony: Mary Jefferson, Barbara Beach-Courchesne, Terry Birrell, FEBRUARY 21, 1995 PAGE 10 Kathleen Wong, Ken Anderson, George Barrett and David Araujo. Dr. Lawrence Rhodes, Fiber Ct., advised that this type of censorship is called a Resolution and C/Harmony has the right to vote. C/Ansari advised that she did not agree with things that C/Harmony stated and did. C/Harmony stated that he just wanted this to be voted on. C/Miller stated that intimidation by the Council toward the City's staff is wrong and would like to see it stop. Continued to March 7, 1995. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 11. ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 11:05 P.M. TO CONSIDER: 1. Pending Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9) Status report re: Oak Tree Lanes v. City of Diamond Bar. 2. Personnel Session (Government Code Section 54957) re: Consideration of appointment of City Attorney. 3. Personnel Session (Government Code Section 54957) re: Evaluation of City Manager. 12. RECONVENE: M/Papen reconvened the meeting from Closed Session at 11:50 p.m. It was announced that Closed Session action was taken to provide a 6% salary increase to the City Manager effective March 1, 1995 with budget and contract amendments to be scheduled for the March 7, 1995 meeting. Motion carried 3 to 1 with C/Harmony voting no. No other reportable action was taken. 13. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk K rn14u1JV�.7 Vr ins %,itT GVUPIGuU SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FEBRUARY 23, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: M/Papen called the meeting to order at 6:12 p.m., at the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by MPT/Werner. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Werner and Mayor Papen. Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk. PUBLIC HEARING: 2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN - M/Papen stated that with respect to the Housing Element, public testimony was received by the Council on February 16, 1995 and continued to this meeting. Regarding Mr. Smith's recommendation on Page II -3, M/Papen directed staff to update residential property values. She further directed staff to update Table II -3 on Page II -10 as well as change the data on Page II -14, II -15A and II -15B to be consistent with the Land Use Element. MPT/Werner requested, on Page II -15, that the following words be added to the last sentence, under Rural Residential: "...or less, depending upon the establishment of a Slope Density Ordinance." On Page 11-17 and 11-18, 2 a Absence of Governmental Funding, M/Papen asked that the following language be added: "The City of Industry, under SB 1718 is required to contribute approximately $8 or 9 million annually to the County Housing Authority for the construction of low and moderate housing within a five mile radius of the City of Industry." She stated that the City would be qualified to apply for this funding. Further, any changes made in the Land Use Element would need to be reflected on Page II -17, under the categories "Medium Density, High Density Residential and Specific Plan and Planned Development." MPT/Werner suggested that on Page II -19, details for parking, height and open space standards be deleted. Mr. Cotton responded that the Dept. of Housing & Community Development requires that the General Plan indicate the ordinances that are in place with regard to these standards because they act as constraints on affordable housing. If standards are changed, a General Plan amendment would be required. Regarding Page II -20, second paragraph under e, Processing Time, C/Miller FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 2 suggested the first sentence be changed to reflect current conditions as follows: "Development processing time in Diamond Bar should be shorter than processing through the County of Los Angeles." M/Papen recommended the paragraph be left as written. Council concurred. Regarding Mr. Smith's comments that Page II -21 does not reflect actual conditions, Council directed staff to reword the first sentence of paragraph four which discusses the sewer lines in "The Country Estates" and that it be modified to reference that "there are 140 lots on (blank) number of acres within 'The Country Estates' not on sewer." With respect to Page H-25, M/Papen suggested that the fourth paragraph be amended to read: "The Council and the Diamond Bar Mediation Center also handle local landlord -tenant disputes within Diamond Bar, and indicates that there are approximately 1-2 discrimination complaints per month from residents in Diamond Bar." Regarding II -27, Goal 2, she directed staff to correct the spelling of "regardless." Regarding the second sentence on Page 11-31 under L.A. County Housing Authority, "annually" should be included so the sentence reads: "An estimated $9 million annually to be made available through the County for affordable housing, new construction, acquisition, rehabilitation and preservation." Further, the three Goals in the Housing Element should begin with "Consistent with the Vision Statement" per MPT/Wemer's request. Edward C. Jacobs, Pres. and CEO, L.A. Area Council, Boy Scouts of America, read two letters addressed to the Council. MPT/Werner believed that the Boy Scouts are in support of a Land Use designation on the Firestone property of "Specific Plan." He indicated he was told by the Wildlife Corridor JPA that the Boy Scouts approached them indicating they wish to sell to JPA their interest in the property. He asked Mr. Jacobs to reconcile the request for Specific Plan designation and a sale of the property to a wildlife conservation group. Mr. Jacobs explained that the fiduciary responsibility of the Boy Scout Board is to explore all opportunities. Toby Liebermann, Project Manager, Kosmont & Associates, land use consultants to the Boy Scouts, stated that the request was to clarify that there may be portions of the property that are not at 25% or more slope. The Scouts are conducting a topographical study to indicate which portions would come under a slope ordinance and which portions would not. M/Papen asked staff if there are topographical maps on file that would reflect that the entire property has a slope 25% or greater. CDD/DeStefano answered that staff has no topographical map for the Boy Scout FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 3 property. Based on a survey of all of vacant properties in the City, staff concluded that the Boy Scout property contains slopes greater than 25%. C/Miller indicated that the General Plan is inaccurate because there are slopes contained within the Boy Scout property that are less than 25%. MPT/Werner concurred with the request of the Boy Scouts. Responding to Mr. Smith, CDD/DeStefano stated that the Housing Opportunities Area Map on Page II -15B needs to be clarified. The intent of the map was to show where the housing opportunity areas exist. The Specific Plan designated areas on the map reflect the Land Use Element's desire for a future Specific Plan. With respect to the Specific Plan designation, the underlying zoning of Agricultural designates one dwelling unit per parcel. C/Miller stated that since there is currently more than one dwelling unit on the property, the designation is inaccurate. MPT/Werner agreed with the request to delete reference to one dwelling unit per parcel since Figure II -1 on Page II -15B has four land use designations ranging from Rural Residential through High Density Residential. The Specific Plan is an overlay and adds to the underlying land use designation and can allow all of the other uses otherwise permitted in the land use designation. He suggested that Specific Plan is not a designation in the context of the other designations indicated, it is more of an overlay. In response to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano stated that an application package for Specific Plan would incorporate a General Plan amendment. The Specific Plan would serve as an overlay to the zoning which would likely change. The sphere of influence would probably come to the City in the form of a pre -annexation agreement. C/Miller stated that the language grants entitlements. In the event that the property contains more than one parcel, the City could be granting entitlements where the intent is for Specific Plan. He felt it was appropriate to remove the 1 du per parcel. M/Papen stated the Council supports both requests from the Boy Scouts with respect to the Housing Element. With no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing. LAND USE ELEMENT: M/Papen suggested that on Page I-10, Strategy 1.1.1, the Council adopt MPT/Werner's suggestion to add "or less, depending upon the establishment of a slope density ordinance" so that the sentence reads: "The maximum gross density of Rural Residential will be 1.0 dwelling unit per gross acre or less, depending upon the FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 4 establishment of a slope density ordinance." She reiterated Council's desire to review Land Use categories to allow the City to comply with the REND numbers for low and moderate housing. She asked that the following two classifications be added to Page I-11: 1) change Strategy 1.1.1 e. High Density Residential from 16.0 dwelling units per acre to 20.0 dwelling units per acre; and 2) add a classification between Medium Density and High Density to read: Medium -High Density with 16.0 units per acre. MPT/Werner requested that staff present a statement regarding State regulations dealing with density bonuses for low and moderate income housing. Don Cotton, Cotton/Beland & Assoc., stated that a State mandate allows for a maximum 25% density bonus for affordable units when they are added as part of a new project. According to the mandate, a developer must be permitted an increased number of units not to exceed 25%. MPT/Wemer suggested that the Land Use designations remain as written and add a statement which acknowledges the State mandate, in language that makes it clear to all property owners, that it is a possibility under State law that a developer may invoke this provision. Mr. Cotton indicated such a provision will not aid in obtaining the finding of compliance from HCD because this is part of the law. The policy of HCD in the recent past has been to require that the maximum allowable number of units be at least 25 per acre in order to be considered affordable. Through conversations with HCD, the City has had an indication that 20 units may be an acceptable minimum because of the constraints that exist in D.B. Responding to MPT/Werner, ICA/Montgomery stated that HCD has paramount authority. If they elect to do so, they may suspend the General Plan or attempt to impose regulations by notification or court order. The greatest threat is from activists filing to enjoin development or issuance of building permits based upon an allegation that the General Plan is lacking because the Housing Element does not meet State standards. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff is supportive of a 20 unit per acre maximum density position. He understood that the 20 unit per acre maximum that the City of Walnut proposed has been acceptable to by HCD as their Housing Element is being reviewed. Walnut and D.B. have very similar characteristics with respect to the availability of sites, topography and environmental issues. Applying 20 unit per acre classifications to flat land properties in the City plus a 25% bonus meets the HCD number of 25 dwelling units per acre. In the stated opinion of HCD, 25 unit per acre densities are required for affordable housing in L.A. County absent any other subsidies that the local agency might provide to drive down the cost of ownership or rental housing. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano identified the following properties which were built 20 or 22 units per acre that would be reclassified should the Council FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 5 approve the 20 unit per acre maximum: the Daisey Apartments on Grand Ave. with a density of almost 17 units per acre. The Hampton Ct. condominiums on Washington St. at Brea Canyon Rd., with density of about 17 units per acre. The Village condominiums on Golden Spgs. has a density of slightly more than 20 units per acre. The highest density project is the Fall Creek condominium project behind the K -Mart shopping center at approximately 21.8 units per acre. Also in response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that there are 53 areas identified as Vacant Land Housing Opportunity Areas. Referring to the schematic and map, the following areas are available for housing opportunities: #3, #4, #6, #7, #13, #14, #20, #21, #25, #29, #31 and #34, #39, #40, #41, #48, #49, #50, #51 and #52. The final site not shown on the map is identified as parcel #54, two acres behind the D.B. Congregational Church. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that parcel #24 is approximately 2 acres and zoned at 30 units per acre. This site has a building restriction, it is a flood hazard area and has significant slope. M/Papen asked if there are available properties in the City that are not currently zoned Commercial or Industrial but could be. CDD/DeStefano stated that parcel #45 (approx. 5 acres) owned by JCC could qualify for this designation and is presently designated at about 25 units per acre. The General Plan recommended by the Planning Commission and supported by staff recommends a Commercial designation for this site. The second area is the School District property. It is approximately 15 to 20 acres and is more suitable for an industrial site and continuation of a public facility. MPT/Werner asked if staff feels there is any opportunity for a 20 unit per acre project in the Gateway Corporate Center area. CDD/DeStefano responded that the Gateway Corporate Center area is approximately 200 acres of a Master Planned Development. The areas which might be considered are #33 through #47 on the map. He felt that, at present, those sites would be better suited for Commercial Office Space, Headquarters Office Space, etc and continuing the theme established within the Gateway Center. He would not recommend a mixed-use product. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated the Tres Hermanos area within the jurisdiction of the City is approximately 800 acres and identified as parcel #6. It is owned by the City of Industrys Redevelopment Agency and is part of the larger 2,700 acre total Tres Hermans Ranch property that flows over into Chino Hills. It is a candidate site for a number of different land uses including multi -family. Some cities have established concentrated areas for providing low and moderate income housing. Over the years, that has been determined to be an unacceptable practice for a number of reasons. Most recently, HCD has frowned upon the cities that tend to lump all of FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 6 their responsibilities into one single location. This site is appropriate for some of the low and moderate income housing. Staff would not recommend that the entirety of the City's responsibility be placed in that site. The City has not yet to develop specifics for the site. CDD/DeStefano stated there is one additional site which might be a suitable candidate for commercial zoning. This site is Lorbeer Junior High and the adjacent church. Although the site currently has other uses, it affords the opportunity for reclassification and relocation of the existing land uses. M/Papen reiterated that staff recommended four sites for high density housing opportunities which are parcels #4, #6, #20, #25 #54. CDD/DeStefano indicated that these sites should be considered candidates for a 20 unit per acre density and that the four existing products be designated with a 20 unit designation. The two considerations for Commercial property are site #45 and the WVUSD property on Lemon Ave. The Council has letters from the Boy Scouts, the School District, Bramalea, Shell Oil, SASAK and RnP objecting to a Land Use designation on their properties. All of these items are to be considered by the Council. Responding to C/Ansari, ICA/Montgomery stated that if the letters from property owners are read into the record, public hearing can be held at this meeting. Responding to C/Harmony, ICA/Montgomery stated that the opinion regarding the owners' objection to the Open Space designation on Lots 1 and 61 has not been completed; however, it will be available for the February 28 meeting. M/Papen stated that the owners of the school district property on Brea Canyon Rd. object to an Open Space designation and have asked for a Planned Development designation. Regarding Site D, the School District is seeking a designation of Planned Development. Bramalea would like to be zoned Planned Development with the stipulation that approximately 70% of the property would not be developed and that the entire density would be in one parcel. MPT/Werner reminded staff that Council requested the City Attorney to clarify some land use issues. Responding to M/Papen, Kevin Hughes, Shell Western Exploration and Production, 1800 E. Lambert Rd., Suite 225, Brea read a letter from his firm. In response to MPT/Werner, Mr. Hughes stated he is not familiar with the Williamson Act. He will determine if this has any bearing on the property. MPT/Werner stated that the Williamson Act is an Agricultural designation for tax purposes. FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 7 MPT/Werner asked if Shell would oppose any efforts on the part of the City to expand the sphere of influence westerly, and with respect to the properties currently within the sphere of influence and what was Shell's attitude regarding annexation. Mr. Hughes indicated that a constructive dialogue regarding both properties would be very important. Shell would be opposed to annexation with regard to the property west of the SOI. Regarding the property east of SR 57, there are no current plans. MPT/Werner favored retaining the existing zoning of those properties outside of the City limits and negotiating terms for possible annexation to the City. He asked Mr. Hughes if this would be adverse to Shell's position. Mr. Hughes stated that while it would not necessarily be adverse, it would not give Shell the flexibility it seeks. MPT/Werner stated that the designation of the property east of the SR 57 as SP would not impact Shell's zoning as long as the property remains in L.A. County. He asked Mr. Hughes if Shell would have an adverse reaction to leave the designation AG rather than SP. Mr. Hughes responded that they would not view it as an adverse policy; however, it would create more work for them. Responding to M/Papen, MPT/Werner stated he would prefer to have the existing zoning remain in place for all of the sphere of influence properties. However, he is open to debate the issue with Council. C/Miller asked Mr. Hughes if it is Shell's perception that the City is unwilling to work with Shell in the future and by applying the Agricultural designation, the City is not granting flexibility. Conversely, by applying an SP designation it gives Shell the feeling that the City is open to Shell's recommendations. Mr. Hughes responded that this is Shell's perception. M/Papen announced that the Public Hearing for Lots 1 and 61 will be continued to Tuesday, February 28, 1995. CDD/DeStefano reported that Boy Scout issues outlined in their letters related to the Land Use Element begin on Page I-26, Table I-3, fourth line. The bottom portion of the table shows the 3,200 acre property in the sphere of influence is stricken. The information was restored because it was removed due to a typographical error. The next item has been dealt with in the Housing Element. The third item in the letter refers to I-12, Strategy 1. 1.7 stating there is an inconsistency between this description and identification of park designations. The description of the Park designation was a refinement by the Planning Commission when the Commission was considering designating the Boy Scout property as Private Recreation (PR). Upon further review FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 8 by the Commission, they agreed to change the designation of the Boy Scout property to Agricultural/Specific Plan. Therefore, the statement regarding the Firestone Boy Scout Camp should be stricken from this strategy. The final item deals with the Housing Element and slopes greater than 25% and that issue was covered. The concluding paragraph of the letter suggests that rejection of their requests would be contradictory to the intended SP designation and damaging to the interests of the Boy Scouts and that point is deserving of more Council discussion and conclusion regarding the appropriate designation for their site. Seeing no objection from Council, M/Papen stated that staff corrections to the General Plan will include the Boy Scout's requested changes and corrections. Mr. Cotton stated that in the course of all of the changes to the General Plan and the Boy Scout's requested changes to Table II -1, all of the language that is designated either Agriculture or Specific Plan has no underlying density designation. He recommended that the Council assign a density designation of either 1 du per 5 acres or as high as 1 du per 40 acres as a permitted use. He further stated that under State law, the City is required to indicate the allowable intensity or density of use of any properties covered by the General Plan. Responding to M/Papen, Mr. Cotton stated that Strategy 1.1.8, Page I-12 and Strategy 1.1.9, Page I-13 should contain a density designation. He further stated that there are additional Agricultural designations in other areas of the General Plan. M/Papen asked if this requirement would include the PD designation. CDD/DeStefano responded that it would not be included. In response to M/Papen, Mr. Cotton referred the Council to Table I-3 on Page I-26. Under Permitted Density/Intensity, other Designations, no intensity is given, only reference to a footnote. The AG/SP and the AG designations do not presently have any underlying intensity or density standard and he believed that this is desirable. Under case law, the density standard could be as high as 1 du per 5 acres. It is unlikely that that land would develop under those standards, but it does establish a density standard for the area. MPT/Werner recommended that the City follow the current zoning of AG and indicate the residential density prescribed under current L.A. County zoning of 1 du per 2 acres for purposes of consistency. CDD/DeStefano recommended that this issue be explored further and to present a recommendation to Council regarding an appropriate intensity/density classification for the AG and AG/SP Land Use designations. Mr. Hughes indicated that Shell would like the opportunity to review alternatives with staff. FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 9 Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated the matter would be brought before the Council at the February 28 General Plan meeting. David Araujo suggested that with respect to the Open Space designation, the Council include wording to allow for a property owner of a single property dwelling to expand his home or build a structure on the property without affecting other Open Space designations throughout the City. Responding to Mr. Araujo, C/Miller stated that he does not propose that the City should change the designation of deeded open space or recorded open space property. He was concerned with the rights of property owners and did not want to use police or government power abuse to take properties. For the record, M/Papen noted that the Council had voted 5-0 in support of the conservancy. Wilbur Smith stated that referring to slope density on Page I-10, Strategy 1.1.1 is confusing. He further stated that 20 units per acre would be appropriate if the rent is affordable to low income families. Max Maxwell asked that copies of the letters be available for pickup at City Hall. M/Papen reiterated previous General Plan changes and asked for Council consensus: On Page I-3, 3 Sphere of Influence, include Shell and other property owners to reflect a better description. Regarding Shell's request to include the Sphere of Influence property under 1. Land Use Mix Issue Analysis, Page I-7, this item will be held over for discussion by the Council. On Page I-10, Goal 1, add "Consistent with the Vision Statement" to the beginning of the sentence. Regarding Page I-10, Strategy 1.1.1 a., add the language "or less density depending upon the establishment of a Slope Density Ordinance." On Page I-11, regarding the issue of adding medium-high density with 16 dwelling units per acre and high density at 20 dwelling units per acre, Council agreed to hold the item for discussion. Regarding Item funder Strategy 1.1.1., Page I-11, remove the word "scale" from the first and second lines. Item g., Strategy 1.1.1, Page I-11 is moved to Strategy 1.5.3, Page I-17. FEBRUARY 23, 1995 PAGE 10 Council requested alternative language on Open Space under Strategy 1.1.6, Page I-12. This item is held for future discussion. On Page I-12, Strategy 1.1.7, the Firestone Boy Scout Camp requested their name be deleted since they are in a different classification. Council concurred. With respect to Page I-17, Strategy 1.5.4 a., change the strategy to read: "Acquisition of land for parks and natural area conservation through a process of entitlement review and density transfers." Council concurred. Add Strategy 1.5.4 d. on Page I-17 to read: "Through the entitlement process where the landowner/developer would agree to sell at less than market value or dedicate property in exchange for development rights." Council concurred. C/Ansari requested a discussion on Objective 1.5 and attached Strategies. Because she will be absent for some period of time, she requested that the final decision for changes and approval be held until she returns and that she be given adequate time to review any proposed changes with staff and one Council Member to comply with the Brown Act. Regarding Strategy 1.5.5, Page I-17, delete "smaller" from the second to last sentence. With respect to Strategy 1.6.5, Page I-18, Bramalea requested that Open Space in the last line be changed to "Planned Development." This item is held for further Council consideration. On Page I-19, Goal 2, Page I-20, Goal 3 and Page I-23, Goal 4 add "Consistent with the Vision Statement" to the beginning of the sentence. Regarding Strategy 4.2.2, Page I-24 Council will hold discussion on Shell's objection. C/Ansari stated that she would like to see more areas designated on the map for medium and high density development. She was concerned about some of the designations that sone of the property owners requested such as the change requested by WVUSD on Site D to Planned Development. She stated she preferred that the South Pointe property remain Open Space or Open Space/Specific Plan. Regarding Bramalea, there needs to be clearer wording developed with respect to the designation of the 300/c and 70% issue. She understood the concerns of Shell and she agreed with AG/SP. She indicated the proposed Boy Scout request for changes need further discussion. She was also concerned with areas of the General Plan which refer to Planned Development. The Plan needs very clear language so that citizens understand what is meant by this designation. Responding to M/Papen, C/Ansari agreed with the Commercial designation for the school district property on Lemon Ave. and the JCC site at the off -ramp of the SR 60 FEBRUARY 23, 1995 4. PAGE 11 and D.B. Blvd. In addition, she felt that any of the four sites previously mentioned for high density development would be appropriate. C/Mller moved, C/Ansari seconded to incorporate changes requested in the previous discussion by Council and the requests in writing by the Boy Scouts of America and that these changes be implemented to the Housing Element. The revised Housing Element should be expeditiously prepared by staff with four days and brought back to Council for final approval within 30 days. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, Miller, MPT/Werner, MIPapen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ANNOUNCEMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. ATTEST: Mayor None There being no further business to conduct, the meeting TOMMYE CRIBBINS, Deputy City Clerk 1. h. x 1TT--iTao oL� Tiii+ l�T TY COf_iNCiL `� SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FEBRUARY 28, 1995 r CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Papen called the meeting to order at 6:162 p.m. at the South Coast AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by C/Miller. ROLL CALL: Mayor Papen, Council Members Harmony, and Miller. Mayor Pro Tem Werner and Council Member Ansari were excused. Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney; Jim DeStefano, Community Development Director and Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT - CDD/DeStefano reported that the Council received proposals from the following for changes to the Land Use designation for their properties: WVUSD for reconsideration of the Open Space designation on the South Pointe Middle School property and the Public Facilities designation proposed for the Site D prop- erty; Bramalea's request for expansion of existing language to permit implementation of the MOU, a project incorporating 50 to 70 acres of their 400 acre holding off of D.B. Blvd. They requested a designation to allow the product to be construct- ed. This involves changes to the recommendation proposed by the Planning Commission of RL/OS with SP; Shell Oil owns about 350 acres in the sphere of influence and requested a designation change from AG to AG/SP which is consistent with the Boy Scouts' 3,200 acre holding within the sphere of influence area. The issue over the Boy Scout property is the appropriate level of development density for that area; RNP Development requested a designation on their 68 acre Grand Ave. site that would be consistent with the current zoning classification which permits about two units per acre of residential development. Planning Commission recommended OS for the site; SASAK Corp., in correspondence to the Planning Commission, recommended a designation of RL for their 6.7 acre site on Morning Sun Ave. This would be consistent with the recently -approved conceptual plan for their 21 -unit residen- tial project. The Planning Commission recommended OS for that property. There are staff -related issues responding to a discussion by Council on February 23 regarding a 20 unit per acre multi -family land use classification. He suggested that four to five areas within the existing developed areas be designated at 20 units per acre and that an additional three FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 2 or four areas be considered for a 20 unit per acre designa- tion. Those projects are the Daisy Apartments, Windwood Condominiums, Village Condominiums, Fallcreek Condominiums, the vacant property of five to ten acres in Tres Hermanos, 10 to 12 acres across the street from Maple Hill Rd. on D.B. Blvd., about two and one-half acres behind the LDS Church and about a two -acre site behind the Congregational Church on D.B. Blvd. at Morning Canyon Rd. He presented a response to the questions regarding the Open Space issues and a letter received from RNP through their agent, Jan Dabney, regarding Lots 1 and 61. M/Papen referred to Page I-7 for discussion of Deed and Map Restrictions under 1. Land Use Mix. C/Harmony felt that map restrictions should not be removed on a development; especially open space map restrictions as GPAC identified them, without a vote of the people. C/Miller proposed that the last sentence on Page I-7, 1. Land Use Mix a. first paragraph be changed to read: "In some cases, deed restrictions were imposed to ensure that development would not occur without further legislative review." C/Miller suggested that under b. Open Space Definition and Preservation, Page I-7, the first sentence be changed to read: "There are different types of undeveloped lands within the City." He further proposed that under Strategy 1.1.6, Page I- 12, the second sentence be changed to read: "This designation also includes lands which may have been restricted to Open Space by map restriction, deed/designation, condition, cove- nant and/or restriction, or by an Open Space Easement pursuant to California Government Code (CGC), Sec. 51070, et seq. and Section 64499, et seq." Regarding Page I-16 and I-17, he suggested that Strategy 1.5.3 be changed to Strategy 1.5.1 and make the current 1.5.1 Strategy 1.5.2. Add Strategy 1.5.3 to read: "Land designated as Open Space by deed dedication, condition and a restriction by open space easement GC Sec. 51070, et seq. or by map restriction explicit or previous subdivision must comply with an established review and decision making process prior to the recision, termination, abandonment and/or removal of an open space dedication ease- ment and/or restriction." Add a. under new Strategy 1.5.3 to read: "Vacant land which deed is burdened by an open space dedication, condition, covenant and/or restriction shall be required to be subject to the abandonment process substan- tially similar to that which is set forth in GC Sec. 51090, et seq." Add b. under Strategy 1.5.3 to read: "Vacant land which is burdened by an open space easement pursuant to GC FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 3 Sec. 51070, et seq. shall be required to be subject to the abandonment process set forth in GC 51090, et seq." Add c. under Strategy 1.5.3 to read: "Vacant land which is burdened by an explicit open space designation delineated upon a map which was the result of a previous subdivision approval shall be required to be subjected to at least one public hearing before the City Council prior to any action to remove said restriction." Change Strategy 1.5.4 to read: "Vacant land and/or existing residential lots burdened by map restrictions which delineates limitations or prohibitions related to build- ing construction, allowable residential units or other such non -open space restrictions shall be required to be subject to a process established by the City Council prior to removal of such restrictions." Subsection a. would read: "Vacant land burdened by non -open space map restrictions shall be required to be subjected to at least one public hearing before the City Council before any action can be taken to remove any such restrictions." Subsection b. would read: "Existing residen- tial lots that are burden by non -open space map restrictions shall be required to be subject to a process established by the City Council prior to removal of any such restrictions." He recommended that what was previously Strategy 1.5.4, now be Strategy 1.5.5 to read: "Obtain open space land through feasible acquisition and management techniques such as: a) acquisition of land for parks and natural area conservation through a process of title review or density transfers among land uses of like designation and title review" and leave b., c., and d. as written. He explained that by adding this language it is clear that if a property is deed restricted, the owner must comply with Government Codes and Government process to change those restrictions. C/Harmony understood that the former provision, removed by the Planning Commission, of requiring a public vote for relief of map restrictions, would be added back in and that the require- ment of relieving these types of restrictions would be one public hearing. Opinions from the City Attorney indicated that the City requires a declaration that there be justifica- tion for relief from the restrictions by public hearing anyway. It appeared as though C/Miller's corrections did not materially change anything. C/Miller responded that he is attempting to eliminate any confusion on the part of the community who might think the City is trying to circumvent State law by including the specific language in the General Plan. Regarding the increase of density question, C/Harmony stated that he received many calls from concerned citizens and that he had a problem with lack of public notice. He would rather FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 4 handle low income housing another way than increasing densities to the highest they have ever been in the City. M/Papen responded that the Vacant Land Housing Opportunity under Land Use dated February 16, stated that the property on D.B. Blvd. is currently zoned 30 units per acre. It was suggested that zoning be 16 or 20 units per acre. This would be a 30% to 50 % decrease, not an increase. Property behind the LDS Church is zoned 25 units per acre, so 16 to 20 units per acre would be a 20% to 40% reduction. It is misleading to indicate to the community that there will be an increase when it is already zoned higher. C/Miller believed that there was confusion on the part of the citizens if they called C/Harmony. The Council is not enacting any zone changes on any property in the City. Designating a land use designation in the General Plan does not allow a zone change. In order to change the zoning of any existing property, there must be a public hearing for which people would have to be noticed. M/Papen opened the Public Hearing. Karen Capestro, 1652 S. Longview, expressed concern regarding changes to the Open Space designation. She requested that the designation remain Open Space and not Open Space/Specific Plan. Responding to M/Papen, Ms. Capestro stated that she was primarily concerned with Lots 1 and 61 with respect to the change of designation. M/Papen asked Ms. Capestro to tell the Council what was represented to her in a phone call she received regarding the change of designation. Ms. Capestro responded that it was represented to her that there would be a change from Open Space designation with no building. She was told that the designation was going to be changed to Open Space/Specific Plan designation which would mean that a developer could build one parcel in the area. M/Papen believed that what was represented to Ms. Capestro is not entirely accurate. The current designation allows for one dwelling unit per parcel with all of the map restrictions that are currently on the property. Council received a letter from the property owner objecting to the Open Space designation because they feel that about eight of the 64 acres has an Open Space dedicated easement. They are not asking to have that removed. There is an obligation that, if the City declares FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 5 the property Open Space, it could be termed a "taking" and the Council would be required to pay just compensation to the property owner for the land. The property owner is asking that current land use be consistent with the zoning and for it to remain as is. The recommendation was that the entire parcel be declared Open Space. It is currently zoned Residential, which is consistent with zoning of adjacent properties. C/Miller stated that previous recommendations are applicable to Lots 1 and 61 and any properties which have map restric- tions, whether they are designated PD or RR conforming with existing zoning, do not remove map restrictions, deed restrictions and open space easements. Responding to Ms. Capestro, CM/Belanger stated that in order for the owner of Lots 1 and 61 to build an access road to the property, an application for development proposal would be made to the City and one of the requirements would be to indicate ingress/egress for the project. The project would go through a complete development review by both the Planning Commission and Council with full public notice for all property within 300 feet of the development. Before it could be constructed, Council would have to remove restrictions that currently exist on that property. C/Harmony asked ICA/Montgomery to clarify Mr. Dabney's request that part of the property had a map restriction on it and the rest did not. ICA/Montgomery referred C/Harmony to the memo packet presented to the Council. The map and deed restricted parcels are another form of open space and on Lots 1 and 61, no building permit may be issued without going through the process to remove map restrictions. Teressa Guber, 24303 Rimford P1., asked why the owners believe the other 60.5 acres were not designated Open Space. She asked if Lot 1 and 61 were still designated Open Space because that is what she was told when she bought her home. M/Papen responded that the property owner felt that there are about 8 acres designated Open Space with the rest of the prop- erty being map restricted, which is contrary to what ICA/ Montgomery indicated and the matter may have to be resolved in court. She stated that the person who sold Ms. Guber the property misinformed her. It was her opinion that the entire property is not designated Open Space. M/Papen stated that as a public entity, the rights of the FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 6 property must be recognized and dealt with in a legal manner. Ms. Guber stated that citizens have rights, not just one or two people that own some property. M/Papen responded that this is not so under the law. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., stated that Planned Development does not belong in D.B. and it will not be in the General Plan. He further stated that WVUSD bought their property because they had an emergency, which was probably concocted. The issue is that the School District told the public that they were not going to develop the property and within weeks or months later, Dr. Hockwalt asked for Planned Development. With respect to Site D, that battle was fought years ago. Regarding Bramalea, Shell Oil and Boy Scouts wanting Planned Development, it will not be in the General Plan. C/Miller implied that if the designation remains Open Space, it falls into the map restricted issue. It is very detailed, it is too complex. GPAC stated it simply. Map and deed restrictions require a vote of the people for removal. Regarding the 800 acres of Tres Hermanos, every HCD unit could go there. C/Miller bought the property and he is shooting for getting the restrictions removed. He indicated that there are all kinds of interpretations and the Citizens to Protect Country Living designated him to appear before the Council, videotape the proceedings and keep them informed. He stated there will be another referendum. Eric Stone, 24401 Darrin Dr., stated that on the surface, the idea of having open space is very attractive to all and that it is a way of encouraging others to get involved that someone has a master plan to undermine the open spaces in D.B. People own the property and when they purchased it, they had certain rights to it and if the City cannot buy the property, then the City needs to be fair. If the City was able to take the properties and designate them Open Space, there are lost tax revenues needed for services. Not only does the property owner lose, the citizens lose. Regarding another possible referendum, he stated that it will cost the taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money to satisfy people who seem, on the surface, to mean well for the City but if their ideas were carried out, they would be grossly prohibitive for taxpayers. He stated that downzoning would deny citizens the highest and best use of the property. He felt that many citizens would object to this approach and that the City has a good grasp on what liabilities are involved in takings and downzonings or open space designations. FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 7 Frank Williams, 9227 Haven Ave., Ste. 280, Rancho Cucamonga, Executive Officer for the Building Industry Assn. of So. Calif., Baldy View Chapter, referred to the memo addressed to the Council by ICA/Montgomery. He indicated that he spoke with the building industry's general counsel and read the counsel's response letters. (See attachments). Christine McPeak, President, WVUSD Board of Trustees, stated that the Board did not want to purchase the South Pointe property. The Board felt that it was imperative that the school be built and because it now owns the property, it is the job of the owners to maximize the use and benefit to the entire district and the community. In addition, the Board felt that the rights of the property that existed at the time of their purchase were transferred to the District. The PD designation requested would grant the District more options than currently existed under the proposed designation. The Board felt that the proposed designation would devalue the property, diminish the assets and ultimately harm the District and the community at large. The Board is committed to preserving the major portions of the canyon. M/Papen asked Ms. McPeak if, at some time in the future, the Board returned to the Council with a proposal for the property, would a minimum of 30 percent of the property remain in its natural state. Ms. McPeak responded that 30 percent would be a minimum. M/Papen asked if the Council were to approve a Planned Development designation that it would be a condition of the plan approval that 30 percent of the land would be undisturbed. Ms. McPeak responded that it would. C/Harmony asked Ms. McPeak if the District would guarantee that all of the land would remain the property of the District and never sold to a developer. Ms. McPeak responded that it could be a condition of the 30 percent but not all of the land. M/Papen expressed concern about the Council labeling property as Open Space before there is a written agreement in a deed or development agreement. C/Harmony stated that he wanted all of the 78 acres to remain under the ownership and control of the School District. FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 8 Ms. McPeak indicated she could not guarantee that for the entire 78 acres, only for the designated Open Space. C/Miller asked if Ms. McPeak would agree with the following verbiage: "That the property owned by the Walnut Valley Unified School District be zoned PD and that the surplus prop- erties owned by the School District consisting of the 75 acres known as Sandstone Canyon will be required to incorporate into a Planned Development proposal the following minimum stan- dards: That the most sensitive portion of the site shall be retained as permanent open space; and the plan shall incorpor- ate the planning of a site preparation to accommodate develop- ment of Larkstone Park to a suitable size and location to serve the neighborhood as approved by the City." Ms. McPeak stated she could not make a commitment as one member of a Board; however she agreed that the wording was appropriate. M/Papen stated she is hesitant to grant the request on site D because the issue of Larkstone Park had not been resolved over a period of five years. For anything to be considered on site D, it would be necessary for the School District to present an acceptable plan for resolving this issue. She asked Ms. McPeak to convey the message to the Board members that, as a community, the City needs to get recreational facilities developed in that area of D.B. There was land set aside which has been used for other purposes for the past five years. This site will not be a part of the 30 percent of the property set aside. Ms. McPeak indicated the District is amenable to working out the details. M/Papen asked Dr. Hockwalt to state the benefits to the community of allowing uses other than school facilities on the property and natural open space with respect to the property on Brea Canyon Rd. Dr. Hockwalt answered that the District is currently conduct- ing a study to ascertain what the possibilities might be. There are developable areas along the perimeters of the prop- erty and, more especially, the area adjacent to South Pointe. Those are the areas that would be considered for public facility development or some other means yet to be determined. The architect indicated that completion of South Pointe is slated for December, 1995. Carolyn Elfelt, 21119 Silver Cloud Dr., stated that she volunteers at both South Pointe Middle School and D.B. High FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 9 School. Many parents who support the schools and raise funding were present in support of the District's request that their property be deemed Planned Development. She indicated that the group would like the school to have all of the options possible when it comes time to use their property. Wilbur Smith stated that he observed that C/Miller and ICA/Montgomery seemed to be in agreement with regard to both map and deed restrictions, what they mean and how they are implemented. He supported C/Miller's language for the General Plan. With respect to the School District, he felt that their only job was to teach children and their assets belong to the citizens and not to the Board. When the District decides that property they hold for the general public is not going to be used by the District, that property should be relinquished to some other element of government for determining its use. He believed the School Board was not in a position to make a decision about open space or land use. Regarding Bramalea, he would like to see the areas for building and open space shown on a map contained in the General Plan. With respect to Lots 1 and 61, he supported no building on the property and he asked how this would be shown on the map. He approved of the Boy Scout request as long as it does not involve a large development. C/Miller stated that the School Board is elected and has a fiduciary obligation to represent the District. One of their obligations is to safeguard assets of the District and maximize the utility of those assets. He asked Mr. Smith how he would suggest they accomplish these things understanding the obligation they have to the people they represent. Mr. Smith responded that whoever provides the funding for the School Board is the individual, association or group that purchased the property. They should turn it back to the State and let the State decide what happens to the property. Dave Capestro, 1652 S. Longview Dr., referring to Lots 1 and 61, indicated that the land designation within the General Plan states that a land use of those properties is proposed Open Space and he agreed with this designation. Responding to Mr. Capestro, M/Papen stated that Lots 1 and 61 are not unique. These same issues apply to at least six properties in the City and the applications must be consist- ent. If the City designates Lots 1 and 61 Open Space, then the property owners have no development rights and they deserve compensation. In the General Plan, it calls for an Open Space Inventory and a prioritization of lands that should be acquired by the City and establishes three or four differ- FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 10 ent opportunities and means of acquiring the land. One is by allowing development on part of the property in order to have a portion donated. Another is to have the City purchase the property. By applying a specific ruling to this one property, the City would be accused of discrimination. These are major issues and until that property has been dedicated to an agency that is going to preserve the property, or until it is pur- chased by the City for Open Space, the Council will have to deal with the issues. The same can be said for the School District property, the Bramalea property, etc. and the City must deal with all property owners fairly and in a consistent manner. She further stated that she would be willing to place an item on the ballot to inquire if taxpayers would be willing to pay an additional fee in order to purchase these types of properties. There are other ways to preserve natural terrain in the community beside condemnation. C/Harmony stated that ICA/Montgomery indicated it would not be a "taking" to classify these properties as Open Space, if a property owner sold his/her mineral rights. These developers sold off their development rights on these portions of property so that they could get higher density in the tracts that the citizens live in. They don't own it anymore. There is no taking and the City does not have to buy the property. C/Miller stated that there are hundreds of privately -held properties that are restricted and if the General Plan incor- porates language that these properties are going to become Open Space even though it is not legal, those properties are precluded from the use of those areas. The School District property has restrictions, but it is not Open Space. He felt it is great for the City to own open space but it is wrong to use police power to take anybody's private property regardless of whether it is a small or large piece. It must be done according to law. There being no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing regarding the Land Use Element closed. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that the County zoning standard for that area is one unit for every two acres. The General Plan is designating the property Agricultural which has a similar title but a vastly different listing of permitted land uses. Agriculture in the General Plan refers to the maintenance of property generally in the State as it is today with respect to the sphere of influence, recreational uses, Tres Hermanos, plus the General Plan discussion about additional public facilities, etc. Prior Council discussion regarded the need to apply a land use density/ intensity to those areas. He recommended that the land use density for FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 11 that area be one unit to 40 acres. That would permit about 90 units between the sphere of influence area and a few additional units for the Tres Hermanos area. That would apply to the properties to provide some reasonable use of the acreage consistent with what other cities have been doing. It is consistent with the recently adopted Chino Hills General Plan, specifically with respect to the Butterfield Ranch property. This recommendation applies to both the Tres Hermanos and sphere of influence area. M/Papen announced that C/Harmony had left the room and there was no longer a quorum. RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 8:12 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Don Cotton, Cotton/Beland Assoc., stated that one unit per 5 acres and one to 40 is what the courts have reviewed in the past and would accept as to not represent any kind of "taking" of the property. There are alternative ways of dealing with this issue. This is the simplest and easiest to understand. There is a provision that any proposed devel-opment in this category would have to come before the Council with a specific plan approval request. If the request were for the allowable number of units, the specific plan approval would be all that would be required. If it were for more, there would need to be a General Plan amendment, as well as a specific plan approval. M/Papen asked what the difference in process would be between the Tres Hermanos property within the City limits and the other properties located outside the City limits and in the sphere of influence. CDD/DeStefano responded that the process for a specific plan would be similar. Sphere of influence properties would probably wrap a specific plan together with a pre -annexation agreement. The agreement would not require a General Plan amendment; however, approval of a specific plan presumed to be different from current uses would require a General Plan change. If the property owners wanted to incorporate today, it would not require a General Plan change. If they want to incorporate today and tomorrow develop a specific plan, those uses and that plan would incorporate a General Plan change. M/Papen asked the property owners to come forward and respond to staff's recommendation of the underlying density of one unit per 40 acres. FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 12 George Basye, Shell Western, stated the designation seemed harsh. Although they have no specific plans for the property, they would like to see a designation of Specific Plan in order to see a future beyond the current agricultural use while recognizing and respecting issues expressed by the community. M/Papen expressed concern that the Council give some kind of value to the Shell property at this time. She asked Mr. Basye if Shell objects to one unit per 40 acres or if there is a designation they would prefer. Mr. Basye responded that Shell would have to compare what the competing underlying designation might or might not be to remain unincorporated and to pursue alternatives from that perspective. At this time, with a cooperative effort by the landowners to meet the needs of the community and with one unit per 40 acres on 350 acres in the sphere of influence, it is questionable whether that is a legitimate economic value to be placed on the property. Tom Kolin, Vice Pres. and Chief Financial Officer, Boy Scouts of America, stated that he was satisfied with the current designation of SP/AG which allows a two -acre minimum lot size per dwelling on the total 3,700 acres. The Boy Scouts have no plan for the property other than to keep it whole and market- able. With respect to the WVUSD property, a motion was made by C/Miller to designate the property PD and that the language be incorporated in the General Plan that "the most sensitive portion of the site shall be retained in permanent open space and that the site plan shall incorporate the planning and site preparation to accommodate the development of Larkstone Park of a suitable size and location to serve the neighborhood as approved by the City." Motion seconded by M/Papen. By the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Werner Regarding Site D, WVUSD property, C/Miller moved to designate the Land Use as PD. Motion seconded by M/Papen. C/Harmony stated his views on these special designations are on the record. If that is an area the School District is going to turn into housing, they are obligated under law to sell it to another public jurisdiction or return it back to the State. FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 13 C/Miller responded that the Council is not removing the obligation from the School District to first offer that property to the City or other government agencies for sale. That, by law, is their first obligation if they decide to dispose of the property and the Council is not, in any way, changing that obligation. The property is currently zoned residential, 7,500 sq. ft. lots to 10,000 sq. ft. lots and the Council is doing nothing to change that zoning, but merely guaranteeing the School District the same rights with the property as when they originally purchased the property. C/Harmony stated that GPAC's recommendation for the property was Public Facility. M/Papen stated that the School District purchased the property but it was not dedicated for a school site. They have held the property for more than 20 years and their plans do not include the use of it for a public facility. She believed it is in the best interest of the taxpayers that their dollar be maximized through the use of this property. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Werner A motion was made by C/Miller and seconded by M/Papen to designate the Walnut Valley Unified School District's Lemon Avenue property as Light Industrial which is consistent with the property on three sides. C/Harmony stated that one of the concerns at the last Council meeting was that this property act as a buffer to the adjacent fourth area which is a residential neighborhood. He was concerned about the impacts this designation would have on the residential properties to the east. M/Papen indicated such a discussion would be appropriate at the time any proposal for use of the property is made to the Council or Planning Commission. At this time, the Council is considering a 20 year plan for the community and how the land should be designated in 20 years. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Werner FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 14 Responding to Don Cotton, the Council recommended a PD, PF, RL and Park land use designations for the Walnut Valley Unified School District South Point property. With respect to Site D, the same underlying land use designations will apply: PF, RL and Park. Clay Chapet, WVUSD, stated that the current underlying desig- nation on Site D is R1 7,500 and R1 10,000 and the District would not like to relinquish any entitlement currently with the land. He indicated they would not like the RL desig- nation. Council concurred that the underlying designation for Site D will be RIM, PF and Park. A motion was made by C/Miller that the Bramalea properties, Sites 7 and 13, be designated PD and that the following lang- uage be incorporated: "70 percent of the property shall be retained as permanent open space with the PD zoning to include RL." Motion seconded by M/Papen. M/Papen stated that Bramalea has four different parcels and they are not all contiguous. Therefore, the Council could leave the RL designation on all four properties and transfer the densities to one property and keep the other three properties as undisturbed land. CDD/DeStefano stated this is correct and consistent with strategies recommended by the Planning Commission in both the Resource Management and Open Space Elements. C/Harmony asked if the densities were previously transferred to the designated tracts that are open space tracts and isn't this discussion about using the open spaces as some sort of density transfers again on the unused tracts. CDD/DeStefano responded that he was not aware of how those projects were initiated but that they were designated Residential Planned Development and that there was a concen- tration of development in areas that were plateaus. C/Harmony indicated the GPAC recommended an Open Space designation on these properties and the Planning Commission designated them Open Space/Specific Plan. M/Papen referred C/Harmony to the list on #7, the recommended designation is Planned Development RL and W. On the other three properties, there were two other recommendations, both Specific Plan, some Open Space and some RL which is 3 units per acre. The current recommendation is that it be PD with 70 percent of the land being preserved in its natural state and RL. FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 15 Responding to C/Harmony, CDD/DeStefano stated that GPAC wanted to keep the Bramalea property off of D.B. Blvd. as Rural Residential or a portion extending from Tin Dr. with the balance of the acreage being Open Space. With respect to the property adjacent to Pantera Park (area 7), GPAC recommended RL Planned Development at 3 units per acre plus the water. M/Papen stated that designating Site 13 off of D.B. Blvd. as Planned Development and restricting development to 30 percent of the land is preserving the major 70 percent without zoning the property Open Space and "taking" the property. Council recommended preservation of more natural terrain than GPAC and the Planning Commission recommended. She indicated the prop- erty owner supported the motion. Motion was carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Werner M/Papen announced that the changes would be available for a 30 day public review and brought back to the Council for final adoption. Public comments will be allowed at the final hearing. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. The next General Plan meeting will be March 6, 1995, 6:00 p.m., in the South Coast AQMD Auditorium. ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk 1. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL AVIA; SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MARCH 6, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Papen called the meeting to order at 6:12 p.m. at the South Coast AQMD Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Papen. ROLL CALL: Mayor Papen, Mayor Pro Tem Werner, Council Members Harmony and Miller. Council Member Ansari was excused. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: 3.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: CDD/DeStefano suggested that the Council consider appropriate designations for the 3,600 acre Sphere of Influence. The Boy Scouts own about 3,200 acres of that property and are looking for a designation of Specific Plan that would allow for uses compatible with their existing uses of the property and the zoning of the property which is Agriculture. Zoning of the property permits one unit per two acres of land. Shell Oil owns about 350 acres and they are seeking a designation simil- ar to the Boy Scouts for similar purposes. Other property owners in the Sphere have not been in communication with the City for many years. They have similarly situated property adjacent to or surrounded by the other large landowners and would presumably utilize a similar designation to whatever is decided upon for the Boy Scouts and for Shell Oil. Tom Kolin, Chief Financial Officer, Boy Scouts of America, challenged the recommendation of one dwelling unit per 40 acres. The Boy Scouts have always been a good neighbor to D.B. and have requested very little from the City. He felt they were ambushed by the City at the last meeting because they believed staff would recommend a density consistent with the County's Agricultural Zoning and density of one unit per two acres. The County zoning has applied for many years. At the present time, the Boy Scouts have no plans for the property other than as a scout facility. There is no rational basis for jumping from one unit per two acres to one unit per 40 acres. This kind of downzoning strikes the Boy Scouts as arbitrary and unjustified and damaging to the Boy Scout's assets. He asked that to be fair to the Boy Scouts, the Council should maintain the County standard for density of one MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 2 unit per two acres. Anything more restrictive has no logical or legal justification. This is especially true in light of the fact that any future development on the property would require a Specific Plan which would, in turn, require public hearings, County input, community input and environmental safeguards before adaptation. M/Papen asked Mr. Kolin if it would be the intent of the Boy Scouts to cluster any development in the least sensitive area of their property. Mr. Kolin responded that in 1988, the So. Calif. Golf Assoc., another non-profit organization, requested to lease a portion of the Boy Scout property in order to build the SCGA headquarters building and two golf courses. The Scouts approved this project on the basis of retention of the land and because the SCGA is a non-profit organization which would clear the Boy Scouts of any unrelated business income. In addition, it seemed a perfect use of the property to allow the Scouts to collect rent and still own the land. This is the type of arrangement the Scouts would like one day to enter into. There has never been discussion of residential building or development of this property. The only assets held by the Scouts is cash in the bank and the land owned and Firestone is the Scout's third largest single land holding in the U.S. In order to continue to hold the land, the Scouts must consider all options. C/Harmony asked staff how they arrived at the one unit per 40 acres. CDD/DeStefano responded that the General Plan consultant identified to the Council an issue within the Land Use Element that certain Land Use classifications needed an intensity of development or density of development attached to the classification title. An indication was made that such a classification was needed for the Sphere of Influence properties and the Agricultural Land Use specifically. Staff recommended a density of one unit per 40 acres based upon case law and actions of other cities with similar issues of large expanses of vacant land that may be suitable for development in the future and where there are currently no development plans contemplated. As previously stated, this is used by the City of Chino Hills as a classification for their Butterfield Ranch property as well as their portion of Tres Hermanos. The number was suggested to the Council as part of a range of 5 to 40 acres by the General Plan consultant and it was recommended to the Council in terms of one unit to 40 acres for the Boy Scout property and the rest of the Sphere of Influence because MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 3 there are no current plans under consideration for these prop- erties. For several years, staff recommended a Specific Plan classification for the same property which is a designation that would lead to a more formalized master plan of land use allowing for a much broader range of uses as may be deemed feasible and appropriate at some future date. Responding to M/Papen, ICA/Montgomery stated that in the Terminals Equipment Co. case, San Francisco, 1990, where the court stated that "in every case where a landowner seeks compensation for burdensome regulation of his/her property, the standard remains whether the regulations in issue have deprived the landowner of all use of the property. When the claim is made that the regulation has significantly diminished the property value, the focus of the inquiries on the uses of the property which remain, plaintiff cannot contend he was denied all use of the property. He was neither deprived of his right to exclude others from his land nor denied the right to sell the property." A General Plan designation is not to be confused with a downzoning. They are separate and distinct. The Supreme Court already held that the designation by General Plan does not lead to a compensatory claim. The California Supreme Court recently held that, in order for a party to claim that he/she must, within the time allowed, have the ordinance described as confiscatory and unreasonable and then and only then, may they file an action for damages. The procedure has been perceived as of such a disparity in favor of the public agency that a bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives that would provide compensation for landowners in the event that their property is downsized or effectively taken (one unit per 40, one unit per 60). He believed the Boy Scout's concerns may be premature because, in any event, they will need to submit a planned development. In that type of terrain there is going to be concentration, planned unit, shifting of entitlements, etc. He indicated the only case he is aware of where damages were awarded is the North Carolina case where the City took the lots and left no use of the property. At the current time, there is not a taking case that protects the landowner from the discretion of the public agency in zoning the property so long as a reasonable use remains. When the Boy Scouts decide that they need to make an enterprise use of their property and come before the City with the permit they desire there will be something to test. He felt the Boy Scouts perceive damages that are not there and a designation of Planned Development might satisfy their needs and have the same legal effect. M/Papen asked if the Council designates the Boy Scout property Specific Plan in the General Plan and did not designate the MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 4 property Agricultural/Specific Plan, would a density designa- tion be needed. Mr. Cotton stated that the Specific Plan is an overlay designation and Agricultural is a Land Use designation. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that the County's designation for the Boy Scout's property is A2-2 which allows for one unit of every two acres of property. MPT/Werner stated that the Specific Plan overlay is not an overlay designation so much as it is a planning and zoning tool. He recommended that the Council insert a Specific Plan requirement under the Agricultural Land Use designation that upon a proposal to annex to the City, that the property be Specific Plan with a presentation of a complete package at the time of an annexation application which would go through the public hearing process. Responding to M/Papen, Mr. Hughes, Shell oil, stated that current zoning under the County is subject to broad interpre- tation. Part of the property has two designations, AG and AG/SP and it would follow that the property would carry an A2- 2 designation. Shell proposed that the Council assign a Specific Plan designation over the entire property to be consistent with the Boy Scouts designation. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., favored an Agricultural des- ignation for the Boy Scout property. Responding to Mr. Maxwell, MPT/Werner stated his use of the term annexing the Boy Scout property to the City is tech- nically incorrect. In 1992, subsequent to incorporation, the City petitioned the Local Agency Formation Commission to establish a Sphere of Influence. It is not an annexation area, it is called a pre -annexation area. It is important to understand that it is not an annexation because that means it is in the City. If it is in the Sphere of Influence, it is simply a preliminary step to the property perhaps someday becoming a part of D.B. It may never happen. He clarified that the City has not annexed this property. The significance of that fact is that the Land Use plan has very minimal, if any, effect on the land use jurisdiction of that property. It is under County zoning jurisdiction today and the property is zoned A-2 and that is how it will remain until an application is made to the County to change that zoning or to develop under the A-2 zoning, or if the owner makes application to the City to incorporate that property (annex) to the City. Until that happens, the City's land use policy as it applies to that MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 5 property is almost meaningless. Wilbur Smith stated that in all of the discussion regarding the Sphere of Influence, no attention has been given to the fact that this property is in the SEA area which indicates there should be no development. In his opinion, the posturing about the number of units per acre is an attempt to give this area a classification which will increase the chances for future development. He asked if the City recognized the SEA 15 designation and agrees with the preservation of the area within the context of SEA 15. Eric Stone, Darrin Dr., suggested that the property designation for the Boy Scouts remain Agricultural. Changes could then be dealt with at the time they occur. Don Schad supported the Boy Scout's request to leave the property as currently zoned. In response to MPT/Werner, Mr. Schad stated that the matter came before the Planning Commission and that his position was to support the Boy Scouts and leave the zoning as is. M/Papen asked Mr. Schad if the discussion and vote was limited to the Boy Scout property or the entire Sphere of Influence. Mr. Schad responded it was with respect to the entire Sphere of Influence including the Boy Scouts. MPT/Werner suggested that, in lieu of a General Plan Map Designation of AG/SP, that with respect to the properties outside the City's jurisdiction and within the Sphere of Influence, the City designate the area AG and include text to reflect a Land Use policy and Land Use designation incor- porating the County's Agricultural zoning. In addition, include the following: "At such time as these properties are proposed for annexation to the City of Diamond Bar, that they carry with it an application for a Specific Plan." He felt that any decision regarding the Sphere of Influence properties would be premature without full disclosure. In terms of strategy within the General Plan, if the City wanted to have the property in the City and wanted to advocate any use, in order for the City to exercise that authority, it would have to entice the owner to come into the City limits. Otherwise, the property owner can simply develop or otherwise use their properties under County jurisdiction as they are now doing. RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 7:05 p.m. MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 6 RECONVENE: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 7:23 p.m. Regarding Page I-3, 3. Sphere of Influence, MPT/Werner suggested the following with respect to the definition of the Sphere of Influence: "The City of Diamond Bar's Sphere of Influence was first approved by the Los Angeles Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on August 8, 1990 and encompasses 3,591 acres immediately south of the City limits to the Los Angeles/Orange County border. The sphere area includes the middle portion of Tonner Canyon, an undeveloped northeast/ southwest trending wooded canyon, which extends beyond the City's Sphere of Influence into Orange County to the south and San Bernardino County to the east. Pursuant to the provision of the Cortese/Knox Local Agency Reorganization Act, the sphere of influence serves as an area designated as future area to be annexed to the City. However, until such time as the property is annexed to the City of Diamond Bar the area remains under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County." Council concurred. Referring to Page I-13 under Strategy 1.1.9, MPT/Werner suggested: "Encourage the innovative use of land resources and development of a variety of housing and other development types, provide a means to coordinate the public and private provision of services and facilities and address the unique needs of certain lands by recognizing Agriculture (AG) designation: a. for large scale development areas in which residential, commercial, recreational, public facilities and other land uses may be permitted; and, b. large acreage property(ies) in excess of ten (10) acres that are proposed to be annexed into the City." M/Papen indicated she would like to see a Specific Plan overlay for the Sphere of Influence properties. MPT/Werner asked ICA/Montgomery to determine if under the Subdivision Map Act a property owner can split off a 40 acre parcel without going through the review process. ICA/Montgomery stated that if the Council's intent is for one specific plan on the entire acreage, this should be stated under the policies. If there is more than one lot or if the owner can split off a segment of the property and pursue a specific plan for only that portion, it could be consistent with the General Plan. MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 7 M/Papen suggested Strategy 1.1.9 on Page I-13 be changed to Specific Plan, incorporate two separate categories, give the AG category to the Sphere of Influence and give the Specific Plan category as an overlay so that on the map, it would show AG/SP but in the Land Use designation it is an overlay and a Land Use classification. How could the Council guarantee that the Hillside Ordinance and the SEA 15 conditions in the Resource Management Element would be part of any Specific Plan. CM/Belanger referred Council to Page I-18, Strategy 1.6.3. He suggested that the first sentence read: "At such time as development might be proposed, require formulation of a specific plan pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65450 for the Sphere of Influence area that will protect its unique biological and open space resources, while minimizing future adverse impacts to both the human and natural environment of the City, as well as the region (see Strategy 1.1.4 of the Circulation Element). M/Papen requested that this language be incorporated on Page I-12 and I-13 under Specific Plan. She then asked for consensus that Strategy 1.1.10 will be Agricultural desig- nation with the changes that MPT/Werner articulated. Strategy 1.1.9 will be Specific Plan overlay that would incorporate the strategies in 1.6.3 on Page I-18 regarding the hillside and preserving open space in the SEA. The Agricultural designa- tion in Strategy 1.1.10 would be consistent with the County's designation. C/Harmony expressed concern about the Agricultural desig- nation and asked if staff's recommendation of density is being applied or whether the County's designation is. MPT/Werner responded that the intent of the suggestion/motion is take on a consistency with county zoning. C/Harmony agreed with Mr. Smith that the suggestion only encourages development and doesn't respect the concepts of the SEA. C/Miller stated that Mr. Kolin was nodding affirmatively from the audience that it was, in fact, true. Public comment indicated a support for the Boy Scout's request. M/Papen moved, MPT/Werner seconded to adopt MPT/Werner's suggested language and designation changes as previously set forth. Motion carried 3-1 by the following Roll Call vote: MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 8 AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari Regarding the February 16, 1995 listing of Vacant Land Housing Opportunity Areas, M/Papen recommended that Item #20 be changed to RH 20 units per acre; Item #25 be changed to RH 20 units per acre and Item #24 be changed to RL designation (maximum three units per acre). Responding to C/Harmony, CDD/DeStefano stated that about five years ago a project came before the City for approximately 10 units on the #24 property. The project was denied by the Council. He indicated that it is a very difficult piece to develop and perhaps three to four units would be the maximum potential development. M/Papen referred to her prior suggestion that two Land Use classifications be added: Medium High Density RMH 16 and change RH from 16 to 20. Further, she recommended reclassifying Existing Housing to be consistent with the RMH 16 and RH 20 designation which are the Daisy Apartments, the Windwood Condos, the Village Apartments and the Fallcreek Condos so that the City has more than one parcel in this designation. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano indicated the Land Use classification on the property behind the Congregation Church (Item #54) is Medium Density Residential up to 12 units per acre. M/Papen suggested that Item #54 remain as is. MPT/Werner stated that the changes to properties that are developed out at a density that would exceed the zoning on a property would have difficulty obtaining financing upon sale of the project because of the legal non -conforming status. Reclassification of land uses to the existing density makes practical sense. M/Papen stated that the Planning Commission recommended that Item #45 be changed to Commercial. The property is located on D.B. Blvd. between Sunset Crossing and the SR 60 off -ramp and is currently zoned 25 units per acre. Council concurred. CDD/DeStefano stated that the Planning Commission supported GPAC's recommendation which supported staff's recommendation that this irregular shaped property might be better suited for some form of limited commercial uses. It is a difficult site MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 9 to develop. Based upon its access to the freeway, it would have very limited service as a residential site. The commercial designation has been consistent for a couple of General Plan versions. M/Papen referred to Lots 1 and 61 (Item #15) which are currently zoned two units per acre. She suggested that these properties be reclassified Rural Residential (one unit per acre) and put the property under the Hillside Ordinance. All current restriction would remain with the property. C/Harmony stated he did not see any point in increasing the density when it is understood there will be no building on the property. M/Papen responded that her suggestion decreases the density by 50 percent. In response to C/Harmony, she answered that she recommended that the existing Land Use classification of RPD 20,000, two units per acre be changed to Rural Residential which would be a maximum of one unit per acre under which category the Hillside Management Ordinance would apply. She indicated legal concerns with the Open Space designation as described by GPAC, as indicated by the Building Industry Assn. and others, that zoning the property Open Space would constitute a "taking" on the part of the City. While there is a difference of opinion in this regard, she indicated she would like to conserve as much property as possible without declaring it Open Space which might be construed as a taking and she does not want to put the City in the position of being faced with lawsuits and having to purchase the property. The City has been very successful in consolidating densities and acquiring permanent lands to remain in natural terrain in the City. She was in favor of acquiring such properties through transfer of density rights and through development agreements. An Open Space category places the City at high risk of lawsuits and deep bills. MPT/Werner asked M/Papen if her motion includes the retention of all map restrictions that now exist on the property. M/Papen responded "absolutely". Responding to MPT/Werner, ICA/Montgomery stated that Lots 1 and 61 have map restrictions in favor of the public agency and were extracted by the public agency in return for a consolidation of density. He stated that he is convinced after researching the law that those are called Statutory Conservation Easements as distinguished from Easements in Fee Easements in Grant. The difference is that it restricts the MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 10 property owner from making any use varying from the restriction without later getting relief from that restriction by the public agency and there is no right to relief from that restriction. It is not deeded to a public agency but it is in favor of the public agency in return for the map that was given at the time the restrictions were made. They are recorded on the same map by which the subdivision is granted. M/Papen asked ICA/Montgomery if her motion would remove any of the restrictions. He stated that it would not. C/Harmony asked if this keeps the designation of Open Space. The Planning Commission and GPAC recommended Open Space. He asked M/Papen if by her motion the City would keep the desig- nation. MPT/Werner seconded the motion. He stated that M/Papen's motion minimizes the risk of taking or a threat of lawsuit on the basis of a taking. C/Harmony requested staff to discuss the OS/RL designation as envisioned by GPAC versus the Open Space designation envisioned by the Planning Commission and how that relates to the Mayor's recommendation of RR. CDD/DeStefano stated that GPAC recommended that the property be designated Open Space. A very small piece located at the corner of Summitridge Dr. and Grand Ave. was designated by GPAC as RL. Clearly GPAC's recommendation to the Planning Commission was for the site to be designated OS. That was based upon GPAC's recommendation that properties that have the types of language that restricts development (such as this property) be designated with an Open Space classification. The Planning Commission reviewed the matter, clarified what they believed to have been an error by GPAC and designated that RL piece as OS with the balance of the property. The Planning Commission forwarded GPAC's thought process that properties with these types of map noted restrictions should be designated as Open Space, consistent with GPAC and Planning Commission's verbiage for Open Space. The recommendation currently before the Council would allow for a density of one dwelling unit per acre maximum for this site which is about 66 to 68 acres. If the site were to be submitted for future development consideration, it would have to respond to the General Plan and all of its development standards dealing with hillside preservation, as well as responding to the City's Hillside Management Ordinance and other ordinances that dictate what types of development can occur on properties with the types of slopes that this property has. MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 11 C/Harmony stated the City is encouraging the future development of this property. In response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano responded that the zoning for the site is RPD 20,000 2U which allows for two units per acre. This is the zoning designation which is different from the General Plan discussion. Regardless of what the designation is, the property owner can always come back for a recommended change in that designation and always be entitled to such a request. C/Harmony stated that making the property comply with the Hillside Management Ordinance also encourages development. CDD/DeStefano responded that some would argue that it is very discouraging because it is restrictive in the sense that it is designed to protect the environment from development or to mimic the environment where the development is taking place. It is designed to enhance the environment or to replace it in a manner in which it looked like initially. M/Papen withdrew her motion. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano reported that Site D, 28 acres off of Brea Canyon Rd. and D.B. Blvd., and the 78 acre Brea Canyon Rd. and Pathfinder Rd. area South Pointe property were subjects of previous discussion by the Council with the conclusion that these two properties should be designated Planned Development with an underlying development intensity/ density of 3 units per acre. The current General Plan recommended the Stone property as Planned Development (Area #1) permitting up to 30 dwelling units in reflecting some of the issues related to its proximity to the freeway. Area #2, the Bramalea properties, are the non-contiguous areas consisting of approximately 400 vacant acres and the palate of land uses would reflect that which has been discussed such as a maximum of 130 dwelling units, a minimum of 75 percent of the site being set aside as Open Space and a two acre area located at the corner of D.B. Blvd. and Goldrush Dr. would be developed for Public Facility or Commercial use and encourage a clustering concept with lot sizes that range from 6,000 to 10,000 feet. Staff felt that this responds to some of the issues raised by Council and property owner. Planned Development Area 43 located at Grand Ave. and Golden Springs Dr. where Calvary Chapel is currently located and across the street from the golf course where the proposed hospital has been approved, is approximately 75 acres. The mixture of uses for that location would include those proposed by the GPAC and Planning Commission for Commercial Retail and Office MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 12 Professional uses. Planned Development Area #4 is the WVUSD's 78 acres located west of Brea Canyon Rd. in the South Pointe Middle School area. Land uses would be, as outlined by the Council, Public Facilities, a minimum of 30 percent Open Space with a residential density of 3 units per acre. Planned Development Area #5 would be proposed to identify the 25 acre property at Brea Canyon Road and D.B. Blvd. Land uses appropriate for the site, as outlined by the Council, would be to designate it five single family units per acre. These are five areas that have been under consideration for more detailed land use planning through the tools that the Government Code and City Ordinances provide. In concert with other goals, objectives and strategies of this General Plan, an overall master plan would be developed for these areas which would be brought to the Planning Commission and Council for public hearing review and consideration at a future date. MPT/Werner asked that the Council consider the SASAK property. The City has an approved Tentative Tract Map on the property and recommended that the Land Use designation should be consistent with what has been approved on the property. In addition, he asked that Lots 1 and 61 continue to be discussed since the issue had not been resolved. M/Papen stated that Area #1 was designated RL. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that the designation is recom- mended by GPAC and the Planning Commission. It is a ten acre site and is highly encumbered by easements, slope issues, flood hazard issues, etc. It is likely to be developed with a single additional land use classification of single family homes. The nature of the constraints on the site will tend to push the development closer to the existing fire station. It is not necessarily a strong candidate for a planned develop- ment. If development does occur there, it is likely to be in the form of a cluster of homes and it is likely to be processed with a Subdivision or Tentative Tract Map and may also include a development agreement. The planned development does not create any significant constraints nor any real benefit. Regarding Area #2, she indicated that she would like to be certain that the water tower is included in the Land Use classification. With respect to the school district property on Brea Canyon Rd., she wanted to be certain that Recreation use was included. The same is true for Area #5 (Site D) . Item #8, Pantera Park, currently zoned two units per acre, is changed to "Park". Item #9, Pantera Elementary School site, currently zoned two units per acre, is changed to Public Facilities (School). Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that the intent of MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 13 Items 10, 11 and 12 was that these were additional development opportunities within the RPD area. Further information indicates that they are part of Landscape District #39 and may no longer be suitable for development and that is why staff did not recommend their consideration. M/Papen recommended that Items 10, 11 and 12 be designated Open Space. CM/Belanger stated that the land is currently in the assessment district and is privately held. The question is whether there are any easements or any other restrictions in favor of the City relating to designating the 33 acres as Open Space. The City is not certain whether there are any restrictions on these properties. Upon further consideration, Council recommended that Items #1, #10, #11, #12, #16, be changed to RR designation. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano understood that Items #18 and #33 are Deed Restricted Open Space properties. MPT/Werner asked why this application would not be consistent for the other properties. M/Papen responded that the other properties are map restricted and not deed restricted. In response to MPT/Werner, ICA/Montgomery responded that it is a significant delineation in one respect. There is an argument that deed restricted or General Plan restricted Open Space requires a public hearing in order for the restrictions to be lifted. There is another argument that map restrictions (equitable servitudes or conservation easements) may not require a public hearing to be lifted. CM/Belanger stated that the deed is a document that is unambiguous. On its face it delineates what burdens are going to run with the land and the property owner is aware of those and records those burdens by deed. Map restrictions can be expressed and they can be implied, whereas deed restricted property is burdened and the property owner has notice of the burden which is recorded on the face of the deed. To be consistent with previous approvals, the recommendation for Item #39 is a designation of RL which would allow for three units per acre. M/Papen stated that Item #42, the four acres of City property along Brea Canyon Road should be zoned Commercial. MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 14 Wilbur Smith was concerned that the City ignored the issue of Open Space based on the fact that such a designation may be deemed a taking. There is a letter from ICA/Montgomery contradicting this theory. The Council should state their position with regard to the attorney's opinion. M/Papen responded that Area #1, 1/4 acre will remain in its natural condition. 75% of the 400 acres of Area #7 and Area #13 will remain in open condition. The 24 acre parcel, Area #8 is designated for a park. Area #10, a 5 1/2 acre site, Area #11, a 13 acre site and #12, a 14 acre site will not be developed. Area #15 will have 7 1/2 acres dedicated Open Space. Area #18 is 16 1/2 acres that will not be developed. Area #33 is 54 acres that will not be developed. Nearly 600 acres of land that has previously not had restrictions from development that the Council is now preserving in its natural terrain. The alternative would be that the City would have to pay approximately 10 million dollars to purchase these properties. If the City can preserve the property without having to face a challenge of "taking," having a challenge of condemnation and without costing the taxpayers anything, that is the charge of the Council on behalf of the citizens. Max Maxwell felt the issue of Open Space should be tested. The premise of deed and map restrictions were to keep open space. Lots 1 and 61 now propose 50 or 60 homes, yet he would like it to remain Open Space. Regarding the Hillside Management Ordinance, if it starts at 25%, it is worthless. If it starts at 15 & as GPAC recommended, it will be valuable. He stated that the people of D.B. don't want 800 acres in Tres Hermanos and another 2,000 acres developed and leave 500 acres open space. He felt that the City had gone beyond the point of having a valid EIR. C/Harmony responded that the City Attorney addressed the issue of the 7 acres versus the 60 acres of map restrictions on Lots 1 and 61. He asked ICA/Montgomery if he sees map restrictions applying only to the 7 acres or to all 60 acres. He asked staff to comment on Mr. Maxwell's question of whether or not the City need a new EIR. MPT/Werner stated that while the granting of these proposed designations may not go to the extent of reducing the land use zone to the extent Mr. Maxwell would like and to the extent that he is willing to risk the testing procedure which means litigation, he indicated he was taking a more conservative point of view. He felt that what the Council proposed is to take the current zoning on properties that in no way could ever accomplish or achieve those densities and bring them to MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 15 a lower density and not touch the land use restrictions that exist on those properties. It remains to be seen sometime in the future whether the owner could ever present a proposal that would accomplish both the owner's objectives and the City's objectives. What Mr. Maxwell asked for is for the City to stick its neck out so far that it is inviting litigation through the General Plan document. He was not interested in looking at a test but was interested in attempting to preserve what the City has and protecting its interest for the future. He believed that that is being accomplished with the Land Use Element. Terry Birrell stated that, with respect to Lots 1 and 61, the City Attorney cited case law going back 15 years indicating that there would be no inverse condemnation and yet the majority of the Council listened to a biased opinion of BIA. The County placed those conservation easements on the prop- erties known as Lots 1 and 61 and Lots 49 and 53 because of density transfers. With respect to density transfers, the City Attorney stated that with respect to the map restricted parcels no "taking" occurs if each action is the result of an agreement which includes adequate consideration, i.e. the original cluster building permits. That seems to be pretty clear. She saw no reason why the GPAC's designation of map restricted properties as Open Space could not stand and suggested that the City not be concerned about takings because the Council has legal opinions that there are no takings. The Council should be concerned about what is being given to developers for no consideration and what the City is taking from the residents of D.B. around those areas. MPT/Werner did not agree with Ms. Birrell's representation. Nothing is being given to developers and no restrictions are being removed. They remain with the property and the Council is not deliberating on any development proposals for any of the properties in question. This is only a General Plan Land Use policy. With respect to all of the identified properties, the current zoning will be downzoned according to the land use policy being discussed. The current zone on properties will be degraded, diminished, downzoned, reduced, less than what now exists and restrictions will remain. C/Harmony asked MPT/Werner if the City were to avoid a test lawsuit on a taking of land zoned open space with the proposed designations, would he be willing to bring back what the GPAC put into the General Plan wherein it allows the public to vote on any lifting of map restrictions when it comes to develop- ment projects. MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 16 MPT/Werner responded that he did not recall that issue being discussed and he would be happy to deliberate the subject. M/Papen asked why the Pathfinder Homeowners Assn. property #41 is deed restricted but it not zoned Open Space. It is zoned Private Recreation. In addition, why is the deed restricted open space around the Lyons project on Pathfinder Rd. not zoned Open Space and why is the Country Estates Park not zoned Open Space when they are all deed restricted properties. She also asked why the Planning Commission said that privately held properties with a map restriction should be declared Open Space, but privately held deed restricted property is not zoned Open Space. She stated that private citizen's deed restricted properties are not zoned Open Space under this General Plan. MPT/Werner stated that his interpretation of ICA/Montgomery's legal opinion regarding Open Space seems to differ from that of the speakers. He asked for clarification with respect to taking the rights that are prescribed under the Subdivision Map Act given to those property owners by right and in the General Plan stating that they will become subject to an election. However, the City has the right, on an individual basis and in response to a request from the property owner, to require that one of the stipulations in granting that request go to a vote of the people. ICA/Montgomery responded that if the subdivider/developer had a right to get an administrative ruling such as removal of restriction without a vote, if it is determined that map restrictions are not of a strength of the Open Space Easement Act, then the City can impose a higher requirement on that developer than the State when it passed the statute. If the Council wanted to put map restrictions and open space to a vote of the people, the Council must first adopt that portion of the General Plan by a vote of the people because a higher restriction cannot be imposed. MPT/Werner understood that, through the General Plan, the City could not impose a requirement for an election but the City could impose a vote of the people on a project by project basis. ICA/Montgomery stated that this cannot be done unless the people adopt a General Plan and provide for that in the General Plan. MPT/Werner asked if the City would adopt the policy in the form of a General Plan policy or in the form of an ordinance. MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 17 ICA/Montgomery responded that the City cannot adopt the General Plan and require that one or more changes in that General Plan be required to be a vote of the people. Before a vote of the people can impose a requirement on any provision, that portion of the General Plan will have to be adopted by the people. M/Papen recommended that the following properties be designated Open Space: The 5 1/2 acres of Area 410; the 13 acres of Area #11; the 14 acres of Area #12; the 150 acres of Area #21, the 54 acres of Area #53; the 37 acres of Area #41; and the 165 acres of Area #43. She stated she would add the 7 1/2 acres of Lots 1 and 61 but she did not know which 7 1/2 acres it is. C/Harmony stated that GPAC's recommendation on Pathfinder Homeowners Association is Open Space for Area #41. MPT/Werner stated those would be the test areas. A motion was made by M/Papen, seconded by MPT/Werner to designate the following areas Open Space: #10, #11, #12, #18, #21, #33, #41 and #43 for a total of 462 acres. Motion carried 4-0 with the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari A motion was made by M/Papen, seconded by C/Miller that Area #6 be designated Planned Development Area; #1, the Stone prop- erty remain as is; the Bramalea property would be Planned Development Area #2; the hospital site would be Planned Development Area #3; the School District property on Brea Canyon, south of the South Pointe Middle School on Peaceful Hills Ln. would be Planned Development Area #4; Site D would be Planned Development Area #5. MPT/Werner referred to his February 28, 1995 memo in which he stated that under the PD designation, he recommended para- meters to assist in defining Planned Development as a sub- section under Strategy 1.1.8, Page I-12. He suggested similar language for the Sycamore Canyon Bramalea property. M/Papen stated that 75% is preserved. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that the Tres Hermanos property should be designated "PD Area #1, located within the incorporated City south of the Pomona Freeway west MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 18 of Chino Hills Parkway. This 800 plus/minus acre vacant area is part of the larger Tres Hermanos Ranch property spanning Grand Avenue including property within the City of Chino Hills. Facilities appropriate for this site should be de- signed based upon a vision for the future and not merely extend the patterns of the past. Such facilities may include a high school and other educational institutions, reservoir for practical and esthetic purposes, commercial developments which are not typical of those found in the area and a variety of residential, churches, institutional and other uses which are complimentary to the overall objective of having a Master Planned area. Development within the Tres Hermanos area should be designed so as to be a part of the Diamond Bar community as well as compatible with adjacent lands." Motion carried 3-1 with the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari A motion was made by M/Papen and seconded by C/Miller that the following sites be designated Commercial: #42 (4 acres on Brea Canyon Rd.) and #45 (5 acres on D.B. Blvd.). Motion carried 3-1 with the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari A motion was made by M/Papen, seconded by MPT/Werner that property #39, to be consistent with the previous approvals, be designated RL. Motion carried 3-1 with the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari A motion was made by MPT/Werner, seconded by M/Papen that property #15 be designated Open Space for the 7 1/2 acre parcel and RR for the larger parcel with all map and deed restrictions remaining. Motion carried 3-1 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari MARCH 6, 1995 PAGE 19 A motion was made by MPT/Werner, seconded by C/Miller to approve the Land Use Element as amended and direct staff to reconstruct the Element and make it available for public review. In response to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano responded that staff will look at the cumulative total of the changes the Council has directed and return with an appropriate environmental recommendation. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: 2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 2.1.1 Special Meeting of January 31, 1995 2.1.2 Special Meeting of February 6, 1995 2.1.3 Special Meeting of February 13, 1995 2.1.4 Special Meeting of February 16, 1995 Motion by MPT/Werner, seconded by C/Miller to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony, Miller, MPT/ Werner, M/ Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 5. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ATTEST: Mayor TOMMYE CRIBBINS, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 23, 1995 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Schad. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Chairman Meyer, Vice Chairman Flamenbaum, Schad, Fong, Huff Also Present: Community Development Director, James DeStefano; Associate Planner Robert Searcy; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery, Consultant Engineer Michael Myers; Recording Secretary Carol Dennis MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of January 9, 1995. A motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Huff to adopt the minutes. The motion was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. VARIANCE No. 94-2. A request to construct an 17,667 square foot, two-story office/professional building. The 42,026 square foot project site is undeveloped and is located at the southeast corner of Brea Canyon Road and Lycoming Street in Zone C -1 -BE. The project additionally proposes a freestanding 6 foot high monument sign. Applicant/Property Owner: G. Miller Development, 721 Brea Canyon Road #7, Diamond Bar. AP/Searcy reported the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the project December 12, 1994. At the conclusion of the public testimony, the Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant to provide additional January 23, 1995 Page 2 Planning Commission information concerning an update to the traffic report, resolution to the parking provisions on and off-site, and future access between the adjacent commercial properties. The applicant has provided staff with an addendum to the traffic impact analysis that addresses the submitted project with updated projections based on current conditions. The addendum also addresses inter -parcel circulation to the extent possible at the present time. The applicant has redesigned the office building on the southern elevation, reducing the gross square footage and reoriented the parking stalls in the immediate area of the building. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission reopen the public hearing and receive testimony and adopt the Resolution of Approval with conditions. In response to Chair/Meyer, CDD/DeStefano stated because of anticipated development on the adjacent property, currently known as Walnut Valley Trailer, the project has been conditioned to work with the adjacent property owner to insure reciprocal ingress/egress and off-site parking agreement. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open. Gary Miller, applicant, spoke on behalf of his project and stated the property address would be added to the sign monument. Todd Chavers, Project Manager and partner, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., presented the addendum to the traffic study prepared for the original project in 1989. The update was prepared in conjunction with staff direction to provide assurance that the traffic impacts are within Los Angeles County MTA Congestion Management Plan (CMP) guidelines. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane stated he is concerned that the "professional" designation will allow for medical and other high volume traffic facilities. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. Responding to Mr. Maxwells concerns, CDD/DeStefano stated there will be a condition of approval disallowing any medical uses within the project. Responding to Chair/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated he would revise January 23, 1995 Page 3 Planning Commission Condition 17, Page 5, to read Mitigated Negative Declaration. Chair/Meyer recommended Condition 18, Page 5, to indicate the Ingress/Egress Easement, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, will be placed on the property prior to issuance of building permits. The Commission concurred. Chair/Meyer asked that "To the satisfaction of the City Engineer" be added to Conditions 22 and 23, Page 6. The Commission concurred. In response to C/Fong, Chair/Meyer asked that Condition 20 indicate "restricted to non-medical uses", and that "non- professional" be eliminated. The Commission concurred. Responding to VC/Flamenbaum, CDD/DeStefano offered the following language for Condition 15, Page 5: "Applicant shall submit to the City for processing a Lot Line Adjustment application in substantial conformance with Exhibit (X) prior to the issuance of permits ............ as the Condition states." The Commission concurred. A motion was made by C/Shad and seconded by C/Fong to adopt the Resolution as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS - None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: CDD/DeStefano referred the Commission to the Transmittal of Precise Alignment Study for Citrus Valley Health Partners/Diamond Bar Medical Plaza. The Commission directed staff to notify concerned property owners that the item is going before the Traffic and Transportation Commission as an agenda item, and bring the item back before the Planning Commission no later than May, 1995 as an agenda item with staffs recommendations for process and conclusion. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: C/Huff stated he would like staff to incorporate design criteria and design review for new projects into the January 23, 1995 Page 4 Planning Commission Development Code. C/Fong stated he would like to see a Grading Manual included in the Development Code. C/Fong reported on his meeting with Frank Arciero regarding a new Master Plan for the Southpointe/Sandstone Canyon area which would incorporate a Planned Development consisting of residential, open space preservation and parkland. This will incorporate land currently owned by Arciero, Walnut Unified School District and the City of Diamond Bar. C/Flamenbaum inquired about a Precise Alignment for the North Diamond Bar High School. CDD/DeStefano suggested this matter be brought back to the Planning Commission as a discussion item upon conclusion of the City Council's review of the Circulation Element (about March 10). ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chair/Meyer reminded the Commissioners they should make their reservations to attend the League of California Cities - Planners Institute, Wednesday through Friday, March 22 - 24, 1995. CDD/DeStefano stated there is a budget for attendees and asked that staff be notified as soon as possible as to who wishes to attend, preference for hotel accommodations, and means of transportation. Chair/Meyer indicated the reorganization of the Planning Commission will take place March 13, 1995. Chair/Meyer declared the meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Attest: D a v T Meyer Chairman Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Secretary MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 1995 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Vice Chairman Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Chairman Meyer, Vice Chairman Flamenbaum, Schad, Fong. Absent: Commissioner Huff Also Present: Associate Planner Robert Searcy; Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery, Recording Secretary Carol Dennis MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of January 23, 1995. A motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Fong to adopt the minutes as submitted. The motion was approved with the following roll call: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PUBLIC HEARING: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Fong, Chair/Meyer None None Huff VC/Flamenbaum, 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 94-7. Request for approval of a cellular repeater station and a 90 foot tall monopole. Applicant: L.A. Cellular, Box 6028, Cerritos, CA 90702. Property Owner: Metro Diamond Bar Properties, Inc., 2030 Main #1020, Irvine, CA 92714 February 13, 1995 Page 2 Planning Commission Property Location: 3333 S. Brea Canyon Road AP/Searcy reported that the Planning Commission had opened the public hearing for this project on January 9, 1995. At the conclusion of the public testimony, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant provide additional information to staff that investigates other possible locations for the project. As of this date, staff has not received any additional information from the applicant. As such, staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on this project to March 13, 1995. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open. Seeing no one who wished to speak, Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. VC/Flamenbaum reminded the Planning Commission that he had previuosly recussed himself from this agenda item. A motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Fong to continue the public hearing to March 27, 1995. The motion was approved 3-1 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: C/Schad, C/Fong, Chair/Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Flamenbaum ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: C/Huff OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS: 1. Discussion of Commission Meeting Rules. Chair/Meyer stated that the City Council has suggested meeting rules for the Planning Commission. He indicated the City Council has not adopted any meeting rules. C/Schad stated he feels that if a speaker is interrupted by a Commission member, the interruption time should be credited back to the speaker. VC/Flamenbaum indicated he objects to the entire concept. He feels it restricts the speaker unnecessarily and sends a February 13, 1995 Page 3 Planning Commission message that the Commission is not interested in hearing from the speaker. Chair/Meyer stated he agrees. He believes it thwarts the desire to have the public present their points of view. He feels it is the charge of the Commission to keep the speakers focused and on point. VC/Flamenbaum stated that Roberts Rules prevail and the Commission has a workable policy. A motion was made by VC/Flamenbaum and seconded by C/Schad to not approve the Planning Commission Meeting Rules. The motion was approved 4-0 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Flamenbaum, Schad, Fong, Chair/Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Huff INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: C/Schad asked for an update with respect to the Development Code. C/Meyer responded that CDD/DeStefano has asked that the matter be continued to the February 27, 1995 Planning Commission meeting at which time staff will make their presentation. ANNOUNCEMENTS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None Chair/Meyer declared the meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Secretary Attest: February 13, 1995 Page 4 Planning Commission David Meyer Chairman est MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 1995 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioners Schad. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Chairman Meyer, Vice Chairman Flamenbaum, Schad, Fong, Huff Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Associate Planner Robert Searcy; Consultant Engineer Mike Myers; Community Services Director Bob Rose; Patrick Mann, Cotton\Beland\Associates, Inc.; Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery, Recording Secretary Carol Dennis MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of February 13, 1995. A motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by VC/Flamenbaum to adopt the minutes. Chair/Meyer offered the following corrections: 1) On Page 2 just prior to opening the public hearing indicate that VC/Flamenbaum recused himself. 2) Under public hearing, indicate "no one came forward" and then the public hearing was closed. The motion was approved as amended with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, VC/Flamenbaum, Fong, Chair/Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Huff ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None February 27, 1995 Page 2 Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 94-4. Request to approve and develop a master plan for Pantera Park located on an undeveloped site at 700-800 Pantera Drive. Applicant/ Property Owner: City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. AP/Searcy stated that staff has compiled the additional information requested by the Planning Commission at the January 9, 1995 Commission meeting on the following items: traffic and circulation, park hours of operation; vehicular and pedestrian access; parking demand on and off-site; grading; the water element; and ballfield lighting. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive testimony and consider the mitigated Negative Declaration and direct staff to prepare the final Resolution of Approval with the Findings of Fact and conditions of approval. CSD/Rose stated that Pantera Park represents an opportunity for the City of Diamond Bar to enhance the existing inventory of park facilities to meet the ever expanding needs of the community. The design before the Commission provides facilities for active ballfields, tennis, basketball and roller blade courts, formal picnic structures, and a jogging path. The process used to design the park took into consideration the need to balance the desires of the local neighborhood with the needs of the entire community. In order to achieve this balance, the Parks and Recreation Commission conducted an extensive series of public workshops in order to reach consensus on the elements to be incorporated into the park design. Larry Ryan, RJM Associates Landscape Architects, the elements contained in the plan are a product of the community workshops. The site is approximately 23 acres, 15 of which are suitable for development. Major access to the site is via Pantera Drive with a secondary access from Bowcreek Drive. The surrounding land uses include residential, school and natural hillsides. With respect to parking analysis, the project was reviewed in its total development stage. The proposed facilities include a community center of approximately 7500 square feet, a restroom/concession facility of approximately 1000 square feet, two ballfields with February 27, 1995 Page 3 Planning commission provisions for two overlay soccer fields, water feature, tot lot, picnic areas, two tennis courts, and multi -use hard court (three basketball courts or one roller hockey court). In addition, there is a vehicular drive that can be used by emergency vehicles or Los Angeles County Flood Control. There is a series of trail opportunities throughout the park which provide access to hillside nature walks. Responding to C/Schad, Mr. Ryan stated that trails will be part of the initial development. The trails within the active portion of the park are included in the design and the intent is to utilize the trails as they currently exist. VC/Flamenbaum stated that it his understanding that if the City designs the trails they must comply with the ADA. CSD/Rose responded that the trails Mr. Ryan refers to are concrete paths through the park, all of which will meet the ADA requirements. These constructed trails will lead to the existing trails. There will be no improvement made to the current trails. Chair/Meyer asked if the City must meet both ADA and Title XXIV requirements. Mr. Ryan responded that as designers, the more restrictive regulation is chosen as a standard for design. Chair/Meyer stated that his understanding is that ADA was discretionary until January, 1995 at which time it became mandatory to comply with certain provisions of ADA. In particular, facilities built with Federal funds must comply. He indicated it is also his understanding that Title XXIV includes the ADA mandatory standards plus additional standards created by the State of California. Responding to Chair/Meyer, CE/Myers stated that his recommendation is that the project should include two driveways. In response to Chair/Meyer, CDD/DeStefano stated that the County Master Plan designated this site as a park in 1987 and approved a park plan for this site. That plan terminated from lack of activity. The lack of activity was a result of the County striping away the allocated funds for this project just prior to City incorporation in 1989. Throughout the course of the City of Diamond Bar's General Plan efforts, this site has been designated a park. The County code for planning, zoning, and subdivision purposes establishes a process for the review of a public park and that process is a Conditional Use Permit. The staff is requesting that the Planning Commission approve February 27, 1995 Page 4 Planning Commission an umbrella Conditional Use Permit. This will then allow the Community Services Director to implement the park through funding that the City Council will provide. The intent is for the Planning Commission to grant approval for this umbrella Conditional Use Permit and the details of the park would be implemented by the staff through direction from the City Council. If the program elements were to change substantially, it may come back to the Planning Commission for a subsequent Conditional Use Permit amendment. The City currently has approximately $1,500,000 grant money toward the development of the park. Responding to VC/Flamenbaum, CDD/DeStefano stated the County code for this development sets a two year time frame for implementation initiation of an approved Conditional Use Permit. Some grading or building is necessary to receive a vesting for the CUP. Once that occurs, this item will not need to come back to the Planning Commission for further review. If the City did not take action on the project, the matter would come back to the Planning Commission for an extension of time. In response to VC/Flamenbaum, ICA/Montgomery stated that there has to be a substantial expenditure in relation to the entire project. Chair/Meyer stated that the Planning Commission is concerned that there is a real commitment on the part of the City to build this park. CSD/Rose responded that if the Conditional Use Permit is approved during this meeting, the City expects to break ground in September, 1995. There is currently 1.47 million dollars committed to the project with an additional $550,000 discretionary money in Proposition A funds that could be allocated to this project should it be directed by City Council. The estimate for the improvements before the Planning Commission totals approximately $2,300,000. The City is presently committed to completion of the restroom facility, the tot lot, the turfed areas, some of the hard court area, and the parking. Chair/Meyer again expressed his concerns regarding the parking for the project. He also asked for clarification on the lighting. AP/Searcy indicated the final lighting analysis shows a minimum of .09 candle foot and a maximum 1/2 candle foot at the perimeter. This is a component of the design process and should be incorporated as a mitigation measure. February 27, 1995 Page 5 Planning Commission Responding to Chair/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated that staff recommends that the water element be eliminated from the project because of the design cost, maintenance and liability. Chair/Meyer indicated that the Planning Commission should include provisions for the multi -use building, however, it might not be built unless there is a demand. AP/Searcy stated it could be included with a caveat that there be sufficient parking provided to absorb the overflow that may be generated by that use. Chair/Meyer suggested that a mitigation measure for the City could be to hire the Sheriff's Department to direct traffic. CSD/Rose stated that the anticipated programs at Pantera Park would include youth programs for AYSO soccer, Pop Warner football, little league, girls softball, etc. Normally the practices are on weekdays with games on Saturdays. Scheduling determines the amount of parking required and that is controlled by the Community Services Department and coordinated with other available facilities in the City. Typically the City would not use the services of the Sheriff's Department unless it is a large City sponsored event, such as concerts in the park. Because of the location, it is not anticipated that this park will serve to accommodate such functions. Pat Mann stated that with regard to parking and traffic, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and initial study concludes that there will not be significant impacts and no specific mitigation measures are identified. Responding to C/Schad, AP/Searcy stated that the school district has not given staff a final answer about overflow parking at their site. Brent Marchetti, Marchetti & Associates, representing MUSCO Lighting, stated that the company specializes in and does only sports facilities, and in particular, outdoor facilities. In response to the City's request, MUSCO has prepared a preliminary site analysis study of lighting for the project with an objective to light the fields properly and minimize any impact it might have to the surrounding area. The criteria utilized for the lighting system was an average of 50 foot candles in the infields and 40 foot candles in the outfield and the soccer overlays which is the standard currently used for recreation facilities. The light source is metal Halide (white light) which is used in most major February 27, 1995 Page 6 Planning Commission stadiums and is the easiest to control. The glare light (impact to the neighborhood) is a maximum reading of .061 foot candles and a minimum reading of .08 foot candles. In response to C/Huff, AP/Searcy stated that perimeter planting of trees and bushes would assist in mitigating light spillage off-site. RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:20 P.M. RECONVENE: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:38 p.m. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open. Brian Petrie, 1118 Bain Avenue, on behalf of the American Youth Soccer Association (AYSO) Region 31, Diamond Bar, stated that Pantera will be a substantial benefit to the community. The City of Diamond Bar is lacking in recreational facilities per population in various categories. He indicated that lighting of the multi-purpose field is very important to his group and to the youth of the community. He asked that the pond be deleted from the project. Donovan Martinez, 635 Pantera Drive, stated he favors no lighting in the park. Candy Holden, 608 Sky Court, indicated she feels the wishes of the neighborhood residents are not being considered. She stated that she also favors no lighting in the park. VC/Flamenbaum asked if the citizen's group was opposed to the formal baseball fields. Ms. Holden responded that the citizens were in favor of one formal baseball, football, soccer combination field and one informal field with no lights. VC/Flamenbaum asked if the group was opposed to the second ballfield. Ms. Holden responded yes. VC/Flamenbaum asked if the group opposed the parking• olden noise nded and no. She indicated that the group opposed lighting. William Gray, 23837 Minnique Drive, stated he is in favor of the park and the lighting. Bill Delaro, corner of Bowcreek and Pantera Drive, stated he is favor of phasing in the elements of the facility so that the impact of traffic flow can be monitored. The lighting should be considered much later. February 27, 1995 Page 7 Planning Commission Debbie O'Conner, 23725 Cascade Place, stated she is in favor of lighted fields for the youth. Albert Perez, 703 Pantera Drive, indicated the understanding of the citizen's group was that there would be no lighting because it was a bad element to the park. He stated he feels the lights could be added to another park which is more accessible to the residents of Diamond Bar. Responding to VC/Flamenbaum, Mr. Perez indicated that he is in favor of the current design of one formal ballfield and one informal ballfield and the current parking. He is very concerned with and opposed to the lighting. Rick Ramier, 1506 Straw Flower Lane, stated he wants lights in the park. As a representative of AYSO, he indicated that his organization has offered to defray some of the costs with their own funds. He further stated that the events could be scheduled so that lighting could be terminated in the park at about 8:00 p.m. Responding to VC/Flamenbaum, Mr. Ramier stated that, in his opinion, an acceptable time for lighting would be bet Would • be 00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. but 6:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.m. agreeable. Candy Holden returned to indicate that the citizen's group is in favor of lights for walking and safety purposes. They are opposed to the spotlight type lighting for the pa k. Chair/Meyer asked if the group would find �st Holdenable respf the lights were turned off at 8:00 p.n ded that, in her opinion, that would not be a problem. However, the late hours and additional people at the site would not be acceptable. Brian Petrie stated that he feels the citizen's group seems to be looking for a passive neighborhood park rather than the proposed park. A park of this size has to be planned to meet the needs of the community and not just the neighborhood. He would prefer the lighting be available from dusk to dark. Responding to Chair/Meyer, Mr. Petrie stated the AYSO season is September through the third week in December and from February to end of May. The season overlaps with Pop Warner football and Little League and working with the City, these entities have cooperated to make the best use of available facilities. February 27, 1995 Page 8 planning commission In response to C/Fong, Mr. Petrie indicated that he would like to see the fields lighted until 8:00 p.m. for the present. Donovan Martinez indicated he feels it is a waste of time to light the park until 8:00 p.m. The current plan was finally agreed upon in the workshops and there was never any provision for lighting. Rick Ramier stated he takes residents want this facility It is a City facility and taxpayers. offense that the neighborhood limited to a neighborhood pa should serve the needs of all Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. VC/Flamenbaum stated it seems apparent that most people rk and are in favor of the current design and two accesses to the p no one is opposed to regular lights around the parking lot and pathways. The main concern seems to be the balancing of the needs of the community between formal sports and informal sports. He indicated he is not in favor of the water element or the multi-purpose building. He stated he would also advocate there not be any fixed trails through the hills. With respect to lighting in the park, he feels a fair compromise would be to plumb for lighting of hardscape area and since the area is furthest from any residents, the lighting could be extended to a later time, such as 10:00 P.M. He te to have fieldslandtunderdnoecond tionashould the lightsnbefleftor oth on f later than 8:00 p.m. C/Huff stated he can feel the neighborhood frustration. However, this is a community park and the City needs more lighted ballparks. He indicated that no planners were present during the citizen's workshops. This park was planned as a lighted park prior to the building of any houses in the area. By lighting the park the use of the park . is extended xt nde and being nt to able to extend the lighting to 8:00 p. Y P the youth involved in sports. He stated he is in favor of two driveways. He further stated the multi-purpose facility could be eliminated. He indicated he likes the lighting depicted by the consultant and is in favor of lighting until 8:00 P.M. weekdays and 9:00 p.m. weekends. He stated he is in favor of everything else as presented. Page February 27, 1995 Pa e 9 Planning Commission C/Schad stated he attended all of the citizen's group meetings. Although the engineering for the lighting is excellent, there are ways to plant vegetation which should totally diffuse the lighting from the neighborhood residences. However, the lighting can be stubbed out at the start of construction, but until the park is complete, the lighting should be left out. He further stated he is grateful that the open space element will be preserved. He indicated that the City should support hiking trails. He stated that he believes the pond presents possible liability to the City. The senior citizens have expressed an interest in the multi-purpose building. The parking is good. For now, he suggests that the street be painted red so that the users of the park must use the designated parking. C/Fong stated the area of difficulty seems to be the lighting and what time of the day it will be illuminated. He feels that there should be two entrance/ exit points and that the pond could be designed to be safe. He indicated he supports the trails and the multi -use courts with night lighting up to 9:00 P.M. or 10:00 p.m. He further stated that the best use is to develop the park to its potential because it is a community park, not a neighborhood park, and the City must represent the entire community while minimizing the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. For this reason, he recommends extending the hours of the park through lighting to 8:00 p.m. on the weekdays and 9:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday evenings. Chair/Meyer stated that the Planning Commission will address each issue and give staff direction to return to the Planning Commission with a Resolution. He further stated that the consensus is that the Planning Commission is in favor of the park. Without objection, the Commission concurred that the water element should be eliminated. The Commission concurred that the multi-purpose building should be eliminated at this time from the master plan. Without objection, the Commission concurred that there should be two points of access to the park. Without objection, the Commission concurred that the trails should be included in their natural state. The Commission asked staff for its recommendation. Page February 27, 1995 Pa a 10 Planning Commission without objection, the Commission concurred that accent and security lighting should be included. The Commission concurred that lighting and landscaping should be included for the formal baseball field and one formal soccer field should be included with a time restriction of 8:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 P.M. on Fridays and Saturdays. The same requirements are applicable to the informal ball field as well. Without objection, the Commission concurred at the lighting should included for te hard court areas with the time extended to 10:00 p.m. Responding to Chair/Meyer, CSD/Rose stated that the consensus plan from the Parks and Recreation Department for the first phase of construction contained provisions fority, parking and hardcourt area lighting. The only area not anticipated coordinated with the hactual fconstruction of lightingields. All would each would element. Chair/Meyer asked staff to work on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Resolution and bring it995back Without the Commission as an agenda item March 13, objection, the Commission concurred. He advised the audience that the document will be prepared and reviewed by the Community Services Director and the item will be returned995 as an agenda item to the Planning Commission on March 13, and will not be a public hearing item. Recommendation of the Planning Commission is to conditionally approve the item with some provisions on the lighting. The document will be available on March 8 or 9, 1995 fr public consumption. If o there is objection to the document, there is a provision on the agenda that public comment will be accepted at the beginning of the Planning Commission meeting on March 13, 1995. OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS: 1. Discussion of the Development Code CDD/DeStefano reported that the Development Code is a major implementation measure to the City's General Plan. The staff February 27, 1995 Page 11 Planning Commission has compiled a list of objectives which should be incorporated into the overall project, principally dealing with implementing the General Plan, identifying rezoning issues, creation of contemporary guidelines with respect to Diamond Bar, consolidation of the approximately 38 zones the City currently has, the establishment of design guidelines for the City and to devise a code that is user friendly, concise, internally consistent and easily maintained. Staff has compiled a Table of Contents for the document. There is no particular order intended, however, they are areas of concern to Diamond Bar. He announced that representatives on Urban Design Studio were present to give a presentation the Development Code. Ron Pflugrath, Urban Design Studio, stated that they are present before the Planning Commission to char of Development some of their knowledge and experience in the preparation Codes, Zoning ordinances and instruments and documents that implement the General Plan. The options available for se the existing completing a Development Code are: 1) a complete new Development Los Angeles County Develop ment)Develop a Development Code. Zoning Ordinance; and 3) P The third option is recommended. Bruce Jacobson, Urban Design Studio, stated that a Development Code can contain many optional elements, but there are some basics. Certainly it would include what the City views as typical Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Regulations. These are descriptions and chapters that outline allowable uses, p P os statements, standards and procedures for land use and oneulation and implementation. Another op of the most prominent next to the Zoning Ordinance is the Subdivision Ordinance. Not all Development Codes have Subdivision Ordinances and not all Development Codes have Subdivision Ordinances which are integrated. The most important components a nAmtrue true ied Developmentode are its suctiCodeo would and level of Intee gratioo. have the provisions and regulations for each of the unique contents, but there would be provisions more universal in nature. Mr. Jacabson cited the San Bernardino Development Code for which his firm had won a national award for provenring very user friendly by the APA jury. It has in fact, be user friendly through its implementation. These are meet oafs that a unified Development Code would meet, canshould meet. February 27, 1995 Page 12 Planning Commission Responding to C/Schad, no two Development Codes would ever look alike. It is recognized as an implementation tool for the City's General Plan. If a Development Code is properly written, there is a nexus between the General Plan and the Development Code to the extent that purpose statements for individual zoning districts, and purpose statements for individual standard sections are lifted from the General Plan and if not quoted verbatim, certainly are summarized so that the reader would not find inconsistencies. Typically, the General Plan is the predecessor to the Development Code. VC/Flamenbaum asked what the consultants would recommend as a procedure for authoring a Development Code and how long it took to complete the San Bernardino Development Code. Mr. Jacobson responded that the firm has written several Development Codes. Every contract tends to have a one year completion provision. It can be written in one year, however, there has not been one adopted within a year. A reasonable time is two to two and one-half years. Working with staff and any community groups that might be involved in the �r cess, the procedure for developing a code would be a "ge period parallel to the formatting and constructing of a Table of Contents. The process is to prepare the document in segments following a series of public workshops. Several articles are then prepared over a period of time which are submitted to staff and the review team. Once all of the articles are reviewed and edited a draft document is prepared for public viewing. At that time, joint workshops are held with the Planning Commission and City Council. The public is noticed and invited to attend these workshops and present their input. The document is then either modified or errata sheets are prepared. C/Huff asked if the Hillside Management Ordinance and Sign Ordinance had to be revisited for integration into the Development Code. Mr. Flugrath responded that they would be reformatted to fit within the Development Code but they would not have to be revisited. Mr. Jacobson emphasized that any new development code would need to be revisited from time to time because communities change, decision makers change, procedures change and state law changes. For instance, when a General Plan changes, some of the solutions to the changes may be a modification to the Development Code. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff would like for the Commissioners to create their own "top ten" wish list. He indicated he needs to formulate the 1995/1996 budget for February 27, 1995 Page 13 Planning Commission presentation to the City Council and the sooner the pPlanning mmore Commissionca�make the esentation cansbermadectotheaCity Council in quickly thep order to aware the funds fth a or this project. Siroject Of this ssit not have the time or resources t d bl e ajoint effort with a magnitude, it will, by necey, consultant. rath stated hat Responding to CDD/DeStn forr.theugDevelopment tCode.he City needs to set a budgetCommission and staff Jacobs ontindicated that the planning rocess for creating needs to create a vision and determine a p a Development Code. h to Commission the Commun itits tDevelopment with the City Council Director in arriving at a budget that the Council is willing to allocate and with that budget, determine what can be done in house and what needs to be done outside. to get the VC/Flamenbaum recommended tive him their 1 stlb offive to ten funds for CDD/DeStefano► ath to complete a Development Code. items and continue on a p INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None ANNOUNCEMENTS - None red the meeting adjourned at 11:05 p•m- Chair/Meyer decla Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Secretary Attest: David Meyer Chairman City Of Diamond Bar I N T 8 R O F F I C E M 8 M O R A N D U M TOs Mayor Papen and Mayor Pro Tem warner FROM: Linda G. Magnuson;'ccountinq Manager SUBJECT: Voucher Register, March 21, 1995 DATE: March 16, 1995 Attached is the Voucher Register dated March 21, 1995. 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 REGISTER APPROVAL The attached listing of vouchers dated March 21, 1995 have been reviewed, approved, and recommended for payment. Payments are hereby allowed from the following funds in these amounts: FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 001 General Fund $182,165.68 112 Prop A - Transit Fund 3,743.14 115 Integrated Waste Mgt Fund 1,824.00 118 Air Quality Improvement Fund 2,261.18 125 Com Development Block Grant Fund 1,819.80 138 LLAD #38 Fund 5,111.32 139 LLAD #39 Fund 7,013.34 141 LLAD #41 Fund 2,122.31 250 CIP Fund 583,406.13 510 Self Insurance Fund 350.00 TOTAL ALL FUNDS $789#816.90 APPROVED BY: Lihda G. Mag on Accounting Manager Terrence L. Belanger City Manager Z Phyl is E. Papen Mayor , ic­_tr3t-_ .14-- Lan JO --i, V, 4 - -:Z 4 5-2, S2 A e4cuirat_m 1 - -_ - - - - - - - - 11C7 T eb vt;YLh. - - - - - - - - - - --)f-." 7. 4 0 V + Dam-_- 33r L: vENDGR NAME � I;E,Na;�R T I ACCOUNT PROJ,TX-NO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BATCH PO.LINE/NO. ENTRY AMOILIN I DATE "E" L ff d er i age rk 2 V k R.egeari nt zi o re , ic­_tr3t-_ .14-- Lan JO --i, V, 4 - -:Z 4 5-2, S2 A e4cuirat_m 1 - -_ - - - - - - - - 11C7 T eb vt;YLh. - - - - - - - - - - --)f-." 7. 4 0 V I -UN 71-"E: S /1 5 R REGI 3 DL- THF-. 3.1 2 ACCOLNT PRLJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/W N T- E AMOUNT Tf , 7 "N I DA . - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -7uC' �,rtC ou BTParawun 1B 01/`1,54 - Rh- - - - - - - - tJ Ct JeVI" C--rr,2;ga,7, ;'D -i -,-,,jE ,.,ENIDOR -------- Alerial Mac ---- - - - - - - - - Lu 1:6 -jr- 'END"l- I., E 111FIL .......... �NDQR NAME iENEiGR iii. ACCOUNT PRO-i.TX-NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BATCH PO.LINE/NO. t !-i'll- 1;—u— i - F-.,]N ..iTE lurgeSSLyn 4C. 4' L i_11. J 14 b -;7 f 00 03 1 /917 NT I r L,11K tl 5 4tj -- --------- ---- -------- 4 o a R61N TIME: 14-58 -:03/1," - -;E' WRE, NAME VE�@OR, TD. I D --'J.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINEMO. ACCCUNT �,mu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ENTRY/;JE N LE AMOUNT DATE LCCC s A5i0co ppl1!, 4 2, . IS 4 i L a A 7 7-� — ArIOLNT ---- 4".t.4 o s 4c ZZ Z- zweep t`q�� IJIA. L VENDOR -------- c., -546. :5�6 ar --�tcr MaInt-Fir, 0 lei -m-, As-5oc 2 4 �C A f) -------- g I �,Al A IQ V 1— i Lj ELIVCS-A�,4 - - - - - - - - - -- th .. 4 7 2 i oli�448 wjf -v ;YN TW M8 MwK ;w.:QER iE3:3----; '-GE DUE P -RL ........ vZN[,OR NAME VDCOR 1D, ACCMMT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FRC .TX -NO BATCH PO.LINE,,N10. DU E -E AMOUNIT GA" . K lame, Paul DWAF i -34, Q, n Z 1: 122.3 lei m - lew a Wmrsi on 86.60 '.7AL i -UE vENDOR --------- 11 3'6. 00 LKaqn:., F27;tal 05 W, ----------- my Tows. wh-610:35 4 tonn 2 q�: iTalow to 7nEr kEntVig 2147-1 r. .-.e 4 D':— 3/22-24 50 Oi21/95 f-yji, 50 --aL -JE E�I:OR -------- 2 ij 7 2 if 020. 3sq5 so:,. 7 C - 2 1 D 0315 0512: :2.K11 5qp"ps 15 Mv 1� 2 -;C;2M 0115 OJ :1 oh:v 21D 1 -v Wa5 G�L hy Can Mtgs 5_.. 0' Ulf "S L one 6& 17 1221 _ 2212.. :i 15 n :Q: s4p1as 19W., 3whas 411- 4AW �•�.- :�: 1.: '.t v � � __ _ _ _. as __ C-_, _ RUN T71E: 14:`_:0 {j-d/f ./'dS v C U C H E tR R =u'E SUE THRLL .... ........ .ii.- vENDOR NAPE VENDOR ID. * # = EFaIG ACCI)NT PRCJ.TX-NO BATCH P0.IINE11NO. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- tN1hy _-_- `:JN — -------------------------------------------------------- •M0JN'T DATE Gia7iond bar retty ash Petty -lash i!?01-40110-1 "X 5 503221G CCoun_:1 Sapp ies 1.8+ il.j1-4�itit;- 5 1 5+!:i 1G ,'15 {i iCi =. Mw^eetmgs 39, O := j1-4 10-12 "J"O 4 5Q321G 3,`15 V r of i :iii-fC:�.rtgCummCtr 100.: i! -Ilei u Kua t':/iVai�ut k:'rt _ h3w,t. :-.._`=_5'nar.re-pan 1,7._.0u _ F E rEhIGGR--------t 703.00 -, mg r ___a._ Jul'_. a__ ::a: a �•�.- :�: 1.: '.t v � � __ _ _ _. as __ C-_, _ -k 4 1 i3 L . . . . �E,�LOR NAME VENIa ID. C. LI! N T 0 6 A T L' H P 0 . L I IN E /N 0 E N T R E I o T' ---------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Fr2nz,.5 Fate 4 First Inter 4 50,3- 5 50321A AL : E -------- -- -------- -- -------- ------ ....:,i -al —osiTiot ie Mr.: --'A------- F- i j D Am a T. 1 _ a k 4 4 RUN TIME: 14.58 0 3/ 16 f"� 5 v v u H c R _: ;_ 5, .............. _ VENDOR NAME VENDOR I.D. # = L='A D 4Ci,CUNT rROJrJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINEjNO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ENTRY. DuE -_ -E �n .- 3.' AMOUNT GA`= 7-�i:`_ U_Z. `_i _. -;r S' .' S -Pet e snFrk:-March 40.74 40.74 j C. La for-: a *... 4:}; a2 -5�._ -^:. J=5'S'y'Cd?GrE C'iP: 71. ?i� --------7 7..30 tiger, Dcrca -4- 4i l"! 1_.v.• ---,. - LE JtNi!"u'R 517 , Q m pp-kEEnEa^raper r -;r, . ..n 7,0321'3 v1/2416 _et_E-heaL 4�..0. k—nGiant i11Li,4 ) »_.- 44 J_ _. - ree, :dr :ngjVcS 121, _0 ;p -NLOR N� E I'D. Al -COUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PD,LINE/INO. E N T Y/ --N AMOUNT DATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ r ------ -5 7 _Erl S.: L'Y 1 01,� :fC0 Hump, reyB J NIGR '+4ME AMOUNT -.« T� - (, _ „ rr:i«;i.TX-NO BATCH RO.LINE(N0. N R: t vv_: �cv ,, ,+ ." _-_________ ______________________________________________________________-__-__ C a4 1�. � ...�.� _ - - :..,i1� �_Ls-,-a=.�_aNHv=•=�at�a?ips � )�s �.! -- - JIU "E t j 51 ti.: l` w"' -y Charges o4' ,a7 L= - Jiw _ tiY cfl _Anna' V:fs,i MG. ,hPCs i, ib'' .1 } JL�4.. - -1 _ , i`J �t JENIJOn • - c— esL JG.irr+'__i-Xcurti- f . 531 i ...-4' i i i _ _„_._.0 -4_. ,..... a_ _ _—_J _ _. _ J '. • j_ .v= Gr- -tie _i. 21;: rr` y C -t y. - - - - - - - ... DUE 7HRL, VENDOR NAME VENI)-*GR 4'D Ac,73juNIT F,r',:u,7,,j'.-;X-NO BATCH PO.LINE,/NC. ENTRY; U AMe N DATE. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- t I ec t i oris 1--i All- ...... P SPECt cns 77 - ----------- R27. T r ,,UN TIME: 1d:58 1 3 3 OOLI-. WOR NME VENDOR. M. ACCOUNT PROj.TX-N0 BATCH PO.LINE,/NO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.w -,:E �FESE.n!PT:01,,• AMOUNT DVE L1 C211u1,1- LACel lular 1-40,wlD-:12-5 2 SV 15 3. 21 -5 D�11 Who ';a. t_ 64.75 00 001 2.,-'- — 7- _,._, -CTADOE VENDOR -------- 175.99 ,0 '4 --,�27 -,F!y Supplies _...22 41 .01mape W *14 15545h8 2 5WAH OLIAS 00io 01/21 15227 F2t-weed Abate Svcs 4,561.04 15 330. 6100 j7AL vENJ-r�R it 5WAA WaK Alk coo, MrsYEW034204 9540 o5a4in 4!. 23 15 1 503210 03A5 010 Dues 7-�- --;E -z.,.--CF -- --------- ; _,,.crates Leightor Oil! Kil 1p:: -- -------- 4 4 4 JENDCR NAME VENDOR 1D. ACCOUNT Fr.Gj.TX-NO BATCH PO.LNE/NO. c-N-RiV- AK-UNT uRTE ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 May0ees L: a � UN TIME: 14:56' j' H E ti PME YEAM NAME MOR ID. PANK ACCOUNT fRCJ.TX-N0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BATCH PG.LINE/NG. E N'T P y/ SLI E C E AMOLNT DATE *0") 1 MY= 4 WAD 01055 ^Epalr NL-tl-,,jgr WPM Mot, LE 1-4-31 7 "17.30 liss I.iFifj!qd Bar liai,:y *Oi.'1-4095-2'-�5t i w� 16 agi-, `�agaarit Sponsar:-Ihip 035105 J UEVENL F( ---------- 0.00 lown 1 mobil J' -2 H 66.72 -4 --7AL AM OU N I ---- -- --------- F v:— enna :Mws 743.00- -,2 ',--3/16- -al vcs,-Retainar Feb 5,500.00 S,,cs-rL;Dar L:go. 7n2 37, �3 2 LXp2n7e5 NewTechnol 3701 1 MAREtrdt 25.07 7 i J vEENDOR NAME VENDIOR TD. .4 -14C OWA CCH PO . L %E NC . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S 3N NT -4 'Y ---------- �7 o rney we5 reu- -4 r, nL 31UE v'E*;'-q7'0'R F -------- R - --------- 4 k: V 7.7; --------- 7 --- - - - - - - - - E E THF VENDOR NPME VENCOR 10, ACIC.CIUNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I uQ I NO BATCH PO.LINE/NC. EN7� ----------------------------------------------------------- AMOUNT DATE `t7 1.mcr D. 17 -------- 18.47 i J QQ 'duo_ =�7r c vo u —Co ---------- Z.,LOR - --------- 1J j; .'::_�NDGR WE VENMR D. PRQJ.TX-NO BAMH PD.LINE!"NO. ENT JUL 11,N'T A 4. r" UN T -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2c 2 CC) 4 j"i- cl'4 1 41 -- _-_.__-__1 1 L INC --F -- - - - - - - - - -73P , -_WP-ic eqnvcs esgnSvr_s-Prcspc --- --------- t .7i 4 4 'E -,E: 14-: .:m I L -JENDQR NAME VENEGR "D. '.^C'LaJN',' PROJ,TX-NO BATCH MENEM. CE. -N 7 T iI Ll E AMOUNT DA' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- c, u il arn CIE. E I -Z I .oLr,-ah- -, 50321F E�f Or 'Di 'e -------- 7 --a VJE,Niu -------- r Fir Irntri at -- 45. J2 -E On:r! 764.�; z 7 L X c L 1 71 ;_ -Jr, -------- # 41 T I M E 14 5 E .3 VENEOR kAME VENDOR "El. ACCOUNT PROS .TX ------------------------------------------------------------------ -NO 24ATCH PO.LNEMO. I Z r" ��jnw IN ------------------------------------------------------------------ MOUNT 41 DOOR --------- - 415.4 V:7 -------- Z4 ,i ---- -------- W., c j -j - --------- -41 j 1z'I RL,N TIME' 14-'58 03/10!/`75 JR T 3 4ENIER NAME VENDM TD. . —:-UN; i . --,R-OJ.TX-N0 BATCH K.LINE'�NG. ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _,"{Thi, " ljNT 4i)f.111 -4411 11 1 51 '21E E T N- --------- katp-r 8. t r s Alater L. - -ageOF1 Reagan -4 7 r D,-,E 1EN: OR -------- X41.IJ4 :.v water L D IF IEN- OR ric,.14 iat=r - - - - - - aq e - D i 5 41. 41 -- -------- nc -4=--:: 55".r- '4f L-------- i 4 7 At., 03 iiizs-Gen Plan J(" 5032', H LL, HVij�17 L J. !N IMP ;ENDER NAME VENDOR ID. A rX-_No -�NT- SA7CH PO.LINE/NO. AMO "J I, A., ! t ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ________I ------------ - --------------- 78 RUN TIME: 14:58 E R DISBURSE FUNDI TOTAL D! R E rT PAY EXPENSE REVENUE EX EEE C: A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------ ------------ ------------ --- -------- ------------- ------------ --- --------- ------------ l ! l 111 I a 6 Ply 54 CARL WARREN & CO. ACWInsurance Adjusters Claims Management and Administration - � 0 TI c ( i t% 1 -)rive _rc 300 _A 92668 Sta,i 1`(�. R: -z 25180 tienta A:,a. ;'A 9299-; I V(1 '14 740 '9'Jv -8001572 x900 FAX !' 14 ) '40 '092 TO: City of Diamond Bar ATTENTION: Tommye A. Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk RE: Claim Claimant . D/Event Recd Y/Office Our File Buchan v. Diammmd Bar Margaret J. B 01/08/95 03/01/95 S 82139 ABR March 2, 1995 We have reviewed the above captioned claim and request that you take the action indicated below: [ZZ] CLAVI REJECTION: Bead a standard rejection Utttr to th• olaiaant. [ ] CLAIM INSUFFICIENCY: In accordance with the V=1,� versation of * a notice of insufficiency must be mailed to tib -,a .VA0knolater than * , 19*. THIS MUST BE MAILED TO THE CLAIMANT WITi : i � + OV. RIWZIPT OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM IN YOUR MICE. DO NOT SDBMIT � r See Government Code Sections 910 and/or 910.2 and/or pd.: [ ] AMENDED/SUppLEILRTAL Q& Mf- Send a standard, rejection letter to the claimant, rejecting this additional/amended claim.. [ ] LATE CLAIM_$N Return the origipa. Claim satterial to the claimant, advising that the claim is late and tha y.their aarly ec tse is to file a written "Applfostion for Leave to Present a Late Clam. (Retain copies in your fire. , NUST BE MAILED TO TH$ CLAX-MA ;;;[IR 45 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE CLAS :4t Yoft OFFICE. DO NOT Sl& A See Government Code 9sdt !-911.4 [ ] ARp.T_ATT -&L=ION: Reject claimant's "Application for Leave to Present a Late tin. See Government Code Section 911.8. [ ] TAKE NO ACTION: Defer any written response to the claimant pending our further advice. Please provide us with a copy of the notice sent, -ad requestecdabove. If you have any questions please contact the unders w Very fmlp J. cc: SCJPIA w/enc. ®or.�v�® _A M V < JNMA(j .�, TO PERSON OR PRUR�R1C'`" INSTRUCTIONS 1. Clalms for death, Injury to person or to percros.l prope-ty nust bt filed note later than ( mos. after the occurrence. (Gov Cc de Sec. 911.:1) L 2. Claims for damages to real property must be fled no late :• ti, 1 gr,Fmr L occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2) 3. Read entire claim before filing. 4. See page 2 for diagram upon which to l)ca a place of accident. 5. This claim form must be signed on page 2 at bottont. 6. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give :ull de:ails. SIGN EACH SHEET. 7. Claim must be filed with City Clerk. (Cov. C'cd( Sec. 915a) To: The City of Diamond Bar Name of Claimant � J Home Address of Claimant �0a ai E t.4� C� Business Address of Claimant City and State City and State CLAIM No. Gi-a address to which you desire ncti^_er nr corn-nuni _etiors to be sera r eganjing this claim: dcoai E l�Lc��LC6 u.iL-CLu Ageo Claimant (if natural person) 3le Home Telephone Number _ _ How did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full particulars. c.�vr�,Y � � �- �,� c� �►�- h����. ��_-tt�, ►ti� �t-d.1,i,�a � ( + � J�.r� W -hen did DAIGIAGE or INJURY occur? Give full particulars, date, time of day: N It Where did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Describe fully, and locate on cLgram on reverse side of this sheet, where appropriate, give street names and addresses and measurements from landmarks: 11 I ld��-1't'L {: ►� cL: ��ll, � at,l,, G� ( 1& -hat particular AC or OMISSION do you claim caused the injury or damage? Give names of City employees causing the injury or damage, if known: n ��a.t_�,u.r� �� C�:�� ir,,�..t�: ,v ��;z-��,-'rr��.� �,� �_ r�� um,d.� ►�� , ���'v.�rr�1.c. " ��n.��,�. What DAMAGE cr INJURIES do you claim resulted? Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed: J 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: oc aq X13 d� L' ��l t t L(— � itiu�wt v ��k. � (u � � �t Q 3 f d tfLe �`1 �ti- "riu (ter Give ESTIMATED AMOUNT as far as known you claim on account of each item of prospective injury or damage, giving basis of computation: SEE PAGE 2 (OVER) THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON REVERSE SIDE Insurance payments received, if an, id names of :usrrance Cempar.y: [It Expenditures made on account of accident or in;ury: (Date—Item) (Amount .Name ana aaaress or witnesses, L)octors ana Hospitals: READ CAREFULLY For all accident claims place on follo-xing diagram names of streets, including North, East, South, and West; indicate place of accident by "X" and by showing house numbers or distances to street corners. If City Vehicle was involved, designate by letter "A" location of City vehicle when you first saw it, and by "B" location of yourself or your vehicle 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 7A\ FOR OTHER ACCIDENTS Ami K 'y &V /too /�QARi 4'I Signature of Claimant or person filing on his behalf giving Typed Name: Date relationship to Claimant: C'=s.S T,1'ST BE FITTED WITH CITY CLERK (GCV. CODE SEC. 915a) . DISCUUNT TIRE C6ATERS i URRr : 140 ROWLANi7 HE I GH COL,.:MA KD. iiOWL_ANLI H4=r.CaF T7-;` UP 91'!48 91�"3�r11i 114436 �. A. fit. AAI 1514:] 3.NVLJ.l rL:.:E:M iwi-E: 1-ti�9 `3S S$4LL(,3FtEif' t UpV 111 L,;;IRLSON -t IMJE: 11 i;l.i�;•C 7YPl. RET AIL_ G�. U. #I 1:UT R RE:SALE� z EpHLN HUCHAN z,.OB21 H IUH GOUNTY MOUN' L -,R : P/i+f1H ME -CH. l: 1 N V # s f37 �i4 46- CA,: H &. (;ARkY Gf1'�bl l I:.R L)AV I U CARL E�01 PROMXSED By! RE CURN WAR*f S : N YEAR MAKE MODEL MILEAGE; r Received �y�.-_ All Parts ore new, u110ss Otherwise stated. I i CUSTOMER _ I iV.PEC M' L:L) LAY* ilwReaStar�' _....__._'._....-_.....,....__,_,_ f-br �ii�it,. TNun ._.-.--.__...,..._--.,.-•.._...._._---....-_._._�-._..,....._.._�-----_..._..... Llty !=rice {�al ount L)escriptiasz'.__y___.._ I.1JwItem ...._- . y -1a. 9b _. ...__._._.._ •--.�_ Varbf� f=-lb.`;iaED�It;1 � L)IJNLOP7 U���/i�u'. 10, �i:i 10.115 X11 16041+41 I-.aho►- LIFETIME' WHLE:L: iiALANCINC� t . �. Jy �. :5,3 TBA P,art;ti TR413 RUBBERFEE 1. at, iD i 4?1- 1,1:3 W�18"f E 41 R1= nX:�F!W AL 1 �. P-5 0. c"1 (44 l'1DF CAI-IFC7�' VIII WASTE TIRE' Fl:E �.. �. ie-,. t� fJN PON 4hE, kH'[. .:;-,•.WAY i :.. 54 Skkttotal Par•,tc:.,: S�:#atti�al' tabor: Jubb Ot l t fi 18 F► R Taxis 1+. C." Fi. �►ii) h. 34 T11Vniee 'CatAla Faymont: VISA r Received �y�.-_ All Parts ore new, u110ss Otherwise stated. I i CUSTOMER XXV/ CARL WARREN 8i CO. Insuran.;_ Adpws= C len eri and Administration 4 SO TO: City of Diamond Bar ATTENTION: romrye A. Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk RE: Claim Claimant D/Event Recd Y%Office Our File Goode v. Diamond,Bar Susan M. Goods 01/18/95 03/02/95 S 82145 ABK CITY CLLl f ii % 95 MAR -8 PH 2: 27 March 6, 1995 We have reviewed the above captioned claim and refit that you take the action indicated below: [ZZ] CLAIM RZJBCTION: Bead a standard rejection 140*Aottiw the claimant. [ ] CLAIM INSUFFICIENCY: In accordance with theconversation of * a notice of insufficiency must be mailed to t 7,e61aismWt no later than *, 19*. THIS MUST BE w►UMTO THE CLAIMANT-iiyl"W', 0 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM IN YOUR {OFFICE. DO NOT SUBMT, 7:01CLETTER, See Government Code Sections 910 and/or 910.2 and/or 410.4. [ ] AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM: Send a standard rejection letter to the claimant, rejecting this additional/amended claim. [ ) LATE CLAIM •RESPWSS_ Return the original claim material to the claimant, advising that the claim is.late and that their only recourse is to file a written "Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim". (Retain copies in your file.) =$ MUST BE MAILED TO TM CLAIM7i M WITHIN 45 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE CLAIK I*;�YOUR OFFICE. DO NOT SUMO A !JXJ.ECTION" LETTEM, See Government Code Section 911.4 [ ] APPLICATION REJECTION: Reject claimant's "Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim. See Government Code Section 911.8. ( ) TAKE NO ACTION: Defer any written response to the claimant pending our further advice. Please provide us with a copy of the notice sent, as requested above. If you have any questions please contact the undersigned. very ruly*J.: rs; CARLCOMPANY Dwigh cc: SCJPIA w/enc. �r _/-1 i V %.0 % .0 1-1i yd -1 J _ ,i TO PERSON OR PROPERTY INSTRUCTIONS 1. Claims for death, injury to person or U. per.ccnal l ropei-ty :must be filed not later than ( rtos. after the occurrence. (Gov Code Sec. 311.:1 2. Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than 1 yeas after the occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2) 3. Read entire claim, before filing. 4. See page 2 for diagram upon which to locate Elace )f ac:ide:tt. 5. This claim form must be signed on page 2 at tot,:on.. 6. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give full details. SIGX EACH SHEET. 7. Claim must be filed with City Clerk (Gov. Code S(c. 915a) To: The City of Diamond Bar Name of Claimant SAN M U-C!C� I,- ------ Home]]Addireess2of C1 ant City 'and r:State �) Business Address of Claimant City and State Give address to which you desire notices or comrnunicaticns to be sent regarding this claim: AI.I, e 14 -� S A & v -/- - Age of laimant (if natural person) Home rr Telephone Number l��a)51_i I_UQl How did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full particulars �UR iti Ri�ri�f— ROM Af3 131�d o�_fc wl�/ti i,�,�iEk' t/ t (.AJ/ fiP.E p �Cli_ IVO C yv JS WL'Al��J w o" �zv� �� C_��� Sih fit ti IBJ L4_1 bQQ dJU Ci4�� UNG u ci oti� src �W�ll �f� T r�' r - %�R� wAS VA�dee� (J Ci off A- /IM_ , � �E�' �,< r'�K� tip, v/s,� �3�� W,4)0y/�/UG S . W -hen did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full particulars, date, time of day: v SJA�`'1 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: �T/ti016C A'CA 0/, i4 A� C 0. & Z� - 4 / p &ls X _ski C&R 6 What particular ACT or OMISSION do you claim caused'tife injury or damag ? Give names of City employees causing the injury or damage, if known: l�Ll� What DANL GE cr INJ 'Ot} CO&l 7X'U C SAO & do you claim resulted' Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed: i )A/'1 AGS � What AMOUNT do you claim on account of each item computation: (2�yos - t 97. 3 injury or damage as of date of presentation of this claim, giving basis of Give ESTIMATED AMOUNT as far as known you claim on account of each item of prospective injury or damage, giving basis of computation: / R;-0.4 C.Lo WU j6 CA 10 1 --ya/ III S6Z OA),11%1 SEE PAGE 2 (OVER THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIG ON REVERSE SIDE Insurance payments received, if any, names of :::suzance Company: NO4',1,�, Expenditures made on account of accident or :n;ury: (Date—Item) (Amount) Name and address of Witnesses, Doctors and Hospitals: READ CAREFULLY For all accident claims place on following diagram names of streets, including North, East, South, and West; indicate place of accident by "X" and by showing house numbers or distances to street corners. If City Vehicle was involved, designate by letter "A" location of City vehicle when you first saw it, and by "B" location of yourself or your vehicle 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 7A\ FOR OTHER ACCIDENTS SI CURB x� t� Signature of Claimant or person filing on his behalf giving Typed Name: Date relationship to Claimant: C`L:- ^.S ^•IUS1 BE FILED WITH CITY CLERK (GOV. CEDE SLC. 913a) . A Fairway Garden Hand Carwash 19834 East Walnut Dr. North Industry, California 91789 ,q6-1 - SFG 99Z53�% CUSTOMER ORDER NO. OAT - -- NAME ADDRESS 3© CITY, STATE, ZIP D� W5 M N!7 TI SOLL)by L.,,m T L�0- KLAIVII�,.I I � RETD KEEP THIS SLIP FOR REFERENCE DC 4705 If Fairway Garden Hand Car Wash 11:38am SLSMN# 16 ---- j Boutique 89.00 ` SALES TAX: 7.34 Cash / Check 100.00 CHANGE66 ---------------- 3_ THANK YOU! PLEASE VISIT OUR CUSTOM DETAIL CENTER WE RECYCLE OUR WATER Use wash receipt as your CLAIM CHECK No CLAIM CHECK No KEYS!!! RECEIVED BY KEEP THIS SLIP FOR REFERENCE DC 4705 If Fairway Garden Hand Car Wash 11:38am SLSMN# 16 ---- j Boutique 89.00 ` SALES TAX: 7.34 Cash / Check 100.00 CHANGE66 ---------------- 3_ THANK YOU! PLEASE VISIT OUR CUSTOM DETAIL CENTER WE RECYCLE OUR WATER Use wash receipt as your CLAIM CHECK No CLAIM CHECK No KEYS!!! IT;T';T 7 V Z7 I A 'r fflw,;�ki- SALES --atranP= WWAF - -- -- -- ----- CAsrgs the tturld6V acWo—rWo—a ~ �s v In>h ex Your •w *m Wmid not be OPM8 0 at spssde : sC Cees at U103-'.-�- arh } r ;4cEPLdED" V. / - _ •r ` - _ _ - CdKM1� POW ®C...NSUf11lr CUSTOMER WORK ORDER COPY - NOT A RECEIPT quo Pn••• 16109-010 NATIONAL. Rev 9194 'See reverse side for warranty details Sears Forms Mm-ge--t 1'4FWzFfz CARL WARREN & CO. Insurance Adjusters Claims-Admtmstiators P.O. Box 25180 Santa Ana, CA 92799-5180 (714) 740-7999 FAX: (714) 740-7992 TO: City of Diamond Bar Attention: Tommye Cribbins Re: Claim: Claimant: D/Event: Rec'd Y/Office: Our File: 9511AR-1 PM12:07 Date: February 27, 1995 Babbie R. Mayo 1-30-95 2-10-95 S -82084 -RQ We have reviewed the above captioned claim and request that you take the action indicated below: IM CLAIM REJECTION: Send a standard rejection letter to the claimant. [] CLAIM INSUFFICIENCY: In accordance with the telephone conversation of 19 a notice of insufficiency must be mailed to the claimant no later than , 19•THIS MUST BE MAILED TO THE CLAIMANT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM IN YOUR OFFICE. DO NOT SUBMIT A "REJECTION" LETTER. See Government Code Sections 910 and/or 910.2 and or 910.4. t] AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM: Send a standard rejection letter to the claimant, refecting this additional/amended claim. r-1 LATE CLAIM RESPONSE: Return the original claim material to the claimant, advising that the claim is late and that their only recourse is to file a written "Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim". (Retain copies in your file.) THIS MUST BE MAILED TO THE CLAIMANT WITHIN 45 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE CLAIM IN YOUR OFFICE. DO NOT SEND A "REJECTION" LETTER. See Government Code Section 911.4. APPLICATION REJECTION: Reject claimant's "Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim". See Government Code Section 911.8. C3 TAKE NO ACTION: Defer any written response to the claimant pending our further advice. Please provide us with a copy of the notice sent, as requested above. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, cc: SCJPIA Attn: General Manager CARL WARREN & COMPANY (Adjuster) Richard Marque/ib -0!� DAMAGEz TO PERSON OR PROPERTY r,-------- INSTRUCTIONS 1. Claims for death, Injury to person or tc, per. onal property must be filed not later than 6 M,os. after the occurrence. ;Gov Code Sec. 311.:) 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 if ac^ident. 5. This claim form must be signed on page 2 at bot*:on,. 6. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to jive full details. SIGN EACH SHEET. 7. Claim must be filed with City Clerk. (Gov. Code Sec. 915a) To: The City of Diamond Bar Nam of Claimant ,1 Hom A dress-Qf Claimant City and State _ ���D �L I.:L- �—y1l�EJ L �T �r- �/'-?�Y1<:X. Business Address of Claimant City and tate Give address to which you desire notices or comr-aunications to be sent regarding this claim: CLAIM No... �tl ii'IfLrt •••f -. •� 95 FEF 10 P 1 2t Age�f Claimant (if natural person) Homme Telephone Number 261�-,�&/-q1 j- (TF}yu siness Telephone Number' iCi _ G%. _/1,_)� -zi How did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full part,.culars. �- i...L:..� b•[(�(.�,u t•i1 -t��.t Lf(�;,- ..Lid l.�i.� L L--d✓:7 �•i4 aif` �'�TI lI���,f:l ��-_.T�w,--y^r�-1 'loft i -L T �. F� 4zee ' z '- r , f c c�< <__ i t /� c�' �2di- ' S ��, ,= 1- l: W nen did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full particulars, date, time of day: Where did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Describe fully, and locate on diagram en reverse side of this sheet, where appropriate, give street names and addresses and measurements from landmarks: y �. -}lam , 7 -1 -LCL 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: L t.�lat�li K(�;�L 7�(�i�`'`.r `:(,�`fr,� �� ,��.L<a-c<< iii• z�=r �' � �- W'"at DANL?GE cr ItiJURIESC do you claim resulted'. Give full extent of injuries or damagesi claimed: �.T - .'�.. -• )a�.!1ly_G� ��,Y v�—�. iiL4- What �-I" Wfiat AIIOUNT do you claim on account of each item of injury or damage as of date of presentation of this claim, giving basis of computation: b Give ESTIMATED AMOUNT as far as known you claim on account of each item of prospective injury or damage, giving basis of computation: r SEE PAGE 2 (OVER) THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON REVERSE SIDE insurance payments received, if any, names of insurance Company: expenditure made on acro„nr �: �,.,,;,,e,.. .. • ,---�• «,ago—::em) (An:ouni `Name and address of Witnesses, Doctors and Hospitals: �'L>L� L jc-fi READ CAREFULLY For all accident claims place on following diagram names of streets, including N'Qrth, East, South, and West; indicate place oI accident by "X" and by showing house numbers or distances to street corners. If City Vehicle was involved, designate by letter "A" location of City vehicle when you first saw it, and by "B" location of yourself or your vehicle When you first saw City vehicle: location of City ;ati cre " t -:a of ___:, vehicle at the time of the accident by "B -l" and the point of impact by „X,, "`t.etti by "A-1" and location of yourself cr your NOTE: If diagrams below do not fit the situation, attach hereto a proper diagram signed by claimant. FOR AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS L IZ—�j Lj I FOR OTHER ACCIDENT . IkA CS SIDEWALK Signature of Claimant or person filing on his behalf giving relat4fxshiP to Claimant: SIDEWALK Typed Name: f c i2GXAI\iNC =-'S "1 1ST BE FILED WITH CITY CLERK (GOV. CCE-. -"`913a) . arF Date o= _ <, C 11 7 Ur UTAMUINU 13AK AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. e TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: March 21, 1995 REPORT DATE: March 9, 1995 FROM: Joann M. GitmWor Accountant TITLE: Proposition A Local Return Fund, Proposition C Local Return Fund and Transportation Development Act Audits for the fiscal years ended June 30, 1994 and 1993. SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar's Proposition A Local Return (Prop A), Proposition C Local Return (Prop C) and Transportation Development Act Funds (TDA) are required to be audited on an annual basis. The audit for fiscal year ended June 30, 1994 was completed in December 1994 by Simpson & Simpson, C.P.A. The final version of the audits were received in the City offices in March 1995 and are being presented to Council for their review. RECOMMENDATION: Receive, accept and file Proposition A Local Return Fund, Proposition C Local Return Fund and Transportation Development Act Fund Audit Reports for fiscal year ending June 30, 1994 and 1993. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: _ Staff Report Resolution(s) Ordinances(s) _ Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) XX Other (Copies of Respective Audits) 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed Yes XX No by the City Attorney? _ 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? Yes XX No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes XX No Which Commission? _ 5. Are other departments affected by the report? Yes XX No Report discussed with the following affected departments: _ REV W D Y :: Terrence L. Belang Frank M. Usher Linda Magnuson City Manager Assistant City Manager Accounting Manager tl�l' s01, 6' tlTson CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS SENIOR PARTNERS Brainard C. Simpson, CPA Carl P. Simpson, CPA Frederick A Simpson, CPA Terry Balanger City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Dear Mr. Balanger: 5750 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 286 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90036 TELEPHONE (213) 938-3324 FAX (213) 930-0665 February 24, 1995 Re: Final TDA, Prop A and Prop C Audit Reports We have enclosed two copies each of your TDA, Prop A and Prop C final audit reports for the year ended June 30, 1994. Please acknowledge receipt by signing in the space provided below and return this letter to us. Very truly yours, 0,-,, '0( xe4--- Tracee L. Reeves Audit Manager Acknowledgent: r ', Signatur � _ Date /a �� CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE PROPOSITIONA LOCAL RETURN FUND FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 1994 AND 1993 CITY OF MMOND BAR ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1994 and 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditor's Report 4 Balance Sheet 6 Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual 7 Notes to Financial Statements 8 COMPLIANCE SECTION Independent Auditor's Report 11 Schedule of Findings 12 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Exhibit 1 - Schedule of Expenditures - Actual and LACMTA Approved Project Budget 14 Exhibit IA - Schedule of Fixed Assets 15 Exhibit 2 - Exit Conference ►J 16 FINANCIAL SECTION _ zr_ pson S t5yson CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS SENIOR PARTNERS Brainard C. Simpson, CPA Carl P. Simpson, CPA Frederick A Simpson, CPA ,0%1 7 / '7771 December 2, 1994 To the Honorable Members of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 5750 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 286 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90036 TELEPHONE (213) 938-3324 FAX (213) 930 -OW We have audited the balance sheets of the Proposition A Local Return Fund of the City of Diamond Bar (City) as of June 30, 1994 and 1993, and the accompanying statements of revenue, expenditures, and changes in fund balance for the years then ended. These statements are the responsibility of the City's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. As more fully described in Note 2, the financial statements present only the Proposition A Local Return Fund and are not intended to present fairly the financial position and the results of the operations of the City's total funds in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. In our opinion, the statements referred to in the opening paragraph present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Proposition A Local Return Fund of the City as of June 30, 1994 and 1993, and the results of its operations and changes in the fund balance for the years then ended, in conformity with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), Proposition A ^^n/ —Return �LQQram Guidelin c, The accompanying supplemental information listed in the foregoing table of contents is not necessary for a fair presentation of the financial statements referred to in the opening Paragraph, but is presented as additional analytical data. The supplemental information has been subjected to the tests and other auditing procedures applied in the audits of the 4 Tpson S ; 115Pson financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) and it should not be used for any other purpose. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which, upon acceptance by the City Council and LACMTA, is a matter of public record. 5 CITY OF MMOND BAR PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND BALANCESHEET June 30 ASSETS Cash LACMTA Receivable Total Assets LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE Liabilities Accounts Payable Accrued Payroll Total Liabilities Fund Balance Restricted Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 1224 1221 $ 917,535 $ 495,592 48,074 -0- $ 965,609 $ 495,592 $ 6,188 $ 1,719 61 43 $ 965,609 $ 495,592 The notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 6 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1994 (With Comparative Totals for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1993) The notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 7 1994 Variance Favorable (Un- 1993 Revenues Bu-ae Actual favorable) Proposition A (Note 4) $ 453,580 $ 512,394 $ 58,814 $ 536,588 Interest Income (Note 5) -0- 29,507 29,507 23,344 Project Generated -0- 5,142 5,142 -0- Total Revenues 453,580 547,043 93,463 559,932 Expenditures Various Projects (Exhibit 1) 287,950 81,513 206,437 596,895 Total Expenditures 287,950 81,513 206,437 596,895 Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures 165,630 465,530 299,900 (36,963) Fund Balance at Beginning of Year 493,830 493,830 -0- 530,793 Fund Balance at End of Year $i 659,460 $ 959,360 $ 299,900 $ 493,830 The notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 7 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1994 and 1993 NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES IES Fund Accountin The operations of the fund are accounted for in separate sets of self -balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund balance, revenue and expenditures. The fund accounts for the City's share of the 1/2% Proposition A Local Return allocations which are legally restricted for specific purposes. Ba�_fAccounting The Proposition A Local Return Fund (PALRF) is accounted for in a Special Revenue Fund, using the modified accrual basis of accounting whereby revenues are recognized when they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period and expenditures are generally recognized when the related fund liabilities are incurred. The budgeted amounts presented in this report for comparison to the actual amounts are presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The financial statements are intended to reflect the financial position, results of its operations and compliance with the Proposition A Local Return Program Guidelines, published by LACMTA for the Proposition A Local Return Fund only. In accordance with Proposition A Local Return Program Guidelines, funds received pursuant to these code sections may only be used for Proposition A Local Return programs. Proposition A revenue is the following: 1224 14.21 Proposition A Local Return Fund $ 512,394 S 536,588 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1994 and 1993 (Continued) The PALRF cash balance was pooled with various other City funds for deposit and investment purposes. The share of each fund in the pooled cash account was separately maintained and interest income was apportioned to the participating funds based on the relationship of their average monthly balances to the total of the pooled cash and investments. z COMPLIANCE SECTION 10 ~ C/y/ 5750 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 296 so V .w__. __ LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90036 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS }� TELEPHONE (213) 938.3324 1114e FAX (213) 930.0665 SENIOR PARTNERS Brainard C. Simpson, CPA Carl E Simpson, CPA Frederick A. Simpson, CPA INDEPE"EVIA UDITOR'S R PORT December 2, 1994 To the Honorable Members of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority We have audited the balance sheets and statements of revenue, expenditures, and changes in fund balance of Proposition A Local Return Funds of the City of Diamond Bar (City) for the years ended June 30, 1994 and 1993, and have issued our report thereon dated December 2, 1994. Our audits were made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; the rules and regulations of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (LACMTA); the Proposition A Local Return Guidelines (revised June 1988); and accordingly, included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary under the circumstances. The management of the City is responsible for the City's compliance with the laws and regulations of LACMTA and the Proposition A Local Return Guidelines. The following projects were reviewed and tested: Program Promotion Elderly Disabled Paratransit Recreational Transit Transportation Planner Recreational Transit (Ranch Festival) Transportation Planning (Brea II) Commuter Shuttle Vehicle Purchase Transit Subsidy Special Event Transit Transportation Planning Holiday Shuttle Based on our audits, we found that, for the items tested, the City complied with the laws and regulations governing the projects listed above, except as explained in the Schedule of Findings on the following page. Further, based on our audits, for the items not tested, nothing came to our attention to indicate that the City had not complied with the laws and regulations governing the projects. This report is intended solely for the use of the City and LACMTA and should not be used for any other purpose. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which, upon acceptance by the City Council and LACMTA, is a matter of public record. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS For The Year Ended June 30, 1994 No. Non-compliance City Management Comments 1. Section IV.B. of the LACMTA PrQ12asition A Local The City management agreed with the Return Program Cuidelin c (revised finding. June 1988) requires the City to submit completed project descriptions and receive LACMTA's approval for each project before any PALRF funds may be expended. Expenditures were incurred for the Vehicle Purchase project before the City received approval from LACMTA. 2. Section IV.E. of the LACMTA Proposition A Local Return The City management agreed with the Program U"ide"a requires the City to notify LACMTA recommending finding. changes in project scope of greater than 10%. The City did not meet the above requirement for the Recreational Transit (Ranch Festival) r project. i 12 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 13 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES - ACTUAL AND LACMTA APPROVED PROJECT BUDGET For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1994 (With Comparative Actual Amounts for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1993) Project LACMTA Variance (Over) Over 1993 01-125 Dzg ption Program Promotion � 4,000 $ Actual 2,000 $ �� Actual 03-103 Elderly Disabled Paratrans. 50,000 12,028 2,0000) $ 37,972(2) 3,000 12,413 02-105 02-121 Recreational Transit Transportation Planner 25,000 14,556 10,444(3) 9,178 01-105 Rec. Trans. Ranch Fes. ( ) 65,000 3,000 '0" 3,386 65,000 (4) .0_ .03-121 Trans. Planning (Brea II) 23,000 -0- (386) (5) 23,000 (6) 6,345 02-104 01-104 HolidayShuttle Commuter Shuttle 27,000 25,786 1,214(7) "0' 18,97.1 01-152 Vehicle Purchase 22,500 5,500 11,447 11,053 (8) 1,066 01-109 Transit Subsidy 16,750 5,802 4,329 (302) (9) 12,421(10) -0- 01-105 Special Event Transit 1,000. 411 589(11) -0 01-121 01-121 Transportation Planning Community Circulator 45,200 1,768 43,432(12) -0- 22,000 03-121 Pub./Mrktg.-Ranch Fes. -0- -0- -0- -0- 23,653 01-190 Fund Exchange (Pasadena) -0- -0- -0- -0- 269 -0- 500,000 Total Expenditures $ 287,950 $ 81,513 $ 206,437 $ 596,895 (1) Only two newsletters met transportation requirement. (2) This ongoing project came in under budget. (3) This ongoing project came in under budget. (4) This project was not pursued. (5) The costs were slightly higher than anticipated. See Schedule of Findings. (6) This project was canceled. (7) This project came irk under budget. (8) This project overlapped the fiscal years 1992-93 and 1993-94. (9) The costs were slightly higher than anticipated. (10) This project did not sell as many passes as anticipated. (11) This project came in under budget. (12) This project came in under budget. 14 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS June 30, 1994 Date Balance Balance AcQ.uired Descril2tioU ik 7/1/93 Additions Deletions (k6/3 0/94 5/93 2 Vans $ -0- $ 5,500 $ -0- $ 5,500 Totals $ -0- $ 5,500 $ -0- $ 5500 15 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND EXIT CONFERENCE June 30, 1994 An exit conference was held on December 21, 1994, at the City of Diamond Bar. Those in attendance were: Simpson & Simpson Representative: Hasmik Yacoubian, Auditor City's Representative: Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant Matters Discussed. Results of the audit. Val CITY OF DJAMOND BAR ANNUAL FINANC]AL REPORT OF THE PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30,1994 AND 1993 qlpson�� - qj�son � CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1994 and 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditor's Report 4 Balance Sheet 6 Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual 7 Notes to Financial Statements 8 COMPLL.4 NCE SECTION Independent Auditor's Report 11 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Exhibit 1 - Schedule of Expenditures - Actual and LACMTA Approved Project Budget 13 Exhibit I - Schedule of Fixed Assets 14 Exhibit 2 - Exit Conference 2 15 FINANCIAL SECTION i7son IS 1 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 50son SENIOR PARTNERS Brainard C. Simpson, CPA Carl P. Simpson, CPA Frederick A Simpson, CPA December 2, 1994 To the Honorable Members of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 5750 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 286 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90036 TELEPHONE (213) 938-3324 FAX (213) 930-0665 We have audited the balance sheets of the Proposition C Local Return Fund of the City of Diamond Bar (City) as of June 30, 1994 and 1993, and the accompanying statements of revenue, expenditures, and changes in fund balance for the years then ended. These statements are the responsibility of the City's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. As more fully described in Note 2, the financial statements present only the Proposition C Local Return Fund and are not intended to present fairly the financial position and the results of the operations of the City's total funds in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. In our opinion, the statements referred to in the opening paragraph present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Proposition C Local Return Fund of the City as of June 30, 1994 and 1993, and the results of its operations and changes in the fund balance for the years then ended, in conformity with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), Propositionnrnl Return Program G ddeUne . The accompanying supplemental information listed in the foregoing table of contents is not necessary for a fair presentation of the financial statements referred to in the opening Paragraph, but is presented as additional analytical data. The supplemental information has been subjected to the tests and other auditing procedures applied in the audits of the 4 �150san� irr�son financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) and it should not be used for any other purpose. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which, upon acceptance by the City Council and LACMTA, is a matter of public record. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND BALANCE SHEET June 30 ASSETS Cash LAC Receivable (Note 6) Accounts Receivable Total Assets LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE l w wiju Accounts payable Total Liabilities Restricted Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 1244 1991 $ 1,381,607 $ 870,615 38,835 42,814 8,115 $ 1!i $ 913,429 49,573 $—� -0- 49,573-0- 1378,984---- 9 13,429 1,3_ 78,984913,42 9 $ 1,428,557 $ 913,429 The notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 6 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1994 (With Comparative Totals for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1993) Revenues Proposition C (Note 4) Other Revenue (Note 6) Interest Income (Note 5) Total Revenues Expenditures Various Projects (Exhibit 1) Total Expenditures Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year 1994 Variance Favorable (Un- 1993 favorable) Actual $ 520,000 $ 415,078 $ (104,922) $ 422,365 270,000 81,150 (188,850) -0- -0- 46,657 46,657 28,470 790,000 542,885 (247,115) 450,835 201,600 77,330 124,270 -0- 201,600 77,330 124,270 -0- 588,400 465,555 (122,845) 450,835 913,429 913,429 -0- 462,594 $ 1,501,829 $ 1,378,984 $ (122,845) $ 913,429 The notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 7 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1994 and 1993 The operations of the fund are accounted for in separate sets of self -balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund balance, revenue and expenditures. The fund accounts for the City's share of the 112% Proposition C Local Return allocations which are legally restricted for specific purposes. The Proposition C Local Return Fund (PCLRF) is accounted for in a Special Revenue Fund, using the modified accrual basis of accounting whereby revenues are recognized when they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period and expenditures are generally recognized when the related fund liabilities are incurred. The budgeted amounts presented in this report for comparison to the actual amounts are presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The financial statements are intended to reflect the financial position, results of its operations and compliance with the Proposition C Local Return Program Guidelines, published by LACMTA for the Proposition C Local Return Fund only. In accordance with PrZocition C Local Return Program Guidelines, funds received pursuant to these code sections may only be. used for Proposition C Local Return programs. Proposition C revenue is the following: 1224 1223 Proposition C Local Return Fund $ 415,078 $ 422,365 8 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1994 and 1993 (Continued) The PCLRF cash balance was pooled with various other City funds for deposit and investment purposes. The share of each fund in the pooled cash account was separately maintained and interest income was apportioned to the participating funds based on the relationship of their average monthly balances to the total of the pooled cash and investments. The City of Diamond Bar received $81,150 (less 10% retention which represents the accounts receivable amount on the balance sheet) Proposition C revenue for Grand Avenue Traffic Signal Synchronization/Arterial Improvements project, MOU #217-246- 2-93-94. W COMPLL4NCE SECTION 10 irk son .�' S' zm son CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS SENIOR PARTNERS Brainard C. Simpson, CPA Carl P. Simpson, CPA Frederick A. Simpson, CPA December 2, 1994 To the Honorable Members of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 5750 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 286 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90036 TELEPHONE (213) 938-3324 FAX (213) 930066.5 We have audited the balance sheets and statements of revenue, expenditures, and changes in fund balance of Proposition C Local Return Funds of the City of Diamond Bar (City) for the years ended June 30, 1994 and 1993, and have issued our report thereon dated December 2, 1994. Our audits were made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; the rules and regulations of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (LACMTA); the Proposition C Local Return Guidelines (adopted April 1992); and accordingly, included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary under the circumstances. The management of the City is responsible for the City's compliance with the laws and regulations of LACMTA and the Proposition C Local Return Guidelines. The following projects were reviewed and tested: Grand Avenue Traffic Synchronization & Arterial Diamond Bar Boulevard Rehabilitation Based on our audits, we found that, for the items tested, the City complied with the laws and regulations governing the projects listed above. Further, based on our audits, for the items not tested, nothing came to our attention to indicate that the City had not complied with the laws and regulations governing the projects. This report is intended solely for the use of the City and LACMTA and should not be used for any other purpose. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which, upon acceptance by the City Council and LACMTA, is a matter of public record. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 12 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES - ACTUAL AND LACMTA APPROVED PROJECT BUDGET For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1994 (With Comparative Actual Amounts for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1993) Variance Project LACMTA (Over) 1993 CQ& Project Name Budget AsWal Under Actual 01-220 Diamond Blvd. Rehab. $ 200,000 $ 76,135 $ 123,865 (1) $ -0- 01-085 Grand Ave. Synchronization 1,600 1,195 405 0) -0- Total Expenditures $ 201,600 $ 77,330 $ 124,270 $ -0- (1) This project will continue into FY 1994/95. 13 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS June 30, 1994 Date Balance Balance AcQuired Description P 7/1/93 Additions Deletions 6/30/94 None - $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- Totals $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- 14 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND EXIT CONFERENCE June 30, 1994 An exit conference was held on December 21, 1994, at the City of Diamond Bar. Those in attendance were: Simpson & Simpson Representative: Hasmik Yacoubian, Auditor City's Representative: JoAnn Gitmed, Senior Accountant Matters Discussed: Results of the audit. 15 FINANCL4L SECTION — t son i1 son CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS SENIOR PARTNERS Brainard C. SimP-n. CPA Carl E Simpson. CPA Frederick A. Simpson. CPA December 2, 1994 To the Honorable Members of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 5750 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. SUITE 286 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90036 TELEPHONE (213) 938-3324 FAX (213) 930.0885 We have audited the balance sheets of the Proposition C Local Return Fund of the City of Diamond Bar (City) as of June 30, 1994 and 1993, and the accompanying statements of revenue, expenditures, and changes in fund balance for the years then ended. These statements are the responsibility of the City's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. As more fully described in Note 2, the financial statements present only the Proposition C Local Return Fund and are not intended to present fairly the financial position and the results of the operations of the City's total funds in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. In our opinion, the statements referred to in the opening paragraph present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Proposition C Local Return Fund of the City as of June 30, 1994 and 1993, and the results of its operations and changes in the fund balance for the years then ended, in conformity with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), Proposition C Local Return Program Guidelines. The accompanying supplemental information listed in the foregoing table of contents is not necessary for a fair presentation of the financial statements referred to in the opening paragraph, but is presented as additional analytical data. The supplemental information has been subjected to the tests and other auditing procedures applied in the audits of the 4 — � iTpson iyson financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) and it should not be used for any other purpose. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which, upon acceptance by the City Council and LACMTA, is a matter of public record. i9son igson financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City and the Los Angeles LACMTA) and it should not be used for County Metropolitan Transportation Authority any other purpose. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which, upon acceptance by the City Council and LACMTA, is a matter of public record. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND BALANCE SHEET June 30 1294 IM ASSETS Cash $ 1,381,607 $ 870,615 LACMTA Receivable 38,835 42,814 Accounts Receivable (Note 6) 8,115 -0- Total Assets $ 1,428,557 $ 913,429 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE Liabilities Accounts Payable $ 49,573 $ -0- Total Liabilities 49,573 -0- Fund Balance Restricted 1,378,984 913,429 Total Fund Balance 1,378,984 913,429 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 1,428,557 $ 913,429 The notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 0 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1994 (With Comparative Totals for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1993) 0 The notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 7 1994 Variance Favorable Budget Actual (Un- favorablel 1993 Actual Revenues Proposition C (Note 4) $ 520,000 $ 415,078 $ (104,922) $ 422,365 Other Revenue (Note 6) 270,000 81,150 (188,850) -0- Interest Income (Note 5) -0- 46,657 46,657 28,470 Total Revenues 790,000 542,885 (247,115) 450,835 Expenditures Various Projects (Exhibit 1) 201,600 77,330 124,270 -0- Total Expenditures 201,600 77,330 124,270 -0- Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures 588,400 465,555 (122,845) 450,835 Fund Balance at Beginning of Year 913,429 913,429 -0- 462,594 Fund Balance at End of Year $ 1,501,829 $ 1,378,984 $ (122,845) $ 913,429 0 The notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 7 CITY OF DMMOND BAR PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1994 and 1993 The operations of the fund are accounted for in separate sets of self -balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund balance, revenue and expenditures. The fund accounts for the City's share of the 1/2% Proposition C Local Return allocations which are legally restricted for specific purposes. The Proposition C Local Return Fund (PCLRF) is accounted for in a Special Revenue Fund, using the modified accrual basis of accounting whereby revenues are recognized when they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period and expenditures are generally recognized when the related fund liabilities are incurred. The budgeted amounts presented in this report for comparison to the actual amounts are presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The financial statements are intended to reflect the financial position, results of its operations and compliance with the Proposition C Local Return Program Guidelines, published by LACM TA for the Proposition C Local Return Fund only. In accordance with E=osition C Local Return Program Guidelines, funds received pursuant to these code sections may only be. used for Proposition C Local Return programs. Proposition C revenue is the following: 1124 IM Proposition C Local Return Fund $ 415,078 $ 422,365 8 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1994 and 1993 (Continued) The PCLRF cash balance was pooled with various other City funds for deposit and investment purposes. The share of each fund in the pooled cash account was separately maintained and interest income was apportioned to the participating funds based on the relationship of their average monthly balances to the total of the pooled cash and investments. The City of Diamond Bar received $81,150 (less 10% retention which represents the accounts receivable amount on the balance sheet) Proposition C revenue for Grand Avenue Traffic Signal Synchronization/Arterial Improvements project, MOU #217-246- 2-93-94. Z COMPLIANCE SECTION 10 ZnJ son inyso ' S' n CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS` wl SENIOR PARTNERS Brainard C. Simpson. CPA Carl P. Simpson, CPA Frederick A. Slmpsom CPA December 2, 1994 To the Honorable Members of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 5750 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 286 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90036 TELEPHONE (213) 936-3324 FAX (213) 930.0885 We have audited the balance sheets and statements of revenue, expenditures, and changes in fund balance of Proposition C Local Return Funds of the City of Diamond Bar (City) for the years ended June 30, 1994 and 1993, and have issued our report thereon dated December 2, 1994. Our audits were made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; the rules and regulations of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (LACMTA); the Proposition C Local Return Guidelines (adopted April 1992); and accordingly, included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary under the circumstances. The management of the City is responsible for the City's compliance with the laws and regulations of LACMTA and the Proposition C Local Return Guidelines. The following projects were reviewed and tested: Grand Avenue Traffic Synchronization & Arterial Diamond Bar Boulevard Rehabilitation Based on our audits, we found that, for the items tested, the City complied with the laws and regulations governing the projects listed above. Further, based on our audits, for the items not tested, nothing came to our attention to indicate that the City had not complied with the laws and regulations governing the projects. This report is intended 'solely for the use of the City and LACMTA and should not be used for any other purpose. This restriction is riot intended to limit the distribution of this report, which, upon acceptance by the City Council and LACMTA, is a matter of public record. X�� 11-0-r7�1 11 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 12 CITY OFDIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES - ACTUAL AND LACMTA APPROVED PROJECT BUDGET For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1994 (With Comparative Actual Amounts for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1993) (1) This project will continue into FY 1994/95. 13 Variance Project LACMTA (Over) 1993 Code Prniec„ t Name Budget AQUW Uada Actual 01-220 Diamond Blvd. Rehab. $ 200,000 $ 76,135 $ 123,8650) $ -0- 01-085 Grand Ave. Synchronization 1,600 1,195 4050) -0- Total Expenditures $ 201,600 $ 77,330 $ 1124,270 $ 0� (1) This project will continue into FY 1994/95. 13 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS June 30, 1994 Date Balance Balance Acguired Description 7(.1123 Additions Deletions Q 6/30/94 None $ -0-$ -0- $ -0-$ -0- Totals $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- 14 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND EXIT CONFERENCE June 30, 1994 An exit conference was held on December 21, 1994, at the City of Diamond Bar. Those in attendance were: Simpson & Simpson Representative: Hasmik Yacoubian, Auditor City's Representative: JoAnn Gitmed, Senior Accountant Matters Discussed: Results of the audit. 15 7 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 1994 AND 1993 llrlpsvn 11f1 SOi1 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1994 and 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS FINANCLAL SECTION Independent Auditor's Report 4 Balance Sheet - Section 99234 6 Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual 7 Notes to Financial Statements 8 S OPPL EMENTAL. INFOR7 NA TION Schedule of Transportation Development Act Allocation for Specific Projects 11 Schedule of Completed Projects 12 COMPLLANCE SECTION Report on Transportation Development Act Compliance 14 Exit Conference 2 15 FINANCIAL SECTION - An!P son i,rl son CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS SENIOR PARTNERS Brainard C. Simpson, CPA Carl E Simpson. CPA Frederick A Simpson, CPA November 29, 1994 To the Honorable Members of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 5750 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 286 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90036 TELEPHONE (213) 938-3324 FAX (213) 930.0665 We have audited the balance sheets of the Transportation Development Act Fund of the City of Diamond Bar (City) as of June 30, 1994 and 1993, and the related statements of revenue, expenditures, and changes in fund balance for the years then ended. These statements are the responsibility of the City's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. As more fully described in Note 2, the financial statements present only the Transportation Development Act Fund and are not intended to present fairly the financial position and the results of the operations of the City's total funds in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to in the opening paragraph present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Transportation Development Act Fund of the City as of June 30, 1994 and 1993, and the results of its operations and changes in the fund balance for the years then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The accompanying supplemental information listed in the foregoing table of contents is not necessary for a fair presentation of the financial statements referred to in the opening paragraph, but is presented as additional analytical data. The supplemental information has been subjected to the tests and other auditing procedures applied in the audits of the 4 � 17son S; 117son financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) and it should not be used for any other purpose. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which, upon acceptance by the City Council and LACMTA, is a matter of public record. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND BALANCESHEET Pertaining to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code June 30 1424 124.E ASSETS Cash (Note 3) $ 162,404 $ 154,686 LACMTA Receivable -0- 1,539 Total Assets $ 162,404 $ 156,225 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE Liabilities Accounts Payable $ -0- $ -0- Deferred Revenue (Note 6) -0- 98,000 Total Liabilities -0- 98,000 Fund Balance Restricted - Local (Note 5) 64,404 58,225 Restricted - Regional (Note 5) 98,000 -0- Total Fund Balance 162,404 58,225 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 162,404 $ 156,225 The notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 0 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1994 (With Comparative Totals for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1993) Revenues Intergovernmental Allocations: Article 3 Miscellaneous: Interest Total Revenues Expenditures Construction Total Expenditures Excess (Deficit) of Revenues Over Expenditures Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Restatement of Regional Funds (Note 5) Fund Balance at Beginning of Year - Restated Fund Balance at End of Year The notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 7 1994 Variance Favorable Budget Actual (Un- favorable) 1993 AaWW $ 19,761 $ 19,761 $ -0- $ 18,464 -0- 6,418 6,418 5,984 19,761 26,179 6,418 24,448 50,000 20,000 30,000 -0- 50,000 20,000 30,000 -0- (30,239) 6,179 36,418 24,448 58,225 58,225 -0- 33,777 98,000 98,000 -0- -0-. 156,225 156,225 -0- -0- $ 125,986 $ 162,404 $ 36,418 $ 58,225 The notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 7 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS NOTE t SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Fund Accounting Section 99234 Funds of the Transportation Development Act are commingled with other City monies in the Special Revenue Fund. The Special Revenue Fund accounts for the City's share of the Transportation Development Act allocations which are legally restricted for specific purposes. B_acic of Accounting The Special Revenue Fund is accounted for by using the modified accrual basis of accounting whereby revenues are recognized when they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period and expenditures are generally recognized when the related fund liabilities are incurred. Budgets and Budget�MAccounting The budgeted amounts presented in this report for comparison to the actual amounts are presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Comj2arative Data Comparative total data for the prior year are presented in the accompanying financial statements in order to provide an understanding of the changes in the fund's financial position and its operations. NOTE 2 - ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The financial statements are intended to reflect the financial position, results of its operations and compliance with the Transportation Development Act for the Transportation Development Act Fund only. NOTE 3 - CASH AND INVESTMENTS Cash is pooled to maximize investment opportunities and yields. Investment income resulting from this pooling is allocated to the respective funds including the Transportation Development Act Fund, based upon their average monthly cash balances. 8 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued) In accordance with Section 99234, Article 3 of the Public Utilities Code, funds received pursuant to this code's section may only be used for facilities provided for the exclusive use by pedestrians and bicycles. Total fund balance was calculated as follows: Regional LQW ID.W1 Beginning Fund Balance @ 7/1/93 $ -0- $ 58,225 $ 58,225 Restatement of Regional Funds* 98,000 -0- 98,000 Beginning Fund Balance, as Restated 98,000 58,225 156,225 Article 3 Local Allocation -0- 19,761 19,761 Interest Income - Local -0- 6,418 6,418 Total Available 98,000 84,404 182,404 Less: Construction -0- (20,000) (20,000) Ending Fund Balance @ 6/30/94 $ 98,000 $ 64,404 $ 162,404 * Funds remaining from FY 91/92 regional allocation. We noted that a 1 -year extension was requested by the City of Diamond Bar. In previous years, unexpended regional allocations were reported as deferred revenues on the balance sheet. It has been determined that these funds should be classified as fund balance. Thus, the prior year's deferred revenue amount of $98,000 has been reclassified to fund balance. See Note 5. z SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 10 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND SCHEDULE OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ALLOCATION FOR SPECIFIC PROJECTS For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1994 Unexpended Interest Accumulated to Date 13,963 Fund Balance, 6/30/94 $ 162,404 The City has been informed of the Public Utilities Code (PUC), Section 99234 and LACMTA guidelines, which state that a city may draw down only the funds estimated to be used during the fiscal year for specific bicycle and pedestrian projects. Remaining funds must be placed on reserve in the reserve Local Transportation Fund (LTF) account with the County Auditor -Controller and may be transferred to the City when they become eligible and an approved draw down request is received at LACMTA. 11 Totals to Date Program Unexpended Project Project Description YL Allocations FFxpenditures Allocations Status Regional Allocations Sidewalk/Bikeway 1991-92 $ 98,000 $ -0- $ 98,000 Open Local Allocations Sidewalk/Bikeway 1990-91 18,709 18,709 -0- Closed Sidewalk/Bikeway 1991-92 13,507 1,291 12,216 Open Sidewalk/Bikeway 1992-93 18,464 -0- 18,464 Open Sidewalk/Bikeway 1993-94 19,761 -0- 19,761 Open Totals $ 168,441 $ 20,000 148,441 Unexpended Interest Accumulated to Date 13,963 Fund Balance, 6/30/94 $ 162,404 The City has been informed of the Public Utilities Code (PUC), Section 99234 and LACMTA guidelines, which state that a city may draw down only the funds estimated to be used during the fiscal year for specific bicycle and pedestrian projects. Remaining funds must be placed on reserve in the reserve Local Transportation Fund (LTF) account with the County Auditor -Controller and may be transferred to the City when they become eligible and an approved draw down request is received at LACMTA. 11 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND SCHEDULE OF COMPLETED PROJECTS For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1994 Proiect DescriDescription Sidewalk/Bikeways Interest Applied Totals 12 Totals Allocations Expenditures $ 18,709 $ 18,709 -0- -0- $ 18,709 $ 18,709 COMPLIANCE SECTION 13 son CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 1111-� ig SENIOR PARTNERS Brainard C. Simpson, CPA Carl P. Simpson, CPA Frederick A Simpson, CPA November 29, 1994 To the Honorable Members of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 5750 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2B6 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90036 TELEPHONE (213)938-3324 FAX (213) 930.0665 We have audited the balance sheets and statements of revenue, expenditures, and changes in fund balance of the Transportation Development Act funds of the City of Diamond Bar (City) for the years ended June 30, 1994 and 1993, and have issued our report thereon dated November 29, 1994. Our audits were made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and were further made to determine compliance with the Transportation Development Act (TDA); including Section 99234; the rules and regulations of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA); the 16 tasks contained in the, "Guidelines on Auditing for Conformance," published by LACMTA; and accordingly, included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Among the items considered, were determination of eligibility of the City to receive funds allocated to it and propriety of expenditures in accordance with TDA and the regulations of LACMTA. In our opinion, our evaluation of compliance factors disclosed that the funds allocated to the City under TDA were accounted for and expended in conformance with TDA and the rules and regulations of LACMTA. This report is intended solely for the use of the City and LACMTA and should not be used for any other purpose. This restriction is not, intended to limit the distribution of this report which, upon acceptance by the City Council and LACMTA, is a matter of public record. zVCrX11-61— I 14 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND EXIT CONFERENCE June 30, 1994 An exit conference was held on December 21, 1994, at the City of Diamond Bar. Those in attendance were: Simpson & Simpson Representative: Hasmik Yacoubian, Auditor City's Representative: Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant Matters Discussed: Results of the audit. 15 CITY 6F DIAM6ND BAR AGENDA REPORT TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: March 21, 1995 FROM: George A. Wentz, City Engineer ACihN1JA NV. C -- REPORT DATE: March 15, 1995 TITLE: Reconstruction/Rehabilitation of Diamond Bar Boulevard from Grand Avenue to Brea Canyon Road. SUMMARY: The total construction costs for the Diamond Bar Boulevard Reconstruction/Rehabilitation Project are $1,254,657.23. This represents the actual contract amount of $1,128,997.15 and the project change orders of $125,660.08. As we proceeded with the street improvements, groundwater was encountered during the reconstruction stage and further extra work due to installation of geotextile fabric, unsuitable ground materials, additional removal/replacement of asphalt -concrete work, and traffic control were necessary. Furthermore, the revised construction schedule, due to groundwater activities, has necessitated the need for an extended inspection period. Based on a previously agreed upon hourly rate of $42.00 and the additional sixteen (16) working days as requested by the contractor, DL&A has submitted a fee proposal of an additional not -to -exceed amount of $6,720.00. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the City Manager up to $190,000 for project change orders with Griffith Company and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with Dewan, Lundin & Associates to increase the contract amount from $15,000.00 to $21,720.00. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report Resolution Ordinances(s) X Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: _ Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other (DL&A'S fee proposal) 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? N/A _ Yes _ No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: Zo J10", --- Terrence L. Belanr Frank M. Usher George City Manager Assistant City Manager City Engineer C:\WP6OkLU-4DAYAY\AGEN95\DB-CODIA.221 CTTV C nT T?4 TT _ n r-PnnrV AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: March 21, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Reconstruction/Rehabilitation of Diamond Bar Boulevard from Grand Avenue to Brea Canyon Road. ISSUE STATEMENT: To authorize up to $190,000 for project change orders with Griffith Company and to increase the Dewan, Lundin & Associates' contract amount from $15,000.00 to $21,720.00. RECOM[NIENDATION: That the City Council authorize the City Manager up to $190,000 for project change orders with Griffith Company and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with Dewan, Lundin & Associates to increase the contract amount from $15,000.00 to $21,720.00. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: The total allocated project budget is as follows: Gas Tax $ 494,383.00 Prop. A 50,000.00 Prop. C 550,000.00 SB 821 50,000.00 Developer's Fee 28,000.00 SLTPP State Grant 116,100.00 Total Available Funds $1,288,483.00 Total City Council authorization amount $1,179,660.05 The construction costs, based on actual quantities and project change orders are as follows: Final Construction Contract Amount $1,128,997.15 (based on actual quantities) Project Change Orders 125,660.08 Total Construction Costs $1,254,657.23 1 Reconstructinn/KPhahilitatinn nt Diamond Bar Boulevard from Grid Arcnuo Cv Brea Canyon Road March 21, 1995 Page 2 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On October 4, 1994, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Griffith Company in the amount not - to -exceed $1,064,666.05, authorized up to $15,000 for construction inspection services to Dewan, Lundin and Associates, and privided a contingency amount of $100,000 for project change orders to be approved by the City Manager for a total authorization amount of $1,179,666.05. As reflected in the above mentioned Financial Summary, the construction cost is $1,254,657.23. This represents the actual construction contract amount of $1,128,997.15 and the project change orders of $125,660.08. The requested authorization amount of $190,000 for the City Manager is based on the change in the contract amount from $1,064,666.05 to $1,128,997.15 and the change orders of $125,660.08. The City Council may know, as we proceeded with the street improvements, groundwater was encountered during the reconstruction stage and further extra work due to installation of geotextile fabric, unsuitable ground materials, additional removal/replacement of asphalt -concrete work, and traffic control were necessary. Additionally, as stated previously, the City Council approved and authorized up to $15,000 for construction inspection services to Dewan, Lundin and Associates (DL&A) for the Diamond Bar Boulevard Rehabilitation/Reconstruction Project. To have uniform and consistent proposals, all proposers were requested to provide a not -to -exceed fee based on overlay/reconstruction of approximately 3.2 miles of asphalt concrete pavement and a construction period of 60 calendar days. As we proceeded with the street improvements, ground water was encountered and necessitated the need for a longer construction period. DL & A and staff, at the request of the contractor (Griffith Company), have agreed that additional sixteen (16) working days be given to the contractor. With the revised schedule, the City requested a proposal from DL&A to provide the extended inspection services at a previously agreed upon hourly rate of $42.00. DL&A has submitted a not -to -exceed amount of $6,720.00 for the additional inspection services. This amendment, will increase the not -to -exceed contract amount with DL&A to $21,720.00. Prepared By: David G. Liu C:\WP60\LIIdDAKAY\CCR-95\DB-coDL&A.301 2 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE CITY'S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR RECONSTRUCTION/REHABILITATION OF DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD FROM GRAND AVENUE TO BREA CANYON ROAD This Amendment No. 2 to the City's Professional Services Agreement is made and entered into this day of 1995, between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and DEWAN, LUNDIN & ASSOCIATES (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"). A. Recitals• (i) The CITY has heretofore entered into an agreement, with Dewan, Lundin & Associates to provide professional construction administration services with respect to reconstruction/rehabilitation of Diamond Bar Boulevard from Grand Avenue to Brea Canyon Road, dated October 5, 1994 ("SAID AGREEMENT" hereinafter). (ii) The revised construction schedule for the reconstruction/rehabilitation of Diamond Bar Boulevard from Grand Avenue to Brea Canyon Road necessitates an extended construction inspection services period of sixteen (16) working days and shall be included into the AGREEMENT. (iii) CONSULTANT has submitted a proposal ("PROJECT" hereinafter), a full, true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" to provide construction inspection services at a not -to -exceed cost of $6,720.00. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and CONSULTANT: B. Amendment to Agreement• Section B: Subsection 2(a) is hereby amended to read in words and figures, as follows: 1@2(a) CONSULTANT shall forthwith undertake and complete the project in accordance with Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" hereto and all in accordance with applicable Federal, State and CITY statutes, regulations, ordinances and guidelines, all to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY and in accordance with the standard of care normally provided by practitioners of the engineering profession." Section B: Subsection 3(a) of the original agreement is hereby amended as follows: 113(a) To pay consultant a maximum sum of Twenty One Thousand Six Hundred Sixty dollars and no cents ($21,660.00) for the performance of the services required by the original agreement and the supplemental agreement." Each party to this Supplemental Agreement acknowledges that no representation by any party which is not embodied herein nor any other agreement, statement, or promise not contained in this Supplemental Agreement shall be valid and binding. Any modification of this Supplemental Agreement shall be effective only if it is in writing signed by the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Supplemental Agreement as of the day and year first set forth above: CONSULTANT: DEWAN, LUND & ASSOCIATES Surender Dewan Principal CITY OF DIAMOND BAR City Manager DATE: c:\WP60\LINDAKAY\AGREE-94\DLA#2-01.25 ,E.r-/f/e/T ` ;C� ENG. DEPT. JAN 19 1995 DIBAR January 17, 1995 City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Attention: David Liu Subject: Diamond Bar Boulevard Reconstruction (DB -002B) Dear David, This is a follow up to my earlier letter dated January 5,1995, whereby we indicated that since the duration of the contract has exceeded 60 calendar days, the N.T.E. fee of $13,440.00 allowed for construction observation and administration services per our contract with the City has been expanded fully as of January 1, 1995. The revised schedule received from the Griffith Company indicates completion in 16 working days from the date construction resumes. It is requested that a Not To Exceed amount of $ 6,720.00 be approved for construction observation and administration services to be performed by our firm during this period. This amount includes the miscellaneous services performed by our observer from January 3 to January 15, 1995. Given below is a breakdown of this amount: Service Estimated Fee 1. Miscellaneous administration services from January 3 to $ 672.00 January 15, 1995; 16 (hours) x 42 (hourly rate) 2. It is estimated that our observer will spend on an average $ 4,704.00 7 hours a day at the job site; 7 (hours) x 16 (working days) x 42 (hourly rate) January 17, 1995 David Liu Page 2 Service Estimated Fee 3. It is estimated that on an average one hour a day will be $ 672.00 spent on administration work during construction phase; 1 (hour) x 16 (working days) x 42 (hourly rate) 4_ It is estimated that approximately 16 hours will be spent $ 672.00 to finalize the project upon completion of the project; 16 (hours) x 42 (hourly rate) Total N.T.E. Fee: $ 6,720.00 Sincerely, De an, Lundin & Associates Surender De ani, P.E. Principal SD/ks CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.: TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: March 21, 1995 REPORT DATE: March 6, 1995 FROM: George A. Wentz, City Engineer TITLE: Award of Contract for Construction of Handicap Access Ramps at Various Locations in Diamond Bar. SUMMARY: At February 7, 1995 City Council Meeting, Council adopted Resolution No. 95-05 approving plans and specifications for the construction of handicap access ramps at various locations in Diamond Bar. Council authorized and directed the City Clerk to advertize to receive bids. Notice to bidders was published on February 8, 1995. 17 bids were submitted and opened on March 2, 1995 and the lowest apparent bidder was Keiter Construction Co. of Diamond Bar. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive the bids and award the proposed contract to Keiter Construction Co. for Construction of Handicap Access Ramps at various locaions in Diamond Bar, in an amount not to exceed $55,200. Furthermore, it is recommended that the Council authorize a contingency amount of $9,000.00 for project change orders to be approved by the City Manager. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification Resolution(s) _ Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's Office) Ordinances(s) X Other: Keiter's Proposal (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Agreement EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? — Yes X No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: Te rence L. Be nger Frank Us r �orge A. Wentz City Manager Assistant City Manager City Engineer OTTV nATTMOTT_ nWn^nM AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: March 21, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Construction of Handicap Access Ramps at Various Locations in Diamond Bar ISSUE STATEMENT The City proposes to award a contract for the construction of handicap access ramps at various locations in Diamond Bar to Keiter Construction Co., of Diamond Bar, the lowest responsible bidder. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive the bids and award the proposed contract to Keiter Construction Co. for Construction of Handicap Access Ramps at various locations in Diamond Bar, in an amount not to exceed $55,200. Furthermore, it is recommended that the Council authorize a contingency amount of $9,000 for project change orders to be approved by the City Manager. FINANCIAL SUMMARY $112,800 of CDBG federal funds has already been approved and incorporated into the 1994/95 fiscal year budget for these handicap ramps. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION At the January 18, 1994 City Council meeting, the City Council approved the Community Development Block Grant Program and proposed budget for Fiscal Year 1994-95, which included funding for handicap access ramps at certain intersections throughout the City. At the February 7, 1995 City Council meeting, Council adopted Resolution No. 95-05 approving plans and bid specifications for the construction of handicap access ramps at the following 42 intersections in Diamond Bar: # OF LOCATIONS DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD 27 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE 15 TOTAL 42 1 G 00'OT8'66$ uoTgvaodaoo ba000 'Ll 00'009'96$ •o0 uoTgona-4suoo uouma •9T 00'000'96$ •o0 uoTganagsuoo Oad 4091 TH 'ST 00.000'06$ uoTgOna-4suo0 gsuoo 4saM -VT 00.000'68$ uoT4ana4suo0 r Q '£T 00'009'LS$ •OuI sao4aQa4uop usaegmri •ZT 00'OOS'6L$ •auI saTagsnpul ssaueK Kaaad *TT 00'OOS'SL$ •auI gsagoH *OT 00'006'9L$ uoTgaaodaoo asTadaa-us T -g •6 00'000,tL$ •auI saa440ag Aa4ua0 •8 00.00S'ZL$ quemdTnbs 4 aogXasg uoT4ona4suo0 AausoO •L 00'00t'TL$ •auI •o0 uoT4onagsuoo •0.8 •9 00'000'TL$ •auI oar '9 00'009'69$ uoTquaodaoo oouvE •11 00'006'L9$ •OuI 8403Ou03 zauTga2W •£ 00'006'99$ sasTadaagua yE)z •Z 00'OOZ'99$ •00 uoTganagsuo0 aagTag •T sHnoxy QIH AXVdWOD :sMOTIOJ sp aaaM p9ntaO9a sptq aus •.zpg PUOURTQ JO • of uoT4onagsuoo 194Tax spm jappzq quejuddp 4samoT 9u4 pup 966T 'Z uoapW uo pauado pup p944zugns a.zam spTq LZ Pup S66T '8 AjL-njga3 uo pagsiTgnd spm s.zappiq o4 aoigoN 966T 'TZ HO'dVX saxva ssaoov avoid m Z 3JKd 1DAdV- A HANDICAP ACCESS RAMPS MARCH 21, 1995 The bid of $55,200.00 submitted by Keiter Construction Co. has been determined by staff to be the lowest responsible bid. Key aspects of requirements that will be placed upon Keiter Construction include: * Plan and schedule to be submitted at least seven days before beginning of work. * Notification to affected agencies. * Completion of all work within sixty (60) calendar days. * Liquidated damages of $100/day for non-performance. * Labor compliance with the Davis -Bacon Act. * Compliance with C.D.B.G. requirements. All customary insurance and bonds have been included. Staff has prepared a tentative schedule for the various project activities. They are as follows: Award of Contract Notice to Proceed Start of Construction Completion of Construction Prepared By- Ame M. Garvey 01 March 21, 1995 March 22, 1995 March 27, 1995 June 23, 1995 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 Keiter Construction company 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 Keiter Construction Company 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 Construction of Handicapped Access Ramps in 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 Construction of Handicapped Access Ramps in Diamond Bar. 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. 1 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 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 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 working 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: 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." 3 5) Otherwise be in a form satisfactory to the 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 altered without thirty (30) days' 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. 4 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 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 area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or 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. A 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 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, 6 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: 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, l of the Labor Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 1735 of said Code. 7 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 March 2, 1995. 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 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. 636600 3 17 q Date Date Keiter Construction Company 535 S Topside Place Diamond Bar. CA 91765 By: TITLE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA By: MAYOR By: CITY CLERK 8 Contractor's Business Phone (909) 861-4348 Emergency Phone at which Contractor can be reached at any time 311Sks Date U1lY Ur DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. � - TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: March 21, 1995 REPORT DATE: March 14, 1995 FROM: Kellee A. Fritzal, Administrative Assistant TITLE: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR DIAL -A -CAB SERVICE SUMMARY: The City Council authorized the dissemination of Request for Proposals for Dial -A -Cab Service for eligible elderly and persons with disabilities. The RFP was prepared after a review of current transportation opportunities and how those services can best be accomplished. The City received two proposals for the Dial -A -Cab Service, the proposals were reviewed and site/field investigation and interviews were conducted. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council enter into a Contract with Diversified Paratransit, Inc. The Contract would be for a sixteen month period (March, 1995 through June 30, 1996) with four one year extensions available upon mutual agreement. The contract will be funded with Proposition A money. EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes —No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? 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? X Yes —No Report discussed with the following affected departments: Public Works Department REVIEWED BY: Terr nce L. Belang Frank M. Usher Kellee A. Fritzal City Manager Assistant City Manager Administrative Assistant CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: March 21, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTACT FOR DIAL -A -CAB SERVICE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council enter into a Contract with Diversified Paratransit, Inc. The Contract would be for a sixteen month period (March, 1995 through June 30, 1996) with four one year extensions available upon mutual agreement. SUMMARY: In November/December, 1994 the City Council reviewed the City's transportation opportunities in relation to: eligible, conditionally eligible and ineligible uses of Proposition A and Proposition C Local Return Funds; what transportation projects were currently being funded with those funds; and what available transportation opportunities the City could consider. After review, it was determined that the City's Dial -A -Ride services could be more efficiently and cost effectively provided through a Dial -A -Cab program. A RFP for Dial -A -Cab Services was prepared and distributed, proposals were received from Diversified Paratransit, Inc and Western Transit Systems. Those proposals were reviewed and site/field investigation and interviews were conducted. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: The Dial -A -Cab program will be funded with Proposition A money. For the remainder of Fiscal Year 1994-95 $20,000 has been budgeted in the Mid -Year Adjustment. The City Council will set the 1995-96 budgeted through the budget process. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: A committee of the Senior Engineer, City Manager's Administrative Assistant and a Traffic and Transportation Commissioner reviewed each proposer's taxi vehicles, fleet maintenance yard, safety programs, communication capabilities, and dispatching systems. On March 14, 1995, both Companies were interviewed. After comparing the relative qualities of the firms, it was determined that Diversified Paratransit, Inc. is the most qualified firm to conduct the City's Dial -A -Cab service. This determination was based on Diversified's experience with the Dial -A - Cab program proposed, current taxi services within the City of Diamond Bar and proposed scope of work and fare rate. Diversified Paratransit is currently providing Dial -A -Cab services to: Omni -Trans (Fontana, Chino, Chino Hills, Ontario); City of San Dimas (Pomona Valley Transportation Authority); and Metrolink. In addition, Diversified Paratransit operates several fixed route services including Pacific Palisades, West Hollywood, and Beverly Hills. The company also provides Dial -A -Ride services in Huntington Park. Furthermore, Diversified Paratransit provides general taxi services in the San Gabriel Valley region, including Diamond Bar, and in Pomona and Ontario. Their proposal is at a rate of : $1.90 upon pick-up (flag drop), plus $1.60 per mile There will be no "wait time" charges. Diversified will charge a 10% administrative fee to cover the cost of operating the program. Diversified will be installing a toll free (800) number for residents use in the Dial -A -Cab program. The Dial -A -Cab program will commence within two weeks of the award of contract. The contract includes monthly reports to the City regarding ridership and annual customer satisfaction and service evaluation. The fares in the other proposal were $1.90 upon pick-up and $1.80 per mile, with a $22.00 per hour wait time fee. Staff and the Contractor will begin advertising the program through attendance at meetings, fliers and direct mail to known Dial -A -Ride riders. The current Dial -A -Ride program will continue through the end of the fiscal year. This will assist with the transitional phase. The scope of the Dial -A -Cab program will be as follows: Level of Service - The Dial -A -Cab Program will be offered fifty-two weeks per year, twenty-four hours a day, including all holidays. Target Area - The service area will include Diamond Bar, and within a ten (10) mile distance from City limits, and medical facilities in Brea, Pomona and West Covina. Eligible Participants - The eligible participants will remain the same, seniors 60 years and older, and persons with disabilities. Fares - It is recommended that the fare per one way trip remain at $.50 per ride. The current Dial -a -Ride program provides approximately 98 trips monthly. It is projected that the ridership will increase with the Dial -a -Cab program. Attachment - Contract Diversified Proposal Request For Proposals AGREEMENT DIAL -A -CAB SERVICES This agreement is made this 21 day of March, 1995 between the City of Diamond Bar, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY" and Diversified Paratransit. Inc. hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR". Whereas, the CITY desires to provide dial -a -cab services to the eligible elderly (60 years and older) and persons with disabilities who reside in Diamond Bar. Whereas, CONTRACTOR operates a local taxicab service and is, therefore, capable of providing the dial -a -cab service; Now, therefore, CITY and CONTRACTOR agree as follows: 1. Contract Administrator. The City Manager or authorized representative, hereinafter designated as "Administrator", shall be the administrator of this agreement. CONTRACTOR is responsible for performance of each and all tasks to be performed hereinunder and in accordance with the CONTRACTOR'S proposal attached as Exhibit "A" and the CITY'S Request for Proposals attached as Exhibit "B". 2. Project Description - General. CONTRACTOR will pick up and transport passengers upon telephone request within the hours of service identified and within the stated geographic boundaries as identified in Exhibit "C" of this Agreement. 3. Services to be Performed by CONTRACTOR. Services to be performed by CONTRACTOR in connection with the subject of this agreement shall be as follows: a. Accept telephone requests from the eligible general public for dial -a -cab service and dispatch a taxicab to the pick-up location. The taxicab shall arrive at the pick-up location within thirty minutes from the time the telephone request was received by CONTRACTOR. b. Shared rides shall be coordinated by CONTRACTOR to the maximum extent possible. C. CITY dial -a -cab passengers shall pay a set fare per trip, as determined by the CITY. CONTRACTOR will invoice the CITY for each trip at the City approved taxicab meter rate in effect at that time. All fares collected by CONTRACTOR from the passengers are the property of the CITY. The total amount of such fares shall be retained by CONTRACTOR and deducted from the billing statement. CONTRACTOR may accept fare tickets only if authorized to do so in writing by the CITY. d. CONTRACTOR shall gather ridership data and report such information to the Administrator on a monthly basis. More frequent reporting will be acceptable. The type of data to be collected shall be determined by the Administrator. 4. Cervices to be Performed by the CITY. In connection with the service and this agreement, the CITY shall: a. Designate hours of service and geographical boundaries of service. b. Set public fares for the service. C. Give prompt written notice to CONTRACTOR when Administrator observes or otherwise becomes aware of any deficiency in CONTRACTOR's service. 5. Hours and Geo eraohic Boundaries of Service. The hours and geographic boundaries for services under this agreement shall be included in Exhibit "C" of this agreement. 6. Cbanes. The CITY reserves the right to order an increase or decrease in the level of service provided with thirty (30) days written notice. 7. Compensation and Method of Payment. The CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR for services at the approved taxicab meter rate in effect at the time service is provided under this agreement, less cash fares collected by CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall submit invoices itemizing dial -a -cab trips in the CITY. Invoices will be reviewed and paid by the CITY within thirty calendar days. If the CITY disputes any items on an invoice for a reasonable cause, CITY may deduct that disputed item from the payment but shall not delay payment for the undisputed portions. 8. Independent Contractor. CONTRACTOR's relationship to the CITY in performance of this agreement is that of an independent contractor. The personnel performing services under this agreement shall at all times be under CONTRACTOR's exclusive direction and control. CONTRACTOR shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with this agreement; and, shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting them, such as social security, income tax withholding, unemployment compensation, and worker's compensation insurance. 9. Permits and Licenses. CONTRACTOR shall maintain in force during the contract period all licenses and permits required by law for the operation of CONTRACTOR's business in Diamond Bar, including applicable business license. 10. Insurance. During the term of this agreement, CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain the following insurance form a company acceptable to the City as described below: A. Worker's Compensation insurance with State of California statutory limits and employer's liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per accident. Worker's Compensation shall cover all employees and independent Contractor drivers. B. Comprehensive general liability insurance with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. C. Commercial Automobile liability insurance with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall: 1. Include coverage of all vehicles used in this service. 2. Name the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, and agents as additional insured. 3. Be primary for all purposes. 4. Contain standard cross -liability provisions. CONTRACTOR shall name the CITY additional insured on said policies and shall provide evidence of such insurance. Such policies shall provide that they may not be cancelled without at least (30) days written notice to the CITY. If Contractor, for any reason, fails to maintain insurance coverage which is required pursuant to this Agreement, the same shall be deemed a material breach of contract. City at its sole option, may forthwith terminate this agreement and obtain damages from the Contractor resulting from said breach; alternatively, City may purchase such required insurance coverage, and without further notice to Contractor, City may deduct from sums due to Contractor to pay any premium costs needed to maintain insurance during performance. 11. Worker's Compensation. CONTRACTOR certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California 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 it certifies that it will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this agreement. 12. Mediation: Any dispute or controversy arising under this Agreement, or in connection with any of the terms and conditions hereof, shall be referred by the parties hereto for mediation. A third party, neutral mediation service shall be selected, as agreed upon by the parties and the costs and expenses thereof shall be borne equally by the parties hereto. In the event the parties are unable to mutually agree upon the mediator to be selected hereunder, the City Council shall select such a neutral, third party mediation service and the City Council's decision shall be final. The parties agree to utilize their good faith efforts to resolve any such dispute or controversy so submitted to mediation. It is specifically understood and agreed by the parties hereto that referral of any such dispute or controversy, and mutual good faith efforts to resolve the same thereby, shall be conditions precedent to the institution of any action or proceeding, whether at law or in equity with respect to any such dispute or controversy. 13. Indemnity. CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and hold the CITY harmless from all claims, damages or liability, including all reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in defending any claims arising out of or in connection with the services performed by CONTRACTOR under this agreement. Such indemnity shall extend, but not be limited to, claims, damages, and liability arising from injuries or damages to person or property, provided that the obligation to indemnify shall not extend to claims, damages, or liability arising solely from the negligence or misconduct of the CITY or its officers, agents, or employees. 14. Notices. All notices herein required shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by registered mail, postage prepaid. Notice required to be given to the CITY shall be addressed as follows: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Notice required to be given to CONTRACTOR shall be addressed as follows: Brain Hunt, Chief Executive Officer DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, INC. 1400 East Mission Boulevard Pomona. CA 91766 15. Termination. The City may terminate this agreement at any time with or without cause by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall be compensated based upon the work which has been completed, and CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to no further compensation. 16. Assignment. This agreement shall not be assigned without written consent of the CITY. 17. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from March 21, 1995 through June 30, 1996. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement was executed on the day and year first mentioned above. CONTRACTOR �-3 1'�A- &- Signature of Authorized Official Company CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to Form City Attorney %.11.7 VI' lilt%munU Drll-% AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Mayor and City Council MEETING DATE: March 21, 1995 REPORT DATE: March 17, 1995 FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager ISSUE: The addition to and amendment of salary ranges in Resolution 90-45. DISCUSSION: On March 7, 1995, the City Council approved the amendment to the City Manager's contract, which establishes the City Manager monthly salary at $8,056. The City Council also approved the creation of Municipal Information Systems (MIS) Assistant and creation of Community Leader II classifications. The MIS Assistant would be responsible for providing technical assistance to the internal Lantastic network and its related hardware and software. Also, the MIS Assistant will be responsible for supervision and technical assistance to City OnLine, including the Bulletin Board System (BBS). The Community Services Leader II essentially reclassifies the existing personnel from Administrative Intern classification. The purpose of this change from Administrative Intern classification to Community Services Leader II classification is to more accurately reflect the nature of the responsibilities that they are performing. RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve Resolution NO. 90-45I, which amends the salary of the City Manager and adds the classifications of Municipal Information Systems Assistant and Community Services Leader II, as well as, related salary ranges. SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed 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? Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: 11-]� Terrence L -anger City Manager _ Yes Yes _ Yes _ Yes —X No No No _ No RESOLUTION NO. 90-45I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SETTING FORTH PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF SALARIES, SICK LEAVE, VACATIONS, LEAVES OF ABSENCES, AND OTHER REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR HEREBY RESOLVES, ORDERS, AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to the efficient operation and management of the City that rules and regulations be maintained prescribing sick leave, vacation, leaves of absences, and other regulations for the employees and officers of the City; and WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to establish comprehensive wage and salary schedules and to fix the rates of compensation to be paid to officers and employees of the City. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, as follows: SECTION 1. COMPREHENSIVE WAGE AND SALARY PLAN There is hereby established a Comprehensive Wage and Salary Plan for employees of the City of Diamond Bar. The Comprehensive Wage and Salary Plan is designed to provide for a fair and efficient framework for the administration of wages and is based upon the recommendations of the City Manager. SECTION 2. SALARY SCHEDULE Pursuant to Ordinance No. 21 (1989), the Diamond Bar City Council hereby establishes the salaries and the various full-time positions of the City of Diamond Bar. As of the pay period which is paid on March 1, 1995, the compensation of the various classes of positions shall be as shown on Schedule A (attached). SECTION 3. FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE GUIDELINES New employees shall be hired at the entry step or any step at the discretion of the City Manager and must successfully complete a one year probation period. At the end of six months, the employee will be given a performance evaluation and may be eligible for the next step. Every year thereafter, employees shall be given a performance evaluation and shall move to each successive step, so long as the employee's performance is satisfactory or above. RESOLUTION 90-45I Page Two SECTION 4. PROBATION In an effort to monitor newly -hired employees, the probation period for newly -hired employees is one year. SECTION 5. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT Private automobiles are not to be used for the City business except as authorized. The City Manager may authorize such use at the reimbursement rate equal to that set forth by the Internal Revenue Services. Payments shall be based upon the most direct route to and from the destination, and garage and parking expenses shall be paid in addition to the current rate, upon submission of paid receipts. SECTION 6. HEALTH DENTAL VISION LIFE LONG TERM DISABILITY AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE. All full-time employees are eligible to receive group health, dental, vision, life, deferred compensation, disability insurance and unemployment insurance within the City's group insurance carrier(s), with the administrative cost and premiums paid by the City to a maximum established in Section 7 after 30 days of employment. Dependents of employees are eligible for health, dental and vision insurance. SECTION 7. FRINGE BENEFIT PACKAGE An employee benefit program is authorized wherein all officers and full-time employees have a choice of medical and/or fringe benefits, as described in Section 6, in an amount not to exceed $470.00 a month, paid by the City. A. Employees, defined as Management, shall receive an additional $30.00 per month to be applied as described in Section 6. B. All employees shall participate in the Life, Dental and Vision Insurance programs. The City shall pay the cost of the employee in addition to the benefit program described in Section 6 or Section 7(A). Monies in excess of the City's 457 Plan may be paid off annually, during each December. SECTION 8. PART-TIME HOURLY RANGE CHART Hourly compensation for the various part-time positions shall be as set forth in Schedule A (attached). RESOLUTION 90-45I Page Three SECTION 9. STATUS OF EMPLOYMENT All employees serve under the City Manager, pursuant to Government Code Section 34856. Per Government Code Section 36506, nothing in these rules and regulations shall be construed to provide employees with any tenure or property interest in employment. SECTION 10, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM - DEFERRED COMPENSATION The City of Diamond Bar shall pay the employee contribution of said employee salary to the State Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) as deferred income. SECTION 11. PAY PERIODS The compensation due to all officers and employees of the City shall be on a bi-weekly basis. SECTION 12. PAY DAYS Warrants or checks in the payment of compensation shall be made available by the City to employees and officers of the City on the Friday succeeding the close of any given pay period. In an event that pay day falls on a holiday, all warrants or checks in payment of compensation shall be made available to the City employee on the last work day preceding the holiday. SECTION 13. WORKING HOURS AND OVERTIME A. Eight (8) hours, exclusive of lunch period, shall constitute a day's work for all full time employees. B. The official work week of the City of Diamond Bar shall be five (5) working days of eight (8) hours each. It shall be the duty of each Department Manager to arrange the work of their Department so that each employee therein shall not work more than five (5) days in each calendar week. The City Manager may require an employee to temporarily perform service in excess of five (5) days per week when public necessity or convenience so requires. C. Whenever an employee, other than an Administrative/Executive employee, shall be required to work overtime, beyond 40 hours per week, such person shall receive compensation for such overtime worked at one and one-half (1 1/2) times the regular rate of pay, provided they have completed a full 40 hour work week. RESOLUTION 90-45I Page Four SECTION 13. WORKING HOURS AND OVERTIME (CONT'D) D. Any full time employee, other than an Administrative/Executive employee, who is required to work on an observed holiday beyond the regular 40 hour work week, shall be entitled to pay at the rate of two (2) times the regular rate of pay provided they have worked a 40 hour work week. E. There is nothing contained within this Section to exclude the City from implementing a 4-10 Plan, at their option. SECTION 14. ANNUAL VACATION YEARS OF SERVICE VACATION ACCRUAL 10 days 15 days 20 days A. A full time employee, after twelve (12) months continuous service with the City of Diamond Bar, shall be entitled to a vacation of ten (10) work days per year to be accrued at a rate of 3.08 hours per pay period. B. Vacation time may be accumulated to a maximum of twenty (20) days (160 hours). The City Manager may approve vacation time accruals exceeding twenty (20) days. C. The total vacation allowance shall be computed to the nearest whole day, based upon the number of full months of City service. D. In the event one or more municipal holidays follow accumulated vacation leave, such days shall not be charged as vacation leave and the vacation leave shall be extended accordingly for those employees eligible for such holidays. E. An employee shall take vacation at such time during the calendar year based upon due regard to the needs of the employee's services and the work schedule. F. Vacation shall be taken during the year following which the vacation privilege has been earned. G. The time set for the vacation of the City Manager shall be subject to the approval of the City Council. RESOLUTION 90-45I Page Five SECTION 14. ANNUAL VACATION (CONT'D) H. Employees who terminate shall be paid the salary equivalent to all accrued vacation earned after one (1) year of service has been completed, prior to the effective date of termination. I. All vacation requests shall be made at least five (5) days in advance and prior approval must be given by employee's supervisor and department head. J. If an employee does not request time off in advance and simply does not show up for work, the City Manager may deny the use of vacation time or other benefit for the time off, and said employee is subject to disciplinary action including discharge. K. Management employees, for the purpose of accrual, shall be credited with previous municipal experience, up to five (5) years of service. SECTION 15. SICK LEAVE A. Sick leave with pay shall be accrued by full-time employees at a rate of 3.08 hours per pay period. B. After six (6) months of continuous service, the employee is eligible to use sick leave. C. Unused sick leave may be accumulated to a maximum total not to exceed 160 hours. Absence or illness may not be charged to sick leave if not already accrued and/or accumulated. D. Each full time employee shall be paid one-half (1/2) of the unused balance of the annually accrued sick leave, accrued during a given accrual year, when the then annual accrual results in sick leave in excess of the maximum allowable accumulation of 160 hours. The sick leave payout shall only apply to the amount which is in excess of the maximum allowable accumulated amount of 160 hours. The annual accrued sick leave, over the maximum accumulation, shall be paid once a year, at the employee's current wage at the time of payment. Said payment is to be made on the first day in December, or at such other time as the City Manager may determine, at his/her absolute discretion, as appropriate. E. Sick leave shall be allowed only in case of necessity and actual sickness or disability of the employee or dependent family members, as determined by the City Manager. In order to receive sick leave with pay, the employee shall notify the department head prior to or within two (2) hours after the time set for beginning daily duties. The City Manager may, if he/she deems necessary, require the employee to file a Physician's Certificate or a Personal Affidavit stating the cause of absence. RESOLUTION 90-45I Page Six SECTION 15. SICK LEAVE (CONT'D) F. Sick leave shall not accrue to any employee for any month in which that employee is on unpaid leave and does not work a minimum of ten (10) eight (8) hour working days in any one month or combination thereof. G. If an employee does not show up for work and does not call in within two hours, the City Manager may deny use of sick leave for the unauthorized time off, and employee is subject to disciplinary action. H. Employees using all accumulated sick leave may be deemed to have abandoned their employment. After five (5) years of service, when an employee retires, resigns or terminates in good standing, that employee will be paid all accumulated sick leave at a rate of one-half (1 /2) of the employee's current rate of pay at his/her date of termination. SECTION 16. BEREAVEMENT LEAVE When circumstances are such and the City Manager determines that conditions warrant, three (3) paid bereavement leave days may be granted in the event of death of a relative of a full-time employee. "Relative" is defined as spouse, parents, children, step -children, brother, sisters, grandparents, grandchildren, half-brothers, half-sisters, aunts, uncles, or other individuals related by blood or marriage. SECTION 17. UNAUTHORIZED LEAVE If an employee does not show up for work for three consecutive work days without notifying said employee's supervisor or department head, said employee shall be considered to have voluntarily terminated employment with the City. SECTION 18. ON-THE-JOB INJURY Whenever a person is compelled to be absent from employment with the City on account of injury arising out of or in the course of that employee's employment as determined by the Workers' Compensation Act, the employee may elect to apply pro -rated accrued sick leave, if any, to such absence to receive compensation of an amount of the difference between the compensation received under the Workers' Compensation Act and that employee's regular pay, not to exceed the amount of the employee's earned sick leave. An employee in such instance may also elect to use any earned vacation time in like manner after sick leave is exhausted. The City will pay the employee up to three (3) days of that employee's regular salary as it relates to an on-the-job injury and if not covered by Workers' Compensation. RESOLUTION 90-451 Page Seven SECTION 19. JURY DUTY If a full-time employee is called for jury duty, such person shall receive regular pay while actually performing jury service, however, any amount received by such employee as payment for services as juror shall be reimbursed to the City. All mileage paid to the employee as a juror shall not be considered as a reimbursable item to the City. SECTION 20. ATTENDANCE Full time employees shall be in attendance at their work in accordance with the rules regarding hours of work, holidays, and leave. Departments shall keep attendance records of all employees. Absence of any employee without leave may result in possible disciplinary action including discharge. SECTION 21. HOLIDAYS A. Holidays which fall on Saturday shall be observed on the preceding Friday, and holidays which fall on Sunday shall be observed on the following Monday. Paid holidays are only for the observed days. B. The City of Diamond Bar's observed paid holidays are as follows: 1. New Year's Day (January 1) 2. Washington's Birthday (observed the third Monday in February) 3. Memorial Day (observed the last Monday in May) 4. Independence Day (July 4) 5. Labor Day (observed first Monday in September) 6. Veteran's Day (November 11) 7. Thanksgiving Day 8. Day following Thanksgiving Day 9. Christmas Eve (December 24) 10. Christmas Day (December 25) 11. Two (2) Floating Holidays SECTION 22. FLOATING HOLIDAYS A. Each full time employee is allowed two (2) floating holidays (8 hours each) per calendar year, January through December. B. Floating Holidays are not cumulative and must be used during the above period or said employee will lose the allocated hours. RESOLUTION 90-45I Page Eight SECTION 22. FLOATING HOLIDAYS (CONT'D) C. Each employee must submit a request in advance, and approval must be given by the employee's supervisor and department head. D. A full time employee is eligible to use a floating holiday after 30 days of continuous employment. E. Floating Holidays may be used in lieu of sick leave only if all other benefit time has been exhausted. SECTION 23. TRAINING PLAN The City Manager and employees of the City are eligible to request specialized training in the form of symposiums, special courses, forums, etc., at the City's expense. SECTION 24. LEAVE OF ABSENCE Leave of absence without pay may only be granted by the City Manager. SECTION 25. RESIGNATION An employee wishing to terminate employment in good standing shall file a written resignation with the City Manager stating the effective date and reasons for leaving, at least two (2) weeks prior to the resignation. Failure to give such notice shall mean the employee did not terminate in good standing, unless by reason of hardship and upon that employee's request, the City Manager has waived the two week notice requirement. SECTION 26. ANTI -NEPOTISM PROVISION A. Relatives of those listed below may not be employed anywhere in the City organization: 1. City Councimembers; 2. Standing Board and Commission members; 3. Administrative/Executive employees of the City; 4. Employees of the City Manager's Department; or 5. Employees of the Personnel Department. RESOLUTION 90-45I Page Nine SECTION 26. ANTI -NEPOTISM PROVISION (CONT'D) B. The employment of a relative within a department is prohibited when they: 1. Perform joint duties; 2. Share responsibility of authority; 3. Function in the same chain of command; and 4. Work on the same shift at the same work site. C. For business reasons of supervision, safety, security or morale, the City may refuse to place one spouse under the direct supervision of the other spouse. D. For business reasons of supervision, safety, security or morale, an employer may refuse to place both spouses in the same department, division, or facility if the work involves potential conflicts of interest or other hazards greater for married couples than other persons. E. "Relative" means child, step -child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, half- brother, half-sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, parent -in-law, brother -in law, sister-in-law, or another individual related by blood or marriage. F. "Employee" means any person who receives a City paycheck for services rendered to the City. SECTION 27. NON-DISCRIMINATION The City of Diamond Bar does hereby affirm to adopt and support a policy of non-discrimination with regard to all phases of personnel recruitment, selection and appointment. The City further declares that it will not exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person on the basis of race, religion, nationality, sex, age or handicap, thereby affirming the City of Diamond Bar's posture as an equal opportunity employer. SECTION 28. EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION APPEALS PROCEDURES It is the intent of the City to offer fair and equitable appeals procedures for employee's performance evaluations. Below are the official guidelines. A. Employee and supervisor meet to review and discuss the employee's performance evaluation. RESOLUTION 90-45I Page Ten SECTION 28. EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION APPEALS PROCEDURES (CONT'D) B. The employee may respond in writing to the contents of the evaluation. This response must be submitted to the department head within five (5) working days immediately following the evaluation. C. The department head, as the reviewing official, shall respond in writing to the employee within five (5) working days. This response becomes an official part of the evaluation. D. If the employee chooses to continue to appeal following the response from the reviewing official, the employee must submit an additional written response to the Personnel Director within five (5) working days after receipt of the reviewing official's response. E. The Personnel Director shall review the evaluation appeal within five (5) days with the employee, supervisor and department head. Every effort will be made at this level to resolve the appeal. F. If the matter is not settled, a written appeal may be submitted tot he City Manager by the employee within five (5) working days following the decision rendered in writing by the Personnel Director. G. The City Manager shall review the appeal with the employee, supervisor, department head and Personnel Director. The decision shall be rendered in writing within five (5) working days by the City Manager and shall be final. SECTION 29. POST OFFER PHYSICAL EXAMS All individuals who become a candidate for City employment must successfully pass a post -offer physical and substance abuse exams and are subject to fingerprinting and a background investigation. The candidates being considered for employment will be sent to a City authorized physician at the City's expense. RESOLUTION 90-45I Page Eleven SECTION 30. EMERGENCY CALL -OUT POLICY The following Emergency Call -Out Policy shall be adhered to: A. When a full time employee, other than an Administrative/Executive employee, is called out for a City emergency, the employee shall be given a minimum of two hours pay, regardless of the amount of time it takes to rectify the problem. B. The employee shall be paid overtime per Section 13. SECTION 31. ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE Administrative/Executive employees are allowed two (2) days of administrative leave per fiscal year. Additional days of leave may be authorized by the City Manager, based on the number of total hours the individual works over and above 40 hours per week. A. Administrative/Executive employees do not receive paid overtime, and this leave is to recognize those employees who work over and above 40 hours per week. B. Following is a list of Administrative/Executive positions: Accounting Manager Administrative Analyst Administrative Assistant Assistant to the City Manager Assistant City Manager Assistant Civil Engineer Assistant Planner Associate Engineer Associate Planner City Clerk City Engineer/Director of Public Works Community Relations Officer Director of Community Development Director of Community Services Secretary to the City Manager Senior Accountant Senior Engineer Superintendent of Parks & Maintenance RESOLUTION 90-45I Page Twelve SECTION 31. ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE (CONT'D) C. Administrative leave may not be accumulated and carried over to the following year. It must be used by June 30 of each fiscal year. Leave may be granted in hourly increments. Requests shall be submitted to employee's immediate supervisor for approval, then forwarded to the City Manager for approval. Administrative leave will be authorized at the convenience of the City and the work schedule. SECTION 32. MEDICARE Pursuant to Revenue Billing 86-68 of the Internal Revenue Code, all employees hired after March 31, 1987 will have 1.45 percent of their base salary deducted from their paycheck to be paid to Medicare. The City will match the 1.45 percent as mandated by law. SECTION 33. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986 In compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, all new employees must verify identity and entitlement to work in the United States by providing required documentation. SECTION 34. EXTENDED BENEFITS - COBRA The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) provides for the continuation of health care coverage to certain employees who terminated employment and beneficiaries of employees who die, become disabled or are divorced. Employees become eligible for continued coverage upon termination of service, whether voluntary or not (other than termination for gross misconduct), retirement or reduction in hours worked. For these employees and their dependents, continued coverage is available for 18 months, at their expense. SECTION 35. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT Subject to Council fiscal year budget authorization, each employee shall be entitled to reimbursement in the amount of $500 per fiscal year, for college -level or university -level educational courses (including tuition and related books), which have been approved by the personnel Officer or his/her designate as being job-related and of value to the City. Reimbursement under this Section is contingent upon the verification of the attainment of a letter grade of "C" or better, or in those cases where no letter grade is given, verification of completion of the course with a "Pass" or "Credit" grade and submittal of a receipt for registration bearing the name of the course, for which reimbursement is being requested. In the case of reimbursement for books for any approved/verified course; a syllabus, course reading list or course outline showing the book as being required for the course, plus a receipt bearing the title of the book shall be submitted. RESOLUTION 90-45I Page Thirteen SECTION 36. PART TIME EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT Effective July 1, 1991, part time, seasonal and temporary employees will be covered by a retirement system, under Social Security (OASDI). An employee's contribution rate shall be 6.2% on wages up to $61,200. The employer's tax rate is the same. Election workers and emergency workers are excepted from coverage, under this section. ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS day of 11995 Mayor I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1995, and was finally adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1995, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: LYNDA M. BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar Schedule A CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SALARY RANGES BY POSITION FY 1994-95 JOB TITLE A B C D E F G Receptionist 776 7.76 8.15 8.56 8.99 9.44 9.91 10.41 1,345.86 1,413.16 1,483.82 1,558.01 1,635.91 1,717.70 1,803.59 16,150.38 16,957.90 17,805.79 18,696.08 19,630.88 20,612.43 21,643.05 Jr. Clerk Typist 899 8.99 9.44 9.91 10.41 10.93 11.47 12.05 1,558.01 1,635.91 1,717.70 1,803.59 1,893.77 1,988.46 2,087.88 18,696.10 19,630.90 20,612.45 21,643.07 22,725.22 23,861.49 25,054.56 Clerk Typist 966 9.66 10.15 10.65 11.19 11.75 12.33 12.95 1,674.86 1,758.61 1,846.54 1,938.87 2,035.81 2,137.60 2,244.48 20,098.38 21,103.30 22,158.46 23,266.39 24,429.71 25,651.19 26,933.75 Account Clerk I 966 9.66 10.15 10.65 11.19 11.75 12.33 12.95 1,674.86 1,758.61 1,846.54 1,938.87 2,035.81 2,137.60 2,244.48 20,098.38 21,103.30 22,158.46 23,266.39 24,429.71 25,651.19 26,933.75 Adminstrative 1058 10.58 11.11 11.67 12.25 12.86 13.51 14.18 Analyst 1,834.42 1,926.14 2,022.45 2,123.57 2,229.75 2,341.24 2,458.30 22,013.06 23,113.71 24,269.39 25,482.86 26,757.01 28,094.86 29,499.60 Secretary 1062 10.62 11.16 11.71 12.30 12.91 13.56 14.24 1,841.57 1,933.65 2,030.33 2,131.85 2,238.44 2,350.36 2,467.88 22,098.86 23,203.81 24,364.00 25,582.20 26,861.31 28,204.37 29,614.59 Code Enforcement 1111 11.11 11.67 12.25 12.86 13.51 14.18 14.89 Officer 1,926.26 2,022.57 2,123.70 2,229.88 2,341.38 2,458.45 2,581.37 23,115.08 24,270.84 25,484.38 26,758.60 28,096.53 29,501.35 30,976.42 Parks Maintenance 1121 11.21 11.77 12.35 12.97 13.62 14.30 15.02 Worker II 1,942.31 2,039.42 2,141.39 2,248.46 2,360.88 2,478.93 2,602.88 23,307.66 24,473.05 25,696.70 26,981.54 28,330.61 29,747.14 31,234.50 Deputy City Clerk 1171 11.71 12.29 12.91 13.55 14.23 14.94 15.69 2,029.61 2,131.09 2,237.65 2,349.53 2,467.01 2,590.36 2,719.88 24,355.37 25,573.13 26,851.79 28,194.38 29,604.10 31,084.30 32,638.52 Administrative 1171 11.71 12.29 12.91 13.55 14.23 14.94 15.69 Secretary 2,029.61 2,131.09 2,237.65 2,349.53 2,467.01 2,590.36 2,719.88 24,355.37 25,573.13 26,851.79 28,194.38 29,604.10 31,084.30 32,638.52 Administrative 1171 11.71 12.29 12.91 13.55 14.23 14.94 15.69 Assistant 2,029.61 2,131.09 2,237.65 2,349.53 2,467.01 2,590.36 2,719.88 24,355.37 25,573.13 26,851.79 28,194.38 29,604.10 31,084.30 32,638.52 Management 1171 11.71 12.29 12.91 13.55 14.23 14.94 15.69 Information System 2,029.61 2,131.09 2,237.65 2,349.53 2,467.01 2,590.36 2,719.88 (MIS)Assistant 24,355.37 25,573.13 26,851.79 28,194.38 29,604.10 31,084.30 32,638.52 Schedule A CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SALARY RANGES BY POSITION FY 1994-95 JOB TITLE A B C D E F G Engineering 1415 14.15 14.86 15.60 16.38 17.20 18.06 18.96 Technician 2,452.73 2,575.36 2,704.13 2,839.34 2,981.31 3,130.37 3,286.89 29,432.74 30,904.38 32,449.60 34,072.08 35,775.68 37,564.47 39,442.69 Planning 1415 14.15 14.86 15.60 16.38 17.20 18.06 18.96 Technician 2,452.73 2,575.36 2,704.13 2,839.34 2,981.31 3,130.37 3,286.89 29,432.74 30,904.38 32,449.60 34,072.08 35,775.68 37,564.47 39,442.69 Community Relations 1415 14.15 14.86 15.60 16.38 17.20 18.06 18.96 Coordinator 2,452.73 2,575.36 2,704.13 2,839.34 2,981.31 3,130.37 3,286.89 29,432.74 30,904.38 32,449.60 34,072.08 35,775.68 37,564.47 39,442.69 Secretary to the 1523 15.23 15.99 16.79 17.62 18.51 19.43 20.40 City Manager 2,639.01 2,770.96 2,909.51 3,054.98 3,207.73 3,368.12 3,536.52 31,668.11 33,251.51 34,914.09 36,659.79 38,492.78 40,417.42 42,438.29 Assistant Civil 1523 15.23 15.99 16.79 17.62 18.51 19.43 20.40 Engineer 2,639.01 2,770.96 2,909.51 3,054.98 3,207.73 3,368.12 3,536.52 31,668.11 33,251.51 34,914.09 36,659.79 38,492.78 40,417.42 42,438.29 Assistant Planner 1523 15.23 15.99 16.79 17.62 18.51 19.43 20.40 2,639.01 2,770.96 2,909.51 3,054.98 3,207.73 3,368.12 3,536.52 31,668.11 33,251.51 34,914.09 36,659.79 38,492.78 40,417.42 42,438.29 Assistant to the 1523 15.23 15.99 16.79 17.62 18.51 19.43 20.40 City Manager 2,639.01 2,770.96 2,909.51 3,054.98 3,207.73 3,368.12 3,536.52 31,668.11 33,251.51 34,914.09 36,659.79 38,492.78 40,417.42 42,438.29 Superintendent of 1767 17.67 18.55 19.48 20.46 21.48 22.55 23.68 Parks/Maintenance 3,062.82 3,215.97 3,376.76 3,545.60 3,722.88 3,909.03 4,104.48 36,753.89 38,591.59 40,521.17 42,547.22 44,674.59 46,908.31 49,253.73 Senior Accountant 1767 17.67 18.55 19.48 20.46 21.48 22.55 23.68 3,062.82 3,215.97 3,376.76 3,545.60 3,722.88 3,909.03 4,104.48 36,753.89 38,591.59 40,521.17 42,547.22 44,674.59 46,908.31 49,253.73 Associate Planner 1851 8.99 9.44 9.91 10.41 10.93 23.62 24.80 1,558.01 1,635.91 1,717.70 1,803.59 1,893.77 4,094.40 4,299.12 38,496.83 40,421.67 42,442.75 44,564.89 46,793.13 49,132.79 51,589.43 Associate Engineer 1851 18.51 19.43 20.41 21.43 22.50 23.62 24.80 3,208.07 3,368.47 3,536.90 3,713.74 3,899.43 4,094.40 4,299.12 38,496.83 40,421.67 42,442.75 44,564.89 46,793.13 49,132.79 51,589.43 Transportation 1851 18.51 19.43 20.41 21.43 22.50 23.62 24.80 Planner 3,208.07 3,368.47 3,536.90 3,713.74 3,899.43 4,094.40 4,299.12 38,496.83 40,421.67 42,442.75 44,564.89 46,793.13 49,132.79 51,589.43 Schedule A CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SALARY RANGES BY POSITION FY 1994-95 JOB TITLE 5.00 A B C D E F G Accounting Manager 1900 19.00 19.95 20.94 21.99 23.09 24.24 25.46 7.50 8.00 3,292.54 3,457.16 3,630.02 3,811.52 4,002.10 4,202.20 4,412.31 8.00 8.50 39,510.43 41,485.95 43,560.24 45,738.26 48,025.17 50,426.43 52,947.75 Senior Engineer 1990 19.90 20.89 21.94 23.03 24.18 25.39 26.66 14.50 15.00 3,448.67 3,621.11 3,802.16 3,992.27 4,191.88 4,401.48 4,621.55 41,384.08 43,453.29 45,625.95 47,907.25 50,302.61 52,817.74 55,458.63 City Clerk 2065 20.65 21.68 22.77 23.91 25.10 26.36 27.68 3,579.66 3,758.65 3,946.58 4,143.91 4,351.11 4,568.66 4,797.09 42,955.98 45,103.78 47,358.97 49,726.92 52,213.26 54,823.92 57,565.12 Community Services 2148 21.48 22.55 23.68 24.86 26.11 27.41 28.78 Director 3,722.85 3,908.99 4,104.44 4,309.66 4,525.15 4,751.41 4,988.98 44,674.21 46,907.92 49,253.31 51,715.98 54,301.78 57,016.87 59,867.71 Comm. Development 2780 27.80 29.19 30.65 32.19 33.80 35.49 37.26 Director 4,819.36 5,060.33 5,313.34 5,579.01 5,857.96 6,150.86 6,458.40 57,832.29 60,723.90 63,760.10 66,948.10 70,295.51 73,810.29 77,500.80 City Eng/Public 2780 27.80 29.19 30.65 32.19 33.80 35.49 37.26 Works Director 4,819.36 5,060.33 5,313.34 5,579.01 5,857.96 6,150.86 6,458.40 57,832.29 60,723.90 63,760.10 66,948.10 70,295.51 73,810.29 77,500.80 Assistant City 2955 29.55 31.02 32.57 34.20 35.91 37.71 39.59 Manager 5,121.34 5,377.41 5,646.28 5,928.59 6,225.02 6,536.27 6,863.08 61,456.06 64,528.86 67,755.31 71,143.07 74,700.23 78,435.24 82,357.00 City Manager 8,056.00 96,672.00 PART-TIME/HOURLY Comm. Svcs Leader 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 Community Svcs Leader II 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00 Intern/Part-Time 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00 Parks Mtce Helper 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00 Comm Svcs Coordinator 9.00 9.50 10.00 10.50 11.00 11.50 12.00 Counter Clerk/Permit Tech 12.50 13.00 13.50 14.00 14.50 15.00 15.50 "TTY [)F r]rAMeIIVll RAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. (Q 0 a ✓ ::., TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: March 21, 1995 REPORT DATE: March 15, 1995 FROM: George A. Wentz, City Engineer TITLE: Landscaping Assessment District Numbers 38, 39 and 41. SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar has an annual program for the maintenance of public improvements and intends to continue the program by special assessments upon lands within the City's Landscaping Assessment District Numbers 38, 39 and 41. Funds must be provided to enable these Districts to continue their operation during the 1995-96 Fiscal Year. Proceedings for the maintenance of said improvements will be pursuant to the provisions of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopt the attached Resolutions to initiate the proceedings for Districts 38, 39 and 41 ordering the preparation of the appropriate engineer reports. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification X Resolution(s) _ Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's Office) Ordinances(s) _ Others _ Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: Communi Services IV BY: TelTence L. Belr rank she Geor e A. W ntz City Manager Assistant City Manager City ngineer C:\WP60\LENDAKAY\AGIEN95\D3841.314 CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: March 21, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Landscaping Assessment District Numbers 38, 39, and 41 ISSUE STATEMENT: The City desires to continue its annual program for the maintenance of public improvements upon lands within the City's Landscaping Assessment Districts 38, 39, and 41. RECOMIM[ENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopt the attached Resolutions to initiate the proceedings for Districts 38, 39 and 41 ordering the preparation of the appropriate engineer reports. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: The cost associated with preparation of the Engineer's Reports is estimated to be less than $10,000. The Districts also pay for the cost of the proceedings. There will be no impact on the City's General Fund. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City has an annual program for the maintenance of landscaping as well as open space improvements, and intends to continue said program by special assessments upon lands within the City. Funds must be provided to enable District Numbers 38, 39 and 41 to continue their operation during the 1995-96 Fiscal Year. Proceedings for the maintenance of public improvements will be pursuant to the provisions of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California. Prepared By: David G. Liu C:\WP60\LRqDAKAY\CCR-95\D3841.314 RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDERING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND TO FILE A REPORT RELATED TO MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 AND ANY ASSESSMENTS THEREON FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 A. RECITALS. (i) Heretofore, City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 was created pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highway Code (§ S 22500, et seq.) (ii) California Streets and Highway Code § 22622 provides that this Council shall adopt a resolution generally describing any proposed new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements in such a district and ordering the City Engineer to prepare and file a report related to annual maintenance and assessments in such a district. (iii) No improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements are proposed for said Landscaping Assessment District No. 38. (iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. RESOLUTION. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: 1. In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution. 2. The City Engineer hereby is ordered and directed to prepare an annual report as specified in California Streets and Highway Code § S 22565, et seq., with respect to City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 for Fiscal Year 1995-96. 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of , 1995. MAYOR I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1995, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST• City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDERING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND TO FILE A REPORT RELATED TO MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 AND ANY ASSESSMENTS THEREON FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 A. RECITALS. (i) Heretofore, City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 39 was created pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highway Code (§ § 22500, et seq.) (ii) California Streets and Highway Code § 22622 provides that this Council shall adopt a resolution generally describing any proposed new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements in such a district and ordering the City Engineer to prepare and file a report related to annual maintenance and assessments in such a district. (iii) No improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements are proposed for said Landscaping Assessment District No. 39. (iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. RESOLUTION. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: 1. In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution. 2. The City Engineer hereby is ordered and directed to prepare an annual report as specified in California Streets and Highway Code § § 22565, et seq., with respect to City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 39 for Fiscal Year 1995-96. 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of MAYOR , 1995. I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1995, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST• City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND 'BAR ORDERING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND TO FILE A REPORT RELATED TO MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 AND ANY ASSESSMENTS THEREON FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 A. RECITALS. (i) Heretofore, City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 41 was created pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highway Code (§ § 22500, et seq.) (ii) California Streets and Highway Code § 22622 provides that this Council shall adopt a resolution generally describing any proposed new improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements in such a district and ordering the City Engineer to prepare and file a report related to annual maintenance and assessments in such a district. (iii) No improvements or substantial changes in existing improvements are proposed for said Landscaping Assessment District No. 41. (iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. RESOLUTION. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: 1. In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution. 2. The City Engineer hereby is ordered and directed to prepare an annual report as specified in California Streets and Highway Code § § 22565, et seq., with respect to City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 41 for Fiscal Year 1995-96. 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of , 1995. MAYOR I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1995, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar CITY Or DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: March 21, 1995 FROM: George A. Wentz, City Engineer AGENDA NO. �, )I REPORT DATE: March 15, 1995 TITLE: Grand Avenue Street Rehabilitation, Traffic Signal Synchronization, and Intersection Modification Project Between Golden Springs Drive and the San Bernardino County Line SUMMARY: Grand Avenue, between Golden Springs Drive and the San Bernardino County line, is in need of pavement rehabilitation and/or reconstruction. The existing pavement for Grand Avenue has been analyzed and evaluated in order to determine the most practical and economical approach for the roadway improvements. Furthermore, the synchronization of nine (9) traffic signals along Grand Avenue (from State Route 57 to the easterly City limit) and intersection modifications of Grand Avenue/Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue/Golden Springs Drive have been incorporated as part of the street rehabilitation project. At this time, the plans and specifications have been prepared and completed. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution to approve the plans and specifications of the Grand Avenue Street Rehabilitation, Traffic Signal Synchronization, and Intersection Modification Project and authorize the City Clerk to advertise the project for bids. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report X Resolution _Ordinances(s) Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification X Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's Office) — Other 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes No by the City Attorney? — 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No Which Commission? —Yes X No 5. Are other departments affected by the report? Report discussed with the following affected departments: _ Yes X No REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. Belanger Frank M. Usher eo ge A. City Manager Assistant Ci Manager City g � City Engineer C:\WP60\LINDAKAy\AGBN95%GrdRdmb.315 CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: March 21, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Grand Avenue Street Rehabilitation, Traffic Signal Synchronization, and Intersection Modification Project Between Golden Springs Drive and the San Bernardino County Line ISSUE STATEMENT Grand Avenue, between Golden Springs Drive and the San Bernardino County line, is in need of pavement rehabilitation and/or reconstruction. Based on the findings of the pavement evaluation, plans and specifications have been designed and completed accordingly. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution to approve the plans and specifications of the Grand Avenue Street Rehabilitation, Traffic Signal Synchronization, and Intersection Modification Project and authorize the City Clerk to advertise the project for bids. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: The Grand Avenue Street Rehabilitation, Traffic Signal Synchronization, and Intersection Modification Project is estimated to cost between $900,000 and $1,250,000, excluding any contingencies. The total allocated project budget is $1,144,300. Said budget consists of $300,000 Gas Tax Fund, $420,000 Prop. C Fund, $20,000 SB 821 Fund, and $404,300 Grand Avenue Mitigation Fund. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Grand Avenue, between Golden Springs Drive and the San Bernardino County line, is in need of pavement rehabilitation and/or reconstruction. To determine the most practical and economical approach for restoring the street to full function, the existing pavement on Grand Avenue has been concrete analyzed and evaluated. Based on the findings of the pavement evaluation, asphalt concrete overlay of various thickness will be utilized. Additionally, the depression area on the entire width of Grand Avenue, just west of Shotgun 1 Grand Avenue March 15, 1995 Page Two Lane (for approximately 140' along the westbound lanes and 70' along the eastbound lanes), will be reconstructed with 6" AC on 30" class 2 aggregate base. Furthermore, as the Council knows, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is responsible for administering a number of different federal, state, and locally enacted transportation programs to improve mobility, reduce congestion, and to assist in the improvement of air quality. On January 29, 1993, the MTA issued a Multi -Year Call For Projects. The City of Diamond Bar submitted the Grand Avenue Traffic Signal Synchronization/Arterial Improvements Project and was successful in obtaining the funding for this project. The work includes traffic data collection, generation/implementation of timing plans, development of plans, specifications, and estimate (PS & E) for the synchronization of nine (9) traffic signals along Grand Avenue (from State Route 57 to the easterly City limit) and intersection modifications of Grand Avenue/Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue/Golden Springs Drive. This work has been incorporated as part of the street rehabilitation project. The objectives of the intersection modification will be to optimize traffic circulation and to improve the level of service at these two intersections. The following is a summary of the project as previously presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission and City Council. I. ON GRAND AVENUE AT DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD (ATTACHMENTS #1 and #2) • Easterly Approach of Grand Avenue: (a) Relocate the curb and gutter approximately 2' back (current parkway width is 8') for approximately 550' on either the southerly side or both sides of Grand Avenue. This modification will provide a third lane for turning movements and also accomodate any future considerations for a third through lane for both west and eastbound traffic. (b) Relocate the existing median further south to improve the traffic flow and modify said median to provide greater storage capacity (by approximately 2501) for left-turn/southbound traffic. (c) Continue to permit left -turn movement into the shopping center (Vineyard). • Westerly Approach of Grand Avenue: 2