HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/3/1997citxj / eg,
cou�ac'l-'�
AGENDA
Tuesday, June 3, 1997
6:30 p.m. Regular Meeting
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Auditorium
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Bob Huff
Caro l Herrera
Eileen Ansari
Clair Harmony
Gary Werner
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
accommodations) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk
a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
f 11t.1!Ili�ll ti.1i:
Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking T
r The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled 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 are 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 attacks against the entire City
Council and will not be tolerated. If not complied with, you will forfeit your remaining time as ordered by the Chair.
Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
In accordance with Government Code Section 54954.3(a) 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 cases 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 of the Chair, which shall include an order to be seated 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 tapes are available for a nominal
charge.
ADA REQUIREMENTS
A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public
speaking area. Sign language interpreter services are also available by giving notice at least 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 TAKEN ON ANY ITEM IDENTIFIED ON THE AGENDA.
I ff , , _..
THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY JONES INTERCABLE
FOR AIRING ON CHANNEL 12, AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM,
YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. THIS
MEETING WILL BE RE -BROADCAST ON THE SATURDAY FOLLOWING
THE COUNCIL MEETING AT 10:00 A.M. ON CHANNEL 12.
1. CLOSED SESSION:
��14 M 09we3:1 P34 IT
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
INVOCATION:
ROLL CALL:
Next Resolution No. 97-38
Next Ordinance No. 03(1997)
6:30 p.m. June 3, 1997
Mayor Huff
Reverend Mark Hopper, Evangelical
Free Church
Council Members Ansari, Harmony,
Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Herrera, Mayor
Huff
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
3.1 CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION to Felix Giles, Diamond Bar
resident, for his work with youth in helping to educate
them against drug abuse and gang and street violence.
3.2 BUSINESS OF THE MONTH - Presentation of City Tile to
Xavier Avila, owner of Xavier's Florist.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time
reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an
opportunity for members of the public to directly address the
Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to
the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on
this agenda. Although the City Council values your comments,
pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council generally cannot take
any action on items not listed on the posted agenda. Please
complete a Speaker's Card and give it to the City Clerk
(completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five
minute maximum time limit when addressing the City Council.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1
PLANNING COMMISSION
- June 10, 1997 -
7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E.
Copley Dr.
5.2
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - June 12, 1997 -
7:00 p.m., AQMD Board
Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
- June 17, 1997 -
6:30 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E.
Copley Dr.
5.4
CONCERT IN THE PARK
- "Film at Eleven"
Classic 60's &
70's - June 25, 1997 -
6:30 - 8:00 p.m.,
Sycamore Canyon
JUNE 3, 1997 PAGE 2
Park, 22930 E. Golden Spgs. Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
6.1.1 Regular Meeting of April 22, 1997 - Receive
and File.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of May 13, 1997 - Receive and
File.
Requested by: Community Development Director
6.2 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated June 3,
1997 in the amount of $856,701.74.
Requested by: City Manager
6.3 TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of April, 1997 - Review and
approve.
Requested by: City Manager
6.4 PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND, PROPOSITION C LOCAL
RETURN FUND AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AUDITS FOR
THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 AND 1995 - The
City'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, 1996 was
completed in December 1996 by Simpson & Simpson, C.P.A.
The final version of the audits were received in the City
offices in May 1997 and are being presented to Council
for their review.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council receive, accept and file Prop A Local Return
Fund, Prop C Local Return Fund and Transportation
Development Act Fund Audit Report for fiscal year ending
June 30, 1996 and 1995.
6.5 EXONERATION OF CASH DEPOSIT IN LIEU OF GRADING BOND
(FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE, LABOR & MATERIAL) FOR 2194 INDIAN
CREEK ROAD - The Principal requests the release of his
Cash Deposit in Lieu of Grading Bond for improvement
security as required in accordance with the Subdivision
Map Act. The City Engineer finds that the Principal
performed all work as shown on the grading plan on file.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council exonerate Check No. 3574, in the amount of $4,140
posted on January 3, 1996 and that the City Clerk notify
the Principal and Surety of this action.
JUNE 3, 1997
PAGE 3
Requested by: City Engineer
6.6 RESOLUTION NO. 97 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING
RESOLUTIONS 89-11 AND 89-11A AND APPROVING COVERAGE OF
ALL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES UNDER ONE MASTER FAITHFUL
PERFORMANCE BOND - Prior to January 1, 1997, the
California Government Code required that City Clerks and
City Treasurers be individually bonded. These bonding
requirement have been met with an insurance bond covering
these officials as well as other city employees. With
the passage of AB 3472, G.C. Section 1481, Section 35,
effective January 1, 1997, bonding provisions have been
extended to cities and joint power authorities. This
section allows the use of a "master bond" to cover a
group of officials or employees.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 97 -XX rescinding Resolution
Nos. 89-11 and 89-11A and approving coverage of all
officers and employees under one Master Faithful
Performance Bond.
Requested by: City Manager
6.7 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR STREET
IMPROVEMENTS ON DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD BETWEEN PALOMINO
DRIVE AND NORTHERLY CITY LIMIT AT TEMPLE AVENUE - The
City proposes to rehabilitate the final segment of D.B.
Blvd. from Palomino Dr. to Temple Ave. To accomplish the
improvements, it is necessary to secure the services of
qualified pavement testing and civil engineering firm to
provide pavement analysis and design services. Staff has
received and evaluated 21 proposals for the design
services.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council authorize the Mayor to enter into a professional
services agreement with Dewan, Lundin & Associates in an
amount not to exceed $44,960 with a contingency amount of
$3,000.
Requested by: City Engineer
6.8 AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR PANTERA PARK - Oarcil
approved release of plans and specifications for
construction of Pantera Park on April 1, 1997. Six bids
were received and opened on May 8, 1997. The bid package
included a base bid and three alternative bid items.
Base bids ranged from $2,079,288 to $2,401,728. Bid
alternative items included: (1) 1,045 sq. ft. activity
room for use by the community for small events and
contract classes; (2) vertical backstop in place of the
"shell" backstop, which are better backstops with the
ability for more sports organizations to utilize the
JUNE 3, 1997 PAGE 4
fields; and (3) hydroseed in lieu of hydrostolonization,
which is more appropriate for the planting season
proposed. It will be more cost effective to build the
activity room and vertical backstops during the initial
building of the park and not to retrofit the park at a
later date. Base bids with the three alternative bid
items ranged from $2,251,208 to $2,530,433. With the
proposed FY 1997-98 budget, adequate funds are available
to facilitate the base bid with all three alternatives.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council award a construction contract to Valley Crest
Landscape, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $2,251,208 and
provide a contingency amount of $168,840 (7.5%) for
project change orders to be approved by the City Manager,
for a total authorization amount of $2,420,048.
Requested by: City Manager
6.9 ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF CONTRACT WITH DIVERSIFIED
PARATRANSIT FOR DIAMOND RIDE SERVICES - In March, 1995,
Council entered into a 16 -month contract with Diversified
Paratransit, Inc. which allows for 4, 1 -year extensions
by mutual agreement. The City previously extended the
contract with Diversified for 1 year. Three remaining 1 -
year extensions are available. Diversified has requested
a second 1 -year extension to the contract and has agreed
to maintain the fare schedule as established in March
1995. The service level provided by Diversified has met
all City requirements and has been above satisfactory.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council extend the contract with Diversified Paratransit,
Inc. for a 1 -year period in the amount of $240,000.
Requested by: City Manager
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters
can be heard.
7.1 REQUEST TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO APPROVE A PROPOSED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY AT 24401 DARRIN DRIVE (CUP 96-10 AND DR 96-9) -
On May 6, 1997, Council voted to call for review of the
decision of the Planning Commission approving Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) 96-10 and Development Review (DR) 96-9
for installation of a wireless telecommunications
facility at 24401 Darrin Dr. The issue before the
Council is whether or not to uphold the decision of the
Commission.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council review the decision of the Planning Commission
and direct staff as appropriate.
JUNE 3, 1997
8.
PAGE 5
Requested by: Community Development Director
OLD BUSINESS:
8.1 RESOLUTION NO. 97-32A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 97-32
(RELATING TO THE VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE CEILING FOR CITY
ELECTIONS) - On May 6, 1997, Council adopted Resolution
No. 97-32 establishing the number of residents of the
City for the purpose of determining the voluntary
expenditure ceilings for City elections. Contained
within the Resolution under Section 2.B., the voluntary
expenditure ceiling was "established at an amount equal
to one dollar ($1.00) per resident of the City for each
election for Member of the City Council." However, on
May 20, 1997, the Council approved first reading of
Ordinance No. 2(1997) establishing the voluntary
expenditure ceiling for City elections at fifty cents
($.50) per resident of the City. Therefore, the
Resolution must be amended to reflect the same ceiling
amount.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 97-32A amending Resolution
No. 97-32 relating to the voluntary expenditure ceiling
for City elections.
Requested by: City Clerk
8.2 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 02(1997): AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ENACTING
A VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE CEILING FOR CITY ELECTIONS - On
May 20, 1997, Council approved first reading by title
only of Ordinance No. 2(1997) establishing Voluntary
Expenditure Ceiling limits for candidates for City
elections at a rate of fifty cents ($.50) per resident of
the City. On May 6, 1997, Council adopted Resolution No.
97-32 establishing the number of residents for the City
for purposes of the November 4, 1997 General Municipal
Election at 56,659 residents. Therefore, adoption of
Ordinance No. 2(1997) will establish the voluntary
expenditure ceiling limits for candidates in the November
4, 1997 election in the amount of $28,330.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council approve second reading by title only, waive full
reading and adopt Ordinance No. 02(1997) enacting a
voluntary expenditure ceiling for City Elections.
Requested by: City Clerk
8.3 ORDINANCE NO. XX(1997): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON LAND USE
ENTITLEMENTS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND
DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF - On May 6, 1997, Council
JUNE 3, 1997
PAGE 6
directed preparation of a draft urgency ordinance
establishing a moratorium on the issuance of permits for
wireless telecommunication facilities. On May 20, 1997
Council received public testimony, discussed the proposal
and continued the matter to June 3, 1997. The issue
before Council is whether or not to enact the proposed
ordinance.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council consider the urgency ordinance and direct staff
as appropriate.
Requested by: City Council
9. NEW BUSINESS:
9.1 FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 MUNICIPAL BUDGET - The proposed
General Fund estimates available financial resources in
the amount of $10,078,900, with proposed Appropriations
in the amount of $9,700,765. The estimated amount of
fiscal year end (June 30, 1997) fund balance is $378,135.
Included in the proposed Municipal Budget is a capital
improvement program in the amount of $7,364,250.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council take public testimony, review the proposed budget
and continue discussion until the meeting of June 17,
1997 for adoption.
Requested by: City Manager
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
NEXT RESOLUTION R-97-11
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Werner
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Ansari, Harmony, Herrera,
VC/Huff, C/Werner
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on
each regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for
members of the public to directly address the Agency on
Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to the public
that are not already scheduled for consideration on this
agenda. Although the Redevelopment Agency values your
comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the Agency generally
cannot take any action on items not listed on the posted
agenda. Please complete a Speaker's Card and give it to the
Agencv Secretary (completion of this form is voluntary).
There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the
Redevelopment Agency.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
JUNE 3, 1997 PAGE 7
3.1 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated June 3,
1997 in the amount of $2,174.80.
Requested by: Executive Director
4. OLD BUSINESS:
5. NEW BUSINESS:
5.1 RESOLUTION NO. 97 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR OF THE EXCLUSION OF
CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM THE PROPOSED DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA - On May 20, 1997, staff recommended
that the boundaries of the proposed Economic
Revitalization Area be changed to exclude certain
properties. As requested by Council, the Planning
Commission has reviewed the matter and recommends
exclusion of the properties.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the
Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors adopt Resolution
No. 97 -XX recommending approval by the City Council of
the exclusion of certain property from the proposed
Economic Revitalization Area.
Requested by: Executive Director
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS:
8. AGENCY SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS:
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED -
7.2 CONTINUED JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY - 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters can be heard.
- ACTIONS RELATING TO CONTINUE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING IN
CONNECTION WITH THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM THE
DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA, CERTIFICATION OF THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVAL OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION
PLAN
7.2.1 RESOLUTION NO. 97 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE
EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM THE PROPOSED
DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA - - This
continued joint public hearing is intended to
provide a forum for receipt of only those public
comments relating to exclusion of certain
JUNE 3, 1997 PAGE 8
properties. On May 20, 1997, staff recommended
that the boundaries of the proposed Economic
Revitalization Area be changed to exclude certain
properties. As requested by Council, the Planning
Commission has reviewed the matter and recommends
exclusion of the properties.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the
City Council/Redevelopment Agency reopen the joint
public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan
for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area
for the sole purpose of considering the exclusion
of territory from the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area; take public testimony, close
the joint public hearing and adopt Resolution No.
97 -XX approving the exclusion of certain property
from the proposed Economic Revitalization Area.
Requested by: City Council/Redevelopment Agency
9.2 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY NEW BUSINESS
9.2.1 RESOLUTION NO. 97 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING WRITTEN
FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO ORAL AND WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS, COMMUNICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA OF THE
DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY -
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the
City Council adopt Resolution No. 97 -XX adopting
written findings in response to oral and written
objections, communications and suggestions in
connection with the proposed Redevelopment Plan.
Requested by: City Council/Redevelopment Agency
9.2.2 RESOLUTION NO. R -97 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE
DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CERTIFYING THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DIAMOND
BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA; ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; ADOPTING THE
FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS
REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the
Redevelopment Agency adopt Resolution No. R -97 -XX
certifying the final Environmental Impact Report
for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area.
Requested by: Redevelopment Agency
JUNE 3, 1997 PAGE 9
9.2.3 RESOLUTION NO. 97 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CERTIFYING THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DIAMOND
BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA; ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; ADOPTING THE
FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS
REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the
City Council adopt Resolution No. 97 -XX certifying
the Environmental Impact Report for the Diamond Bar
Economic Revitalization Area.
Requested by: City Council
9.2.4 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. XX (1997): AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the
City Council approve first reading by title only of
Ordinance No. XX (1997) approving and adopting the
Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area.
Requested by: City Council
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADJOURNMENT:
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS:
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Councilmembers
are for Council discussion. Direction may be given at this
meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a future
meeting.
12. ADJOURNMENT:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR )
The Diamond Bar City Council will hold a Regular Meeting in
the AQMD Auditorium, located at 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, California at 6:30 p.m. on June 3, 1997.
I, LYNDA BURGESS declare as follows:
I am the City Clerk in the City of Diamond Bar; that a copy
of the agenda for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar City
Council, to be held on June 3, 1997 was posted at their proper
locations.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and
that this Notice and Affidavit was executed this 30th day of May,
1997, at Diamond Bar, California.
/s/ Lynda Burgess
Lynda Burgess
City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
June 30 1997
Resolution for consideration prior to reopening joint public
hearing:
A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVEIOPMSNT AGENCY
RZCCNNMDIWG APPROVAL BY THs CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR OF THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
FROM THE PROPOSED DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION
AREA
Reopen joint public hearing of the Diamond Har Redevelopment
Agency and the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar on the
proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area for the sole purpose of considering the
exclusion of territory from the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area
Resolutions and Ordinance for consideration following the close
of the reopened joint public hearing:
I. A RESOLUTION OF TEE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE EXCLUSION OF
CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM THE PROPOSED DIAMOND
BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA
2. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
SAIL ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO ORAL AND
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS, COMIMICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED =DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA OF THE DIAMOND
BAR REDEVLLOPME11T AGENCY
Exhibit A -- label the letters as follows:
A-1: Nicholson (2 letters)
A-2: Kerridge (Z letters)
A-3: Yoder
A-4: Bane
3. A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IKPACl REPORT FOR
THS DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA; ADOPTING
TSM KITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; ADOPTING THE
FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS REQUIRED
BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A
STATE1ENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING
THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
4. A RESOXVTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRORKMAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA;
ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; ADOPTING
THE FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS
970525 14572-00001 rd►/gp 1672900 1
S@.20 ' d 8L00 9Z9 Z iZ Z#ld-1 N0S1kJM ` S(1dbH:) 18 92:V1 4,661-8Z-AdW
REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONKBNTAL QUALITY ACT,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND X&XING C$RTAIN
FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
5. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR TAE
DIAMOND RAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA
970525 10M-00001 rd /sp 1672900 1 - Z -
SFF3�£0 ' d 8L00 9Z9 £ is Z#01 NOSIb" ` Sadb+-0 I6 L£ : b t L66 i-8Z-htJU
P.A. Box 39=8
320 I,iri igh i e Nowd
i%tats iMrbwok CA 0=10
tM�steis
June 10, 1997
City Couneilmembers
c/o City Clerk Lynda Burgess
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive„ Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
97 JUN I Q pig 4: Sg
RE: An Ordinance of the City of Diamond Bar Establishing a Moratorium
on Land Use Entitlements for Wireless Communication Facilities
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing in regards to Item 8.3 on the June 3, 1997 agenda which proposes
to establish a moratorium on land use entitlements for wireless
communications facilities. The purpose of this letter is to urge you, at the
very least, to allow continued processing of existing applications that are in
the pipeline and outside of residential zone districts. As Councilmember
Herrera stated during the June 3rd hearing, it is unfair to change the rules on
the players in the middle of the game.
Our proposed pro*t for a wireless paging facility located on the roof of the
Radisson Inn at 21725 East Gateway Center, is located entirely within a
commercial zone district. Two other wireless communications facilities
currently exist on the roof of that building, clearly setting precedent for
approval of our facility.
It is clear from your discussion regarding the Damn Drive application made
by Pac Bel Mobile Services and Cox Communications, that the clear focus of
your cmvan a is directed at such facilities as those located in residential zone
districts, where there is the most potential for land use conflicts.
We respedfully request that prior to implementing a moratorium on all Iand
use entitlements for wireless communications facilities that you take the
following actions:
1. Review how other jurisdictions have handled projects that are in the
pipeline when considering a moratorium.
2. Review how other jurisdictions have treated wireless communications
facilities in commercial and industrial zone districts,.
Page 2
Diamond Bar City Council
June 10, 1947
3. Consider implementing only a partial moratorium for facilities in
residential zone districts until development standards can be created.
We believe that what you will find is that most jurisdictions have continued
to process "pipeline" projects under their current ordinance. We also think
you will find that all jurisdictions continue to allow "tenant improvement
(rooftop)" facilities with only ministerial or minor discretionary review
permits. Many of these jurisdictions have incorporated development
standards into their ordinances to allow for ministerial permits. These
development standards typically include provisions for screening or painting
of antennas, height restrictions on antenna size, setbacks, etc.
We would be happy to provide you with sample ordinances and
development standards from other jurisdictions. Bell do Associates has been
instrumental in developing ordinance language for many other jurisdictions.
However, at this time, we would again respectfully request that you allow
continued processing of ours and other similar permit applications which are
currently in the pipeline. We would be willing to make an effort to comply
with any anticipated development standards that your planning staff may
envision. It is critical to PageNers network deployment that this facility be
permitted in a timely fashion. Thank you for the consideration of our
request. We look forward to offering comments at your June 17th hearing.
Sincerely,
Slus/BELL & ASSOCIATES (agent for PageNet)
h
&�
Principal Planner
cc. W, Ed Sogge, Complus
Mr. Dean Miller, PageNet
Ms. Susan Cole, City of Diamond Bar, Planning Technician, 21660
Copley Drive, Suite 100, CA 91765-4177
TEAM
_ ..... _ �.�fYA�"► > Inc.
d , N►ANC�� vJ�� �E �OUS�
.J
�Q�o✓�: SEC iX �1L�S
Z - t 9
70,0 Weaftm Ave.. Me. 6 D�w ►wk, G 90421 Y.S.A. d14) 5=144" fm (7141521-7"6
M
Panasonic -JAW -
t n►+ nt�vi a
P"
Ra lnng \\
FACT SHEET - Felix (The Nighthawk) Giles
BORN: July 19; 1951 (45) HEIGHT: 5 ft. 11 in.
HOMETOWN: Diamond Bar, Calif. WEIGHT: 195 Ib.
MARITAL CHII.DREN: Felix Jr., 22
STATUS: Single Grayson, 6
HOW THE He's raced in the Baja 1000 and other off-road races, may be the
NIGHTHAWK first Black American who ever had, and now he definitely is the first
GOT HIS of his race to drive in NASCAR's Craftsman Track series.
NAME: Recession cost him a ride in 1991, and while waiting for the offer of
an off-road truck to race, he flew in a communications airplane,
relaying emergency messages from drivers to thea teams and to
officials. Drivers he has helped, some in life or death situations,
nicknamed him "Nighthawk." After the South Los Angeles
disturbances in 1992 he devoted a lot of time to helping poor young
people, who made the time stick.
NEW RACING Los Angeles transportation executive Milton Herron decided to
MISSION: give Giles his racing opportunity in NASCAR Craftsman Trucks,
breaking new ground for Black Americans in that sport.
Sponsorship was quickly provided by Panasonic, the car audio
entertaintiieiit company.
BACKGROUND: Giles has held engineering and technical positions with McDonnell
Douglas, Northrop and Rockwell International.
Served in the U. S. Navy 13 years, including submarine service as a
sonar technician, in the nuclear reliability program, an instructor
and member of the foreign military sake team.
Earned B.S. in computer science at National University, Irvine,
Calif. Completed technical and management courses with honors in
the U. S. Navy.
Etas been a college professor in comuter science.
NOTABLE: National spokesman for Race Against Drugs, an FBI -sponsored
program; attended cotttbrence at the White House, 1992.
Rep. Louis Stokes (D -Ohio) commended him on the floor of the
House of Reprimtatives for being the first Aftican American to
race in the Baja 1000.
Was given key to city of Cleveland and was commended for work
with,youth by the Ohio attorney general's office, Ohio Assembly,
U. S. Congress and Los Angeles City Schools. Commendations
(more)
NOTABLE also noted his volunteer work at hospitals and in schools following
(cont.): the Los Angeles uprising in 1992.
Inducted into Legends Sports Hall of Fame by the restaurant
chain's panel of experts, 1993.
Frequent performer in celebrity charity tennis tournaments. Was
champion, Claremont (Calif.) Country Club event to aid abused
women, 1993.
Public speaker, specializes in motivational lectures and working
with children.
Qualified as Taekwando Karate instructor.
Plays 5 different musical instruments -- piano, guitar, harmonica,
organ and symphonic tympani.
School sports were football, track and tennis (turned down
invitation to national junior championships at Forest Hills to join
Navy).
SHOW BIZ: Sold TV/film rights to his life story to award-winning producer
Charles Floyd Johnson, Universal Studios.
Has an upooming role in John Corso's proposed production of
"Lone Eagle, the Story of the Tuskeegee Airmen."
Has appeared in such TV series as "Quantum Leap" and "Chicago
ope.
►v
Many radio and TV talk show appearances, including a feature on
the national cable channel, BET Network.
Appeared in pilot for proposed series "Legends," an ESPN sports
talk show.
Regular performer in cable TV dramatic series, "U. S. Customs
Classified."
"Nighthawk" cartoon show is in development.
OFF ROAD Co -drove with Rick Seiman in 1990 Baja 1000, survived a rollover
RACING to finish his driving stint.
BACKGROUND: To hone racing skills he was graduated from Bob Bondurant
School of High Performance Driving, Chandler, Ariz., later took
postgraduate course on Bondurant's oval. Also successMy
completed Rod Hall's Off -Road Racing School, Retro, Nev.
Drove Jeep in 1991 Baja 1000, finishing all but last 30 miles when
worn-out vehicle quit; drove various other races, 1992-1996.
101796
FROM: Doke Houlgate Enterprises
21311 Hawthorne Blvd., #102
Torrance, CA 90503, # 102
310/540.5001 - 310/$43-9605
Panasonic =�
r n54 nuVit,
L lff,afli"
Racing
BACKGROUNDER - Felix (The Nighthawk) Giles
He comes to NASCAR Craftsman Truck series races with an 18 -wheel transporter
advertising Panasonic car audio products in big letters on the side, another driver with a
blue chip sponsor. But it wasn't always that way for Felix Giles.
In 1990, as the first Black American driver in the history of the famed Baja 1000, Giles
gained some notoriety, but his fame was fleeting. Convinced that off-road racing was his
ultimate challenge, he began a long and discouraging search for sponsors to make his
racing dream come true. A recession frustrated his efforts at first, and Giles decided to
take any assignment he could find, just to stay in the sport.
The first job offered -- spotter in an observer plane that kept protective watch over other
competitors on the ground -- provided him with lots of opportunities to help others out of
jams, and his success helped earn him a nickname he carries to this day, "The Nighthawk."
A few weeks into 1991 he was already a legend in the skies to his fellow racers.
Being a Good Samaritan wasn't enough. Against all odds he entered and raced a
borrowed Jeep in the 1991 Baja 1000. This 736 1 -mile torture chamber at Emsenada,
Mexico, had one of the lowest finishing rates in history. Odes almost beat the odds. He
covered the first 705 miles before the badly battered vehicle broke down. The next few
years found him either racing the Jeep himself or serving as a co-driver for other racers.
Fate was to intervene in his personal life and send him in a new direction.
On April 29, 1992, Giles was on a sound stage in Santa Monica where he and a group of
athletes taped a pilot for the proposed "Legends" talk show on ESPN. At the end of the
day, as he prepared to drive home to Orange County, he remembered it was his father's
birthday. Giles stopped to buy a cake and a present and headed for his Ather's apartment
in Compton. They had a quiet celebration together, but meanwhide the sounds of the
streets turned ugly. Felix's mother in Cleveland, watching the outbreak of the Rodney
King verdict riots, warned him over the phone to get out of that part of town. Before he
could leave, a market across the street exploded in flames.
Giles jumped in his car and started for home. It was the most frightening ride he ever took.
He was shot at, accosted by street gangs, held up by emergency vehicles and generally
impeded for an hour and a half as he tried to leave the riot zone, meanwhile counting more
than 200 fees that had been set.
The experience made him vow to do something to help the community dig itself out of its
destruction and get going again. The next day on a local radio station he volunteered to
visit schools and hospitals to do anything he could as "The Nighthawk."
11
His resolution launched a public appearance and speaking career, as he visited school after
school, preaching against drugs, gangs and street violence. At one ghetto school, bullets
from a passing auto whistled over his head as he and his audience hit the ground.
Giles was commended by the Los Angeles City Schools and later by the city and state
where he grew up -- Cleveland, Ohio. While at the White House for a meeting of the FBI -
sponsored Race Against Drugs organization, Giles visited Congressman Louis Stokes,
who sponsored a resolution in the House commending Oiles. On his way home to
California he stopped in Cleveland, where "Felix Giles Day" was capped by honors
bestowed by the governor, state attorney general, mayor and city council. Back home he
was inducted into the Legends restaurant chain's "Sports Hall of Fame," mostly on the
basis of his work with disadvantaged young people.
Qualified as a college professor -- he taught computer science to undergraduates -- an
engineer and a scientist, he has recently been working as an actor when not making public
appearances or competing in celebrity tennis and golf tournaments.
The first good news for Nighthawk Racing came in the form of a contract for the last race
of 1996 and the entire IM Craftsman Supertruck season with Panasonic, the audio car
audio entertainment company. Felix Giles is finally where he wants to be, behind the wheel
of a two truck.
101996 ###
FROM: Deke Houlgate Enterprises
21311 Hawtbocne Blvd., #102
Tornnoe, CA 90503, 0102
310/540-5001 - 3I0/S43-9605
S
xza
v 7p
ir IAP
0
� �r.•�.^�J`''� as Rc76�c�;..
_ V
rt
70 JA
ol
et
70
et
n
rt 70
n �+
e.
, , = I v
rte.... r.I^ �n;.�'n
C et
ot
oi
pt
'+
r:
ri 1 R J. j r �` r J '� (` 'her
R
er
et
ft
jo
r= /p
Oev
R '' "" _ w �D
— =- t!
rt n
el
f o et
70 W
et
Cr
Sports
LAS 11VG" SUN Friday, November 1, 1996 1E
Section E
Nighthawk won't fly
in Sunday truck race
reiix Giles postpones NASCAR debut until January
y Ron Kantowski
,;S VEGAS SUN
Tho Nighthawk has been
;roU sided, at least until January.
Felix "The Nighthawk" Giles,
vidding to become NASCAWs
first Afro-American driver since
Wendel) Scott in the 19609, has
1"tpouod his Craftsman Truck
Iebut on his own volition.
(filets, a 46 -year-old former
sraval engineer and twlloge
srofessor, had hoped to qualify
for Sunday's
�'a' -•sscsuts.Carquest
�i Auto Parts
420K at Las
Vegas Motor
Speedway. But
( he thought
NOTEi wiser of it,
00K chins his lack
of experience.
His revised goal
is W be ready
next year's season opener at
sit Disney World.
"We tried to put this whole
using together in jusrr two weeks.
1' -did n't get a Cllancc to test or
osvt!sing like that," said Giles,
--no,
i; only racing experience is
(;si-road trucks.
What it come down to, more
han anything else, is that it's
n honor to have ;lanasonic as
sponsor, and we want to put
.ur boar foot forward so they
_re represented in the best way
,)ssiblu."
Giles :said consideration for
-SS Co-drecrr8 al -o onvered into
.a Oevisron.
"1 have a groat deal of respect for
the NASCAR drivers out there. l
don't want to be unsafe and hurt
somebody else or hurt nipelf."
Fek Goes
41 A
"1 have r, great deal of respect
for the NASCAR drivers out
Thom. i don't want to be unsafe
and hurt somebody else or hurt
myself, " he said.
"I did pretty well at the Bob
.-londurant tdriving school)
�wt it's a little bit different when
-you've got that freight train (a
ong sine of trucks at a!peed)
At ramund you. With At! due
aspect, 1 didn't want to be out
here knoo-leap in alligators."
Giles said his up dose look
Lt the +wawa in Phoenix last
-Yeekena confirmed ho w*sn't
,cad v
"Going back to them
(Po),asonic) rind telling them
'lot's go back when I'm a little
more prepared' was one of the
hordost thing I've ever had to
do," he said.
Gilee, who as a technical
engineer helped design the
avionics on the stealth
bomber, credits Los An es
transportation executive Milton
Herron for spearheading his
Bruck effort and Panw*rtic for
putting it on the verge of
fruition.
With an assist of course, to
thA late %VAndell Scott.
"Iles was of my heroes. He.
was thepioneer"" said the multi-
facsted Giles, who has appeared
in the TV aeries "Qasntum
Leap" and "Chicago Hope" and
plays five musical instruments
(piano, guitar,, harmonica, organ
and symphonic tympani). "I m
able to do whet 'm capable of
doing, only because he came
before me.
"13asically, I just want to be
a race car driver. My biggest
concentratiou is not On waking
history, or any of that, it's
getting around the race track."
As Giles added, "Becoming
the first black (in truck racing)
doesn't mean squat if you can't
drive."
z
_r
to
IX
& :..M. 1 9 H
a
P Qirx K t
cr
W
x �
Irl .:g.g s
Z F _
o 04 it
06
i , - 9 QQ 0
��5 tltl ��
M O
0
0
0
an
r,
w�,ZN!orom P'H'^SoaZ, a 0o.t; ,� o
m Fam
la g
°
`a. o '" Y' of N � n, C ,s �i �"• Oq o
o= rte. " '::s*
!S` .* rn ° w '
v. N °: C _ 10 ro O
O
lu C' O 0.
r fItC+ pp �'C
w o'Q
x s r 'f'• .� ice'
�f
N w n y O p O J i3
G10
a a W A C1. w ry O i+' G !D �i n N O N n
OL ft
CD
N 'o N' Q o' yp N Mu' n> W �-• 0 o04 il.
o'G M 20
n T.�.O� rQp O
w 128W Cl
m �aA a
o ra.gv'y�r"roh�b�oya�� A Bma/�'p�75�aCa
O, � et -
e. e:•p ohm vN �, Q.!p�}o'.
CL
ip
co
to m � moCa I � CL
pr
x'09.0' '.r° ' �.� 0 5 �•
ro:°:'7av`;fDooc�rnaoin ��ody4�iva
G)
sm.
(D
V
rte
'.
V
0i
9
t
g ,
FA
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
`ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
T -3
DATE: 6-- 3; -�? ;7
PHONE:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
' DSjiiature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK II mm / J
FROM: /�� c,�c(rc�l J� (do I U J' � h� DATE: � -- `S
ADDRESS: 76 O fi it . CvSir i N PHONE:��%�` � g
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:P_S c,
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
U
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REOURT TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK /J
DATE: 3 7
PHONE:��� y9y-lSl�j
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: *-Y % ray
17
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 ADDAEOO WE OITV QODUOIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: zct / �, ��t� DATE: 65/5 --
ADDRESS: Acag-, pc- PHONE: -2/ ,L
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK %�
FROM: A(Z 1 Gl'(.. --BU 5S DATE: Co — 3 `" q
ADDRESS: 1' 4A4 b4,6Ae+ -S ST, PHONE: 59(, (- 4 Y FZ
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
n `Rej M -U-- OcCc�u.Doo ' 1?-4�4 Rt -AW
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM:C? lel > �" f / A DATE:(z
ADDRESS: PHONE:
ORGANIZATION: ,
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
r
Signature
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
1� 0 4 4 A Y K A,V�� DATE: ' el
C�sa-
S�l S� S � r G 0 -f S i � W- I VSA yoe7� PHONE:
r✓Fi AZt--�,cy &,,t �— ✓J ` l rhe✓
�} (sfi►ti� � x G�.�S.Sr o nl dL F 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.
ignature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: kJ-kDATE: �/—Wf z
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
PHONE: ,G-% ,� d -:21- r
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
6- L- /"x- &,t cAza,,�
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO CITY CLERK q
FROM:`'L_ l DATE: 6,
r
ADDRESS: % 7,2- PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: ` _ - CD DI NAYV' �
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO CITY CLERK
FROM: DATE: 6 '�
ADDRESS: PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: 2 t i Y C 1
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Si nature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
✓''I u,J � t!� ,4 l' t.
DATE:
PHONE:
Z z �4� c- c-& c� A 2&-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
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO CITY CLERK
FROM: JDATE:
ADDRESS: PHONE:
" 7 c � c z -t
ORGANIZATION: (� n��- ,�22�^-� L `t lC,4.e,4 V
AG EN DA #/SUBJECT: C1- 1 !� S /`,�V f� o O'd�rFCr( v "VT
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: (vim DATE: 7
ADDRESS: S S� S - F1 Gam' ` S( 1 S'a PHONE:—
�
ORGANIZATION: AN` /����"'� /��C�N(,¢,✓
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: x Ge 0j p �✓ �� 1
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
D
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ##/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
✓I V � KA AlDATE: 6, - � — i 7
G-4-/ S
��c S S - �( �'� G-�►'Cl� 'i �Sb w� HONE: 21� r L t
(!.tlLJF
l -S-0 , "V r�'vr�'Ltc d-( -nrh?e
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
S gnature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: C 0024(1 4 8u s se DATE:
(v- 3- 9-7
ADDRESS:1 �/`J S 14(v%u5 A ewes y ! , PHONE: Pjo
ORGANIZATION: e ----
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: -7, c;?.
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
CITY CLERK ' DATE:
To. G . S G�_611 L
PHONE:
FROM..
ash
ADDRESS:
IZATION:
ORGANR
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
Please have the Council Minutes reflect
I expect to ad dress the Council on the subject agenda item
name and address as written above.
Signature --
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: (�%i '/�<<' G soli �� DATE: 6 ? " C/)
ADDRESS: �j��
��.���..� �,�_ PHONE: �G�-� % SiL
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: q. 2 -2 1
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
ze ' }
Signature
D
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CI�TY/ CLERK / 5
DATE:
PHONE:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: c?, 2 -/
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
June 3, 1997
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Re: Written Objections to Resolution No. 97 -XX recommending approval
by the city council of the city of Diamond Bar of the exclusion of certain
property from the proposed Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and
Honorable Chair and Members of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment
Agency:
The following objections are submitted by myself Richard Alan Toombs
a homeowner in the City of Diamond Bar. I'm strongly opposed to resolution
# 97 -XX, and request that the agency amend this by NOT excluding The
Summit Ridge Parcel from the project area. I do not agree with Planning
Commision Resolution # 97-5, dated: May 27, 1997 which points out that the
planning commision report is "sufficient and need no modifications."
Modifications are necessary!
I feel that the lower grassy portion of Summit Ridge Park should be
redeveloped into a model "Leash Free Area" for our dogs! We need this in
our city to keep unleashed dogs from the general public, avoid future liablity
problems, reduce droppings in city parks and to provide a protect area for our
dogs to run and interact with others of their own kind.
I recently brought this matter before our Parks and Recreation
Committee who considered this a great idea! Not only would dogs have a
protected area but owners would be attracted to our city and it's business
community.
I've prepared a two minute video outlining my proposal to not exclude
Summit Ridge from the project area and request that at this time council
allow me to present this for the record...... thank you!
Very truly yours,
Richard Alan Toombs
Homeowner
u
O.
FROM:
ADDRESS:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE:
PHONE��
CITY CLERK
ORGANIZATION: iL*'�,(f
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
r
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
v: CITY CLERK
FROM: DATE: �3k
U
ADDRESS: �"'�,
PHONE��41L�Lz
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
i
igna ure
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REOUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT
CITY CLERK
—I -)r M i L- ;, E , Tom+ c_ � r� DATE:
PHONE: (-1 i ')323 Z2z�ES
� . � �-� c �. L t..._.:-'' � G G'+�-1 e,.'l i; ;.t c C= s'�-r't a r �.iS � <'L"- t v � •T'l �`T.�
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
F
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM:
,,: l h r S DATE:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
4
PHONE: �S 0 -1670
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM:
L��%1ek� SS L-rGDATE:
ADDRESS: PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
u
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
o\.v V
CITY CLERK
DATE:
PHONE:
y--, �,'' 1
I o Ln0 A
,k .
J --
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
19�
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT
CITY CLERK
or,-2,DATE:
PHONE:f�Z
71
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
v�
AIV
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: I • L
DATE: 6 -'J ,/-7
PHONE:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Sin e
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
DATE:
FROM: Q
ADDRESS: PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: r l
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above. j
\ , ✓ � Vii,
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK t
FROM: L� DATE: 3 9 _
�sr��2Z7-37f�
.ADDRESS: `4 �1'z � 2 � se . and �O� . (� � ����� � (- PHONE:
ORGANIZATION: P ° ; V "z-
AGENDA
Z,AGENDA #/SUBJEC1T: . 3
N.
1.11 t ` � /� c� V' b 2 �- c � v � e- C7 f � -'� h � �1 fi� ia'+ t),(` i Jv✓�
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
. � v'--�
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: D1C- (--e'VV T)Sa4I uW-� DATE: - 3 - 97
ADDRESS: 2 �s a �^� �o v PHONE: S 01
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: ` 3 pt, "4t J
Ok 'J, - j, /L/j o Gt L�G�c Gl C U�kl
lie
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signatur
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 22, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ruzicka 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 Pledge of Allegiance was led by C/McManus.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Schad, and
Commissioners, Fong, Goldenberg and McManus.
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano, Senior Planner Catherine Johnson,
and Assistant Planner Ann Lungu.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Craig Clute stated his concerns regarding the Heritage Tract
Neighborhood Traffic Study's definition of "through traffic" and
elimination of the red curbing on the west side of Fountain Springs
Road between Diamond Bar Boulevard and the Country Hills Towne
Center driveway.
C/McManus asked Mr. Clute for the two definitions of cut -through
traffic.
Mr. Clute responded to C/McManus that the traffic study indicates
that all Country Hills Towne Center traffic is "expected" traffic
in the neighborhood.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of April 8, 1997.
VC/Schad made a motion, seconded by C/McManus, to approve the
minutes of April 8, 1997 as presented. The motion was
approved 5-0.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and Development Review 96-9
(pursuant to Code Section 22.20.100) is a request for the
co -location of a telecommunications facility by two
service providers on a residential property and a request
for an amendment to Tract Map 42584, removing a
APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
restriction from said map prohibiting vehicular ingress
and egress to Armitos Place. Continued from March 25,
1997.
Project Address: 24401 Darrin Drive (northwest corner
Darrin Drive and Armitos Place)
Applicants: Cox California PCS, Inc. 18200 Von
Karman Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, CA
92612 and Pacific Bell Mobile
Services, 5959 W. Century Boulevard,
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Property Owners: Eric and Robin Stone, 24401 Darrin
Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
SP/Johnson presented the staff report. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use
Permit No. 96-10 and Development Review No. 96-9,
Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the
resolution.
SP/Johnson responded to Chair/Ruzicka that requests for
antenna(s) in excess of the three proposed antenna would
be subject to the public hearing process. A condition of
approval proposes the top of the antennas will be six
feet below the top of the hill.
Jeff McHaddad, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, explained
why the carriers chose the proposed site to co -locate
their antennas. He presented slides showing antenna
placement below grade and indicating the lack of visual
impact to neighboring residences. He asked that the
Planning Commission approve the project and delete the
condition requiring construction of a berm. He indicated
the carriers held a public meeting to address citizen's
concerns.
Mr. McHaddad responded to C/McManus that the closest
resident to the proposed facility is the applicant who is
approximately 150 feet from the facility.
Responding to C/McManus, Jim Marquez, Cox Communications,
stated the antennas are not visible to residences.
Therefore, the additional landscaping will mitigate any
opportunity for visual impact. A berm will have no
additional mitigating effect.
C/Fong asked if the antenna will create visual impact for
the residences east of the proposed site.
Mr. Marquez responded to C/Fong that the nearest
residence is 150 feet from the proposed installation.
APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
Landscaping will camouflage the site thereby eliminating
any visual impact.
Mr. McHaddad responded to C/Fong that the proposed
antennas are 6 inches wide.
Responding to VC/Schad, Mr. McHaddad reiterated that the
demonstration pole indicates the maximum antenna height.
He stated his understanding of the restriction removal
precludes the applicant from conducting activities in
addition to those allowed under the CUP and existing
zoning. The owner is providing split rail fencing around
the entire property. The applicant will provide security
fencing around the facility.
VC/Schad indicated he would like for the applicant to
ground the security fence.
Mr. McHaddad explained to VC/Schad that some of the
native walnut trees may have to be thinned to provide
line -of -site transmission. A condition of approval
indicates the applicants will provide ongoing maintenance
for the site. The applicants intend to provide drought
tolerant landscaping such as holly oak. A 200 AMP panel
with a one 20 AMP breaker will be provided at the site.
Water will be provided to the site for vegetation
maintenance only.
Anthony Greer, Cox Communications, responded to VC/Schad
that each carrier uses approximately 300 watts of power.
Chair/Ruzicka reopened the public hearing.
Craig Clute asked the applicant to explain how the
landscaping will be irrigated until it takes hold and to
what extent the trees will be thinned, cut or removed.
He warned the residents to be concerned about visual
impacts. He asked if the site property could be sold,
divided or improved at any time. He stated his concerns
regarding EMF health risks. He asked what kind of backup
system will be provided for the facility.
Chair/Ruzicka stated that because he is also concerned
about safety risks with respect to EMF's, he contacted
The Environmental Protection Agency, The National
Institute of Health, The National Institute of
Environmental Health Services, Federal Communications
Commission, and The Motorola Consortium. He further
stated that all EMF studies indicate there is no
information available that EMF's are dangerous to humans.
Robert Zirbes stated he reviewed the project plans. He
indicated that although he agrees with the majority of
APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
staff's conditions, he feels a four foot high berm may
distract from the aesthetic qualities.
Responding to C/McManus, Mr. Zirbes indicated he believes
the additional landscaping would be warranted without the
berm.
Mel Davis stated that he spoke against the project at the
February Planning Commission meeting. With the current
revisions, he is still opposed to the project. He
indicated he is concerned about a potential proliferation
of antennas at the site. He asked who will provide the
ongoing landscape maintenance for the site and if the
neighborhood residents will be expected to pay for the
maintenance. He urged the Planning Commission to reject
the proposed facility.
Armando Gonzales stated he feels the revised proposal
addresses the visual impact concerns of the neighboring
residents. He said he has some concerns about the future
use of the site and the controlled growth of
communication devices. He indicated he hopes the City
will be more active with respect to the overall subject
of communication device installations.
Frank Schabarum, JM Consulting Group, asked that the
Planning Commission approve the project as presented. He
indicated that the planting and ongoing maintenance of
the project site landscaping is provided by the property
owner, Pacific Bell Mobile Services and Cox
Communications.
Dr. Jerrold Bushberg representing Pacific Bell Mobile
Services, concurred with Chair/Ruzicka's statement
regarding EMF 's. The current FCC standard which will
become effective September 1, 1997, applies to all
existing as well as, new facilities, and provides a 50
fold safety margin. The proposed facility utilizes
approximately one microwatt which is about 1000 times
less than the standard.
Dr. Bushberg responded to VC/Schad that the effective
radiated power of the systems proposed for PBMS is about
300 watts. Collectively, the radiated system power is
about 900 watts. The system must provide a minimum
signal to insure minimum quality strength of the
signature at the fringe of the curvature. Currently,
there are no antennas that allow multiplexing.
Dan Noland told the Planning Commission about a public
safety incident that occurred in the area of the proposed
site. He favors the proposed communication facility.
APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE S PLANNING COMMISSION
Mary Ewen stated she is concerned that the project
installation will cause a negative precedent. She asked
that the Planning Commission consider a moratorium
against antenna installations while the City considers
the matter. She does not believe the installation will
benefit the City. She asked the transmission direction
of the antennas.
Tom Jackson stated he believes the project presents no
adverse visual impact to the surrounding residences and
that the best possible technology should be made
available to the citizens.
Bill Rafferty approves of the project and feels that
Diamond Bar should have improved technology available to
accommodate public needs.
Robin Stone stated she and her husband believe the
proposed project will benefit the Diamond Bar area and
presents no safety risks to her children or to the
families that live in her community. The low impact
project design as revised will present no adverse
aesthetic impact to the surrounding residents and
visitors to the area. The location of the site will
provide critical cellular phone needs.
Helen Arlene Britt said she feels the City and the
applicants have worked to accommodate the resident -Is
needs. She believes the revised plans are an improvement
over the previous plans which incorporated a barn
structure. She stated that EMF studies have not been
completed and she is concerned that a proliferation of
antennas may present a public safety concern. She asked
that the City provide for the installation of allergy
free plants.
Mrs. Britt responded to C/Goldenberg that she has
reservations and concerns. However, she can accept the
revised project because the applicant has made an effort
to do the right thing.
Mr. Greer indicated the antennae are pointed up and down
the 60 Freeway and away from homes.
Mr. Marquez stated cellular installations are no more
considered a commercial use than cable television or
telephone installations. The proposed installation will
benefit subscribers and emergency services. He asked
that the Planning Commission approve the project with
conditions listed by staff with the exception that the
only condition relating to visual impact will be the
added vegetation with no importing of additional soil for
APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 6 PLANNING CONKISSION
a berm and that the antennas do not have to be lowered
any further than six feet below the top of the hill.
Mr. Marquez responded to C/Fong that Pacific Bell Mobile
Services and Cox Communication would not be opposed to
co -locating other company's antennas at the site. Future
applicants would need to prove that they would not
interfere with the current installation and present their
project to the City for public hearing.
Responding to VC/Schad, Mr. Marquez indicated 24 volt
closed cell batteries will provide the backup system.
C/Goldenberg asked what provisions are made to the City
upon expiration of the applicant's two year landscape
maintenance bond. He indicated to Mrs. Yuen that many
commercial ventures are located in the City's residences.
He requested an explanation of the citizen's petition
against the project.
CDD/DeStefano responded to C/McManus that if the Planning
Commission approves this project and a future applicant
wishes to place antennas at the site, the resolution
provides that an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit
is subject to the Planning Commission public hearing
process.
CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Fong that the CUP resolution
does not require the applicants to cooperate with other
cellular service providers.
Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing.
C/Goldenberg moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10 and development Review
No. 96-9, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed
within the resolution subject to the following
corrections and amendments: Page 4, Finding J, sentence
one to read as follows: "The proposed removal of the map
restriction is not of significant benefit to the City."
Modify Condition K on Pages 6 and 7 to eliminate the
berm, retain the landscaping conditions language. Add
the following to Condition B, Page 5: "the permanent
maintenance of the landscaping by the applicant."
C/Fong proposed the motion be amended to provide a
binding agreement in the resolution that the applicants
cooperate with future cellular providers to co -locate
their facilities at the site.
Mr. Marquez stated the tri -lateral lease provides non -
exclusivity. Other similar types of business are not
restricted from enjoying the property aspects. He
APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
offered to provide evidence to the City's Planning
Division and suggested that the condition be subject to
the review of the Director of the City's Planning
Division, that the applicant can provide evidence that
they are receptive to co -location.
C/Goldenberg stated he wishes to let the motion stand as
stated since the applicants have provided for co -location
within their lease. He favors incorporating a city-wide
cellular site plan rather than encouraging additional
installations at this time.
C/Goldenberg responded to C/Fong that it is in the best
interests of the applicants to encourage other vendors to
co -locate their facilities. With respect to additional
sites, the City should consider a cell site plan within
the City.
Mr. Marquez asked if Condition K, Pages 6 and 7, is
sufficiently amended to provide for the elimination of
Condition L on Page 7.
Mr. Marquez responded to VC/Schad that the applicant's
engineers have indicated that the top of the antennas
should be placed no lower than flat pad level and that
lower installations would not be effective.
CDD/DeStefano restated the motion.
Mr. Marquez reiterated to Chair/Ruzicka that the
equipment will not operate at a point six feet below the
flat pad without significant reduction of transmission
levels.
Responding to VC/Schad, Mr. Marquez indicated the
applicant will accept lowering the top of the antennas to
flat pad level.
C/McManus stated his understanding that the applicant's
proposed antenna would not be below six feet below grade
and that the poles depicted in the photographs were
placed at grade level. The poles placed at the height of
grade level were not visible at grade level and the
landscaping is proposed to mitigate any potential visual
impact.
C/McManus proposed that the motion under consideration be
amended to include the elimination of Condition L, Page
7.
C/Goldenberg agreed to amend his motion to include the
elimination of Condition L, Page 7.
APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
CDD/DeStefano restated the motion as follows: To approve
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10 and Development Review
No. 96-9, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed
within the resolution subject to the following
amendments: Amend Page 4, Finding J, regarding the map
restriction; amendment to Condition 5. (b) on Page 5
adding the "permanent maintenance of the property and
landscaping"; amendment to Condition K, Page 6 and 7,
eliminating the two sentences that discuss berming;
elimination of Condition L, Page 7; and re -alphabetize
the conditions accordingly.
C/Goldenberg responded to C/Fong that in his opinion,
appropriate landscaping will provide a much improved
aesthetic view over the proposed four foot high berm.
CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Fong that the applicant has
indicated that earth removed from the equipment pad would
be utilized to create a small berm on the flat pad at the
top of the hill.
C/Goldenberg agreed to amend his motion to amend
Condition K to provide that the earth removed from the
equipment pad will be used to create a small berm on the
flat pad at the top of the hill.
C/Fong stated that the condition pertaining to tree
thinning should specifically stipulate that the shape of
the trees will not be significantly altered. Referring
to plan drawing A-1, he asked why certain trees are
slated for removal.
Mr. Marquez stated the tree thinning is at the discretion
of the City's Director of Planning. No trees are slated
to be removed.
The motion was approved with the following Roll Call
vote:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As presented in the meeting agenda.
Goldenberg, McManus,
Fong, Chair/Ruzicka
VC/Schad
None
APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 9 PLANNING CONKISSION
0*101113�lY1.4'k JR
There being no further business to come before the Planning
Commission, VC/Schad moved, C/McManus seconded, to adjourn the
meeting. Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 9:38 to May 13,
1997.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ James DeStefano
James DeStefano
Community Development Director
Attest:
/s/ Joe Ruzicka
Joe Ruzicka
Chairman
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 13, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. at the
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Chairman/Schad.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Schad, and
Commissioners, Fong, Goldenberg and McManus.
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano, Senior Planner Catherine Johnson,
and Assistant Planner Ann Lungu.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Clyde Hennessey, 22702 Sunset Crossing Road, asked when the City
plans to complete the Sunset Crossing Road street rehabilitation.
C/Goldenberg responded to Mr. Hennessey that at its May 6, 1997
meeting, the City Council indicated the City had received bids.
The City Manager indicated a selection will be made and work will
commence.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of April 22, 1997.
C/McManus made a motion, seconded by Chair/Ruzicka, to approve
the minutes of April 22, 1997 as presented. The motion was
approved 3-0-2 with C/Goldenberg and VC/Schad abstaining.
OLD BIISINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Conditional Use Permit 92-9(1) and Development Review 97-
3 is a request (pursuant to Code Section 22.28.110.A.) to
alter the existing telecommunications facility by adding
a wall mounted microwave dish and enlarging the wall
mounted cellular antennas.
Project Address: 23555 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond
Bar, CA 91765
MAY 13, 1997 PAGE 2 PLANNING CONMISSION
Property Owner: Carole Anderson, Torito Plaza
Partnership, 23555 Golden Springs
Drive, Suite A, Diamond Bar, CA
91765
Applicant: AirTouch Cellular, 3 Park Plaza,
Irvine, CA 92714
AstP/Lungu presented the staff report. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use
Permit No. 92-9(1) and Development Review No. 97-3,
Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the
resolution.
C/McManus asked how, since the City Council reversed the
Planning Commission's last decision, the current
discussion to impose a moratorium on telecommunications
facilities how it will impact the Planning Commission's
decision on this item.
SP/Johnson responded that because the City Council has
not yet imposed a moratorium and what the extent of the
moratorium will be, staff cannot speak to how such a
decision may impact this project.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
Eric Meurs, Airtouch Cellular, thanked staff for their
cooperation and assistance in this matter. He stated the
applicant concurs with the stated conditions.
VC/Schad asked how much power, and how many watts and the
communication's frequency proposed to be projected from
the individual antennas.
Mr. Meurs responded that Airtouch Cellular is licensed to
broadcast 100 watts. This site is less than 10 watts per
antenna. The communications frequency is the Cellular B
Band which is 850 to 899 megahertz.
VC/Schad asked if this facility has room for other
companies to co -locate their system.
Mr. Meurs responded that the building could possibly
accommodate other antennas. Airtouch Cellular does not
have an exclusive agreement for this site.
VC/Schad asked what the projected range will be from the
proposed site.
Mr. Meurs stated this site drops off at the top of the
hill toward Phillips Ranch at the SR 60. Proceeding
northwest, this site hands off to the site at the SR
MAY 13, 1997 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
57/SR 60 interchange (Grand Avenue). To the northeast,
this site hands off to the site located adjacent to the
Shilo Inn Suites.
Mr. Meurs confirmed to VC/Schad that the antenna will be
painted to match the existing building. If the
splattered paint mentioned by VC/Schad was caused by the
applicant, the applicant will cure the situation.
C/Goldenberg moved, VC/Schad seconded, to table
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-9(1) and Development Review
No. 97-3, Findings of fact and conditions as listed
within the resolution until after a decision regarding a
possible telecommunications moratorium is reached by the
City Council. He said that he feels the Planning
Commission should not waste the applicant's time
approving an item that may be overturned. The motion was
approved 5-0 by roll call vote.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
Chair/Ruzicka asked staff to advise individual Commissioner's as
soon as mail is received at City Hall. If individual
Commissioner's wish to make other arrangements, they may do so. He
indicated that any mail received addressed to him personally may be
opened by staff.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Video Presentations:
CDD/DeStefano presented videography of "Streetscape and
Commercial Center Rehabilitation", and "American Planning
Association's "A Foundation for the Future".
CDD/DeStefano indicated that approximately 60 people attended the
May 3, 1997 Redevelopment Project Approval Area Town Hall Meeting.
CDD/DeStefano stated that on May 6, 1997, the City Council
unanimously endorsed support of AB 323 regarding residential care
facilities. If AB 323 is approved, it will allow for local
community supervision.
CDD/DeStefano further stated one of the issues before the City
Council on May 20, 1997 is a potential adoption of a wireless
telecommunications interim ordinance or moratorium. If adopted, it
would likely be effective immediately.
CDD/DeStefano said staff intends to bring to the Planning
Commission on May 27, 1997, a comprehensive report on the Goals and
Objectives issue that has been before this Commission for some
time. The Council recently adopted a revised list of 1996/1997
Fiscal Year, and a new list for 1997/1998 Fiscal Year. In
MAY 13, 1997 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
addition, staff will present the Capital Improvement Projects
budget.
CDD/DeStefano stated that if the City Council takes action to
modify the Redevelopment Project Area boundaries on May 20, the
Planning Commission will be asked to review the modifications on
May 27, 1997.
Chair/Ruzicka commented that he is pleased the City Council
endorsed AB 323.
Chair/Ruzicka acknowledged Mayor Pro Tem Herrera.
C/McManus thanked CDD/DeStefano and staff for making certain the
Planning Commission has information needed to make intelligent and
rational decisions. He apologized for the City Council members
running for re-election who decided the input was invalid.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As presented in the meeting agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Planning
Commission, VC/Schad moved, C/Fong seconded, to adjourn the
meeting. Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 7:50 to May 27,
1997.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ James DeStefano
James DeStefano
Community Development Director
Attest:
/s/ Joe Ruzicka
Joe Ruzicka
Chairman
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mtyor Pro Tem Herrera and Councilmember Ansari
FROM: Linda G. Magnuson Accounting Manager
SUBJECT: Voucher Register, June 3, 1997
DATE: May 29, 1997
Attached is the Voucher Register dated June 3, 1997. 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 Calendar.
The checks will be produced after any recommendations and the final
approval is received.
Please review and sign the attached.
Em
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
A VOUCHER REGISTER APPROVAL
The attached listing of vouchers dated June 3, 1997 have been
reviewed, approved, and recommended for payment. Payments are
hereby allowed from the following funds in these amounts:
001
General Fund
112
Prop A Fund -Transit
118
Air Quality Improvement
125
CDBG Fund
126
COPS Fund
138
LLAD #38 Fund
139
LLAD #39 Fund
141
LLAD #41 Fund
250
C.I.P. Fd
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
APPROVED BY:
Li da G. MkLcffiuson
Accounting Manager
$514,045.82
41,761.02
Fund 17,486.05
8,358.96
40,067.45
8,326.44
6,533.81
3,465.07
216,657.12
$856,701.74
Carol A. Herrera
Mayor Pro Tem
Eileen R. Ansari
Councilmember
* 4 4 i. 1 t u a r * i a
RUN TIME: 08:4`r05/2919
CUE THRU.............06/03/'i7
r'GE 1
'JENDOR NAME ID. * * REFAID *
ACCOIN+lT PROJ.TX-M3 M= PLM/NU. ENTF:'t/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE DiECk.
--------------------------- -•rye.w.•-------------------------------
----------------------------- ------------------------------------
Abari, Robin
Accurate Landscape
*139-4539-5500
4001-4311-5300
¢01-4313-5300
*001-4316-53(b
*001-4319-5300
*001-4322-5300
*001-4325-5300
*001-4328-5.,300
*001-4331-5300
*001-4331-5300
Accurate Landscape
*001-4 311-2210
*001-4313-2.210
*001-4316-2210
CY�1-4314- 210
*001-4:3:3-2210
'kV 1-4325-2210
*001-4328-2210
*(x)1-4.331-2210
*139-4539-2210
*001-4095-2:353
All City Management
*001-4411-5531
Alquiros, Marilu
.*001-2300-1004
eriComp
*001-4090-1200
*001-4090-1200
AbariR
cCurate
^ 01 ?
22 706033 -.)1/46215
7u4 -03B 0`/45.25
2 706038 0^/4625
706:0:38 0414625
2 :0603B 05/4,25
2 70603876/462)5
70603A 07/46:`.
j,)6038 X4: ''TT L3 /Ah?C
J O l=
Accurate
.. 7;:5038 02/4626
2 706038 0314626
71 70603,B 04/4626
2 706038 05/4626
21 7060.3B 06/4626
2 70603B 07/4626
2 7!16039 08/4626
2 706038 01/4624
4 706038 01/5721
All City
2 706036 01/4878
t
Yt�
2 7 ,
,ImeriCcmQ
1 'r� _ 7) 7,21
? 7060:38 04/517'7
.sit"_ 06/0-3
482Q'23
V5/ :816/C3
45421
(75/28 06./0.'
48421
5 28 ;F/03
48427
23 0.11 r,.'
43427
05/28 06103
48427
05/2 06/03 4x.427
Vv/c0 06/0J 4:1417
05/28 '::6/03 4'3427
05/.28 :;6/03 45427
5 23 -_!03
47c,_
05/28 06/03
47,K0
05/28 06/03
47308
{)5/28 06/03
47308
05%28 06/03
4130S'
1,15/28 06/03
47,808
05/28 06/03
47^03
05/28 0610^a
47808
05/28 06/03
47':08
05/28 06/03
48255
05/28 06/03 2259
03/28 06/03 353:'5
05/28 66/03 15408
-IAL SUE VEND47t--------
Mal - 'i:t #39 Maj
Maint-Paul grow Park -May
Maint-Heritage Prk-May
Maint-Maple Hill -May
Maint-Peterson Prk-May
Maint-Ron Reagan -May
Mal^t-Starshine Prk-May
Maint-SUITAitridge-May
Ma 9t-'Sycam9re Cyn -May
3y �:ni;reCynMa int -May
T07AL ...,,. VENC:;R--------)
��=" 1 adlrt-PCtrdNPrk
�dd'l Taint-HrtgePrk
Add'1 'saint -Maple Hill
Wdl Maint Peterson
Add'i Maint-Ron Reagan
dd'l Maint-Starshine
Add'i "faint-5emtrdge
'od`l M,aint-SycCynPrk
Add'1 Maint Dist #39
SetUpLaoor-AnnvCeleb
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
+-CrssgGrd&ics-4/27-5/10
TOTAL „UE V£N11OR--------)
Re,nt-insrnceOvrpymt
I— AL ??.E VENDOR --------)
ane^ Cartrdges-For 5I
Toner Cartrdges-LJSeries
() .00
+J,03U.L1)
1,100.00
750.0ra,/0.le
900.
1,''00.0;)
1,000.00
500. 00
1,500.00
1.600.00
19:1.50
80.170
00.00
80.00
({0.00
80.00
3x1.00
?.0.00
80.00
200.00
455.00
1,295.00
3,141.60
3-141.60
1.00
5.00
141.70
86.49
TrTnL n E VENEER --------) 224.19
*## City of Diamo i d Sar ***
.UN TIME: 08.49 05/29/97 V 0 U C H E R R E ;G 1 0
;UE THPURU..............)6/03/97
VENDOR NAI'
ig
028 06/03
05/28 06/03
* * PREPAID * *
ACCOUNT PROJ,TX-w
ENTRY/'DUE
!NMCE
BESORIPTION
AMOUNT BATE GI;ECK
-
Apollo pump
r
ApolloJuep
*001-4095-2353
2 �060:3B 01/5634
05x`22 06/03
uenerator-AnnvCeleb-4/20
94.82
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
94. 8r2
Barua, SusEmma
3aruaS
*001-2300-1002
3 70603E
05/28 0.6/03
34689
RPfnd-ScrtyDepst-Sntrdge
50.00
TO_'AL SUE VENDOR --------)
50.00
Bening, "Rosi
BeningR
¢001-2300-1002
2 70603B
05/28 06/03
358:.3
Refnd-SecrtyDepst-HrtgPrk
200.00
707 AL DUE VENDOR --------)
�Y14.00
Bowman, Wendy
BcwmanW
*001-4095-2353
6 706038 01/5711
05%23 +06/03
Rel k-AnnvCelebSuppls
87.00
- TAL :UE VENDOR -------->
37.00
Brandman Assoc., Michael Brandman
*001-2300-1011
2 7)6038
05/28 06/03
04972813Prof
Svcs-FER 96-01
5,1`39.75
*001-2300-1011
1 706038
05/28 06/03
04972814
I-rof Svcs-FER 93-03
514.72
*001-2300-1010
1 706038
05/23 ;6/03
OP7221j
P -of Svcs -FPL 94-025
13,3���.29
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
19,047.76
CC"EC
CCcC
*001-4210-2315
1 706038
05/28 06/03
Annual Member Dues -Flares
10.00
3TAL AUE VENDOR---------)
10.00
CalifPrks&Rec5ociety
CPRS
*001-4310-2315
2 7
0OfA 06/03
Annual aember Dues -Rose
120.00
UALliUE VENDOR --------
120.00
Carol Dennis
*001-4210-4000
*001-4210-4000
*00i-4040-4000
*'01-4040-4000
*001-40�40�-4000
c,: j)1-4553-4 JV
2 706030 01/4671
4 706030 01/4671
6 70603C 01/4671
467!
05M 06/03
028 06/03
05/28 06/03
DB0C-?7C ,
-1. f
us/ 3 �6/0:�
nE C'U"Tt •
������,.�6
05/28 06/03
ERT 70i
MnteSectry-P1ngMtg4/22 200.00
MnteSectry-P1ngMtg-4/22 40.00
mntSecrtry-CCnclMtg 4/15 160.00
.tSecrt^y-CCnci`ttg 516 :40.00
M- =:Eacrtry-CCn:ciMtg 5/:3 320.00
:t ecrtry- rf3+TrnsMtg5 3 601.00
c .-
Charlies Sandwich Shop Charlies
*001-4210-2325 1 70603B 11/4590
Cintas Corp. 4640
*001-4310-2130
*001-4310-2130
Clark, Tamera
#001-3478
Cintas
4 706038 01/4630
2 70603B 01/4630
_340
3 70603F
Computer Applied Systems CAS
*001-4050-4030 2 706038 01/4520
Converse Consultants ConverseCo
*00;1-2300-1012 1 706038
*001-2300-1012 2 70603B
05/28 06/03 010072
05!28 06/03 150100029
05/28 06/03 640567507
05/28 06/03 21673
05/28 06/03
05/28 06/03 331578
05/28 06/03 331578
Conway, Carol s..
*001-3478 & 06/03 21073
sem,:
&J Engineering C&JEngine
*250-4310-6415 02497 6 70603C 01/5620 05/28 06/03 97010
Lvlpmt Code Mtg-5/9
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
Unifrms-PrkStaff-w/of5/19
Unifrms-PrkStaff-5/12
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
Recreation Refund
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------
June-ComptrMaint-Finance
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
GeoTech Svcs -EN 96-165
GeoTech Svcs -EN 96-165
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
Recreation Refund
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
CIP-PetrsrLightlnspSvcs
T>>?AL LLE VENDOR -------- 9
34.72
34.72
17.85
17.85
35.70
42.00
42.00
832.00
832.00
1,264.50
479.00
1,743.50
74.00
74.00
850.00
350.00
Day & Night Copy Cuter Lay&Nignt
4095-2353 3 70603C 01/5714A 05/28 06/03 313 Pr's-Ar.n;CeletPrgrms 106.09
•124.4906!3fi'01 ies-06etoDBarPrgm13
=L DUE VENDOR -------->
d4
= r , i
3 - = a r +
RUN TIME: 08:49 05/29/97
V O U C H E R
R E; 1 S T E R
PAGE 3
_�E Fr4RU.............:6;'C_'/97
VENDOR NAME
VENDOR ID.
* PREPAID
-)CC UNT
FROJ.TX-40 BA .L1NE/ND.
�.;
ENTRYiLUE INVOICE
"E''�:ri'r'T ON
AMOUNT DATE C}-EC!�
'harles Abbott
& Asc Inc CharlesAbb
*001-4510-5502
2 7060,3B 01/4538
0.5/'28 06/03 049211
RoadMaint-April
18,093.12
*001-4510-5506
_ '0603B 01/5590
)5i2 06/03 049211
'fir%:g/SigngMaint-April
6,416.47
#001-4510-5506
4 70,6038 01/5795
05/28 06/03 049211
Mrkg/SigngMaint-Apr
3,650.86
*001-4510-552'2
2 706038 01%4540
1.6/28 06/03 049211
R.ightofWayMaint-Apr
2,325.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
30,485.45
Charlies Sandwich Shop Charlies
*001-4210-2325 1 70603B 11/4590
Cintas Corp. 4640
*001-4310-2130
*001-4310-2130
Clark, Tamera
#001-3478
Cintas
4 706038 01/4630
2 70603B 01/4630
_340
3 70603F
Computer Applied Systems CAS
*001-4050-4030 2 706038 01/4520
Converse Consultants ConverseCo
*00;1-2300-1012 1 706038
*001-2300-1012 2 70603B
05/28 06/03 010072
05!28 06/03 150100029
05/28 06/03 640567507
05/28 06/03 21673
05/28 06/03
05/28 06/03 331578
05/28 06/03 331578
Conway, Carol s..
*001-3478 & 06/03 21073
sem,:
&J Engineering C&JEngine
*250-4310-6415 02497 6 70603C 01/5620 05/28 06/03 97010
Lvlpmt Code Mtg-5/9
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
Unifrms-PrkStaff-w/of5/19
Unifrms-PrkStaff-5/12
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
Recreation Refund
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------
June-ComptrMaint-Finance
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
GeoTech Svcs -EN 96-165
GeoTech Svcs -EN 96-165
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
Recreation Refund
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
CIP-PetrsrLightlnspSvcs
T>>?AL LLE VENDOR -------- 9
34.72
34.72
17.85
17.85
35.70
42.00
42.00
832.00
832.00
1,264.50
479.00
1,743.50
74.00
74.00
850.00
350.00
Day & Night Copy Cuter Lay&Nignt
4095-2353 3 70603C 01/5714A 05/28 06/03 313 Pr's-Ar.n;CeletPrgrms 106.09
•124.4906!3fi'01 ies-06etoDBarPrgm13
=L DUE VENDOR -------->
'a . i1Ci 08:49 05/'_291`17
7,
VENDOR NAME VENWR ID. # E'
ACC"uONT FROJ.T%-NO BA�t1�t'D.LINE/N0. ENI F. ('UE ;NVL�c c5%.;'T1ON AMOUNT SATE
------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diafmond bar Chinese Assoc 'BarChines
*001-4010-2325 1 70601: +>;;< r AnnvEvent-6/14-Herrera 5:'.
i, -IAL 3UE VENDOR --------} 5+).00
iiam{{and gar Grille
EGri I Ie
*001-4415-2325
2 70603A 0115811
05/28 06Jv3 5-1018
VitrPtrlDinner-5/10
787.16 06/0=1197 0000i.1ti441.'
*001-41'30-3?L?5
2 70603E
05/28 06/03
TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----)
787.16
*001-4040-2340
1 706OW ;>
05/28 06/03
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
0.00
Dia^cnd Bar InternatiDnal 3I-:tDeii
7 70/28
Ob 103
?en ovt-?,upplieS
*001-4010-2325
: 70603C 16/45.
_5/'23 Ck..02, 6095
1mgrEvalutnMtg5/12
23.49
25. 'as
01-4095 x:53
15 7
DUE VENDOR --------)
23.49
Diamond Bar Petty Cash
,�PttrCash
1 7 .'
05/28 06/03
On DVlp-Supplies
*01)1-4010-2325
4 70600
1051 :_, ;216:.:_;
Cit'; Council Meetings
14.14
*001-4030-1':00
1 70603E
0215/'L 8 06/ ):
City Manager -Supplies
12.504
*i� `)
01-4090-1200
c -rrlL �j•:C
., :,,,,.J_
f:�/ _ ''' %I'i?
:_:;,
`i
Ger. Govt-Supp�.es
50.63
*'001-40)-2120
I 70603E
05/20j 0�6i .j
Ger Gcvt-Postage
30.40
*00,14090-2325
1 7.06, 03'E
GovMeetings
46.87Ge-
*001-4090-2330
1 :7Gh03E
5/2,:; 06,103
"en 'Ocvt-Cont
16.50
*'001-4095-2353
14 7<:.yn;c
_;5t?g ;1�,!f�=:
C.- . ...f-Annversary
64.44
¢ 01-4'210-1:?0
1 ;:;,tr: E
:j5/26 06/03
C-sa, Dev-Supplies
?.42
*f)01-4'210-21 10-
1 7rit,0lc
0`' 3 06 /03
2ev-Printing
. JL ` �'�
J
*001-4350-121+)0
1 ':6:G3 E
05/28 06/03
Recreation Supplies
1120.43
5
__ ;U
05/22. f;
-Meetings
vltr Ftrl
62. 6.2
-+TAL JOE VENDOR --------> 433.69
Diamond Bar Petty Cash
'ettvCash
*001-4010-1200
1 70603E
05/28 06/03
C:t.1 Council Supplies
1.80
*001-41'30-3?L?5
2 70603E
05/28 06/03
Citi Manager Meetings
12.00
*001-4040-2340
1 706OW ;>
05/28 06/03
1-t Clerk -Publications
14.03
14.03
+001-4•'•'*0-21200
7 70/28
Ob 103
?en ovt-?,upplieS
6.91
*001-4090-2325
2 7
05128 06/103
Oar Uovt-Meetings
25. 'as
01-4095 x:53
15 7
05/'3 t`6J^3
n .rf-Arnv
3.64
*:11-4096 1200
1 7 .'
05/28 06/03
On DVlp-Supplies
18.37
_1G01-405'6-1325
1 70603F"
05/2,3 061'03
-_on ivlp-Meetings
5. 99
1 12
*0O1-4210- 2;0
7,,,^
? �e0'�F
S 2' t F , '
C_/ d !J/?•-
:?, n uv l,. Supplies
4.65
,ru)1-40101--:25
01.
2mm Svcs-"eetings
4.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
97.35
Diamond Bar Redevelopmert tBarRDA
*001-1315
1 7j)c:,:_4.G
05/20 06/0:3
Gdvnce-6!3 Expenditures
2,174.30
TvTAL M VENDOR --------) 2,174.80
** City of Diamond Bar ***
RUN TIME: 08:49 05/29/97 V 0 U C H E R R E G I S T E R
DUE TH.RU.............06/03/97
FAGS 5
VENDOR NAME
YBNM ID.
Dia �Cat.Svcs-4/16-30
10,200.='
* * PREPAID * *
ACCD1AtT
-------------------------------=--
PRD.l.TX-NO BA 01;LM/ND.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTRY/DUE INVOICE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
Diamond Bar/Walnut YMCA DBWalYMCA
*138-4538-2210 '7 70603C 01/5641
05/28 06/0:3 7426
*125-4215-2355
2 7060'3F 01/4604
05%23 06!Cv
2G-=:rgr-.e-SumrCmp-Apr
367.00
!125-4215-2355
6 70603F 01/4603
05/28 06:110.3
CDBGPrg-Chldcare-Audit
1,250.00
*125-4215-2355
3 70603F 01/4603
05/`7C 06.'_i:3
C D3Prg-Ctldcare-Apr
4, 205. C0
0125-4215-2355
11 70603E
")F/28 :hr{:^
1DBG-Prgm-Surtaner*-Audit
1,250.00
*001-4210-2340 1 70603E
Tt;.. c ..
Mtg-:_127-Jhnsn,Fon9,Schad
Diversified Paratransit DiversPara
*112-4553-55214 2 71,)6 C 001,1451L
^,5 n _y
Dia �Cat.Svcs-4/16-30
10,200.='
'JTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
10,230.33
Doty Eros Equipment Co. 2otvSros
*138-4538-2210 '7 70603C 01/5641
05/28 06/0:3 7426
Ir,igtnRepairs-DB/SteepCy
4,915.00
7G'AL :,UE 'VENDOR -------->
4;915.00
Durato Mule, Bertha DurazoMule
*+701-2'40-1W,2 4 706030
05;23 0x403 "+.c.1
Refnd-P-k Depst-Hrtge
50.00
TOTAL 'DUE VENDOR --------)
50.00
c. San Gab. Planning _'corm EEuVPC
*001-4210-2340 1 70603E
05/2' 06/0:3
Mtg-:_127-Jhnsn,Fon9,Schad
48.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
48.00
E. San 3aa. Planning Ccnm ESGVPC
*000-4010-2325 3 70603E
05/28 06/03
Mt,-, =,29 -Werner
22.00
''OTAL DUE VENDOR --------}
22.00
�.C. "onstruction Co. ECConstruc
*250-4510-6411 10097 20 7 05/2288 06/0.3
'e'197 22 -�05j28 06J+
Lnc'Anares, Tony Enci sT
#0 %i-:3413 1 706030 05/28 06/0:3
*' 01- 420 1 7 :6030 Cw/4.8 06 i 03
Snst'_rssgStrInprvmt5vcs 25,700.00
unstCrssg-CuiDeSac 107.50
7'W7AL DUE VENDOR --------> .5,307.50
Refund-ElectricPermt
:ef.:nd-yldgPermt
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
15.60
15.00
30.60
F&A Federal Credit union F: ACreditu
*001-2110-1012 1 70603A 05/28 '06/03 PP11-CrUnionDeductions 3,114.75 06/03/97 0000034416
TDTAL "PREPAID AMOUNT ----) 3,114.75
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 0.00
RUN TIME: 08:49 05/29/:='7 . J J C H E 4 P t _ Z� ri
=Guc 6
UENGOR NAME VEW la. # * PREPAID *
ACCOUNT rSGJ.TX-ND $MMLItE/N0. ENTRi:'iuE 'arJIJE E IP70N P1110UNT =ATE E' K
---------------------------- — ---- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:MCopier ?rcducts FKt!
*001-4090-1200 4 7'_:xr.03{011/5733
1 /J7��051,28 L / '3 3421 i41nk FserLLbe-Xeroc 10 0 306.,30
—, r
yL -E VE"J_OR
u s ! -------- f _ , .'.0
Fair Polictical Practices=airPoiiti
*001-4090-2320 1 70603
Federal Express Ccrp. FedEtpress
*001-4090-2120 1 70602C
Federal Reserye Bank FedReserve
+001-2110-1009 1 70603C
Fekete, Christina
*001-2300-1002
Folsom Lake Ford
*126-4411-6100
+126-4411-6100
*118-4098-6100
Fong, Franklin
*001-4210-4100
Foothill Transit
*112-4553-5533
*112-4553-55.33
*112-4553-5535
ekete-C
5 70603C
Folso*LLake
2 706030 01/7-10
4 70603C 04/5510
2 70603C 03/5510
;)5?23 "-, %::; 4Co;;:=s-PoitclRrrrnAct ,
r"TAL DUE VENDOR --------}
05/28 06/03 4119415^0 Express Mail -Gen Govt
TOTAL DUE VEN OR --------
05/28
-------
05/'28 06103
05 28 06/03 36175
PP9/10- Deduct ions- Brds
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
05/28
-------
Retnd-HrtgePrkScrtyBepst,
TOTAL 5UE VENDOR --------
40.00
40. J0
126.87
126.87
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
05/23 06/03 721221 Ford Aerostr 780471
18,167.22
05/28 06/03 72306 Ford Taurus-V1trPtrl
16,238.74
05/28 06/03 72307 Ford Taurus -FFV
17,089.90
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
51,495.86
FangF
4 70603E 05/28 06/03
2 705/28 06/03 6924
4 7060 7 05/28 06/03 6924
1 706030 05/28 06/03 6924
Franchise Tac ?card FrarchiseT
*001-2110-1009 /C,60K 05/28 06/'D3
Ping Comm Mtgs-4/8,22
120.00
TOTAL IUE VENDOR -------- }
120.00
May-TrnstSubsdyPrgrm
1,366.90
May-TrnstSubsdy-Commissn
200.31-
May-Trnst1SubsdyPrgrmrares
5,310.10
'TAL DUE VENDOR -------- }
6,476.69
.. �`haiel3r�er-32140:!;;90
50.00
Flo z CIO
+++
�ty oDtamor-y
Bar +#
UN T1!ME: 08:49
r^ -.GE ?
ULE T! RU
. ............06/,0:3 7
'J'ENDOR NAME
VE 0.
� + PREr'A I D
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-*
IIElMD.
ENTRY /DUE
INVOICE
KSCRIP710N
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
GTI:
DTEL
05/28 06103
BP32645
Gey Phone Repairs
110.00
TOTAL 0UE VENDOR --------)
110.00
GTE Cali4ornia
STa
+001-4090-2125
1 70603C
05/28 06/0:3
Gen Phone Services
1,953.72
T( SAL D'JE VENDOR --------)
1,953.72
GTE California
3 TE
+001-4314-2125
1 70603C
05/28 06/03
Phone Svcs -heritage Prk
27.01
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------}
27.01
GTE California
GTE
+001-4331-2125
1 706O3C
05/28 06/03
Phone Svcs-SycaaoreCynPrk
56.22
`CTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
6.22
56.22-
GTE California
GTE
GTE
+001-4331-2125
2 70603C
05/28 06/0.3
Phone Svcs-SycaK reCynPrk
59.26
TOTAL DU'E VENDOR --------)
59.26
OTE California
oTE
+001-4313-2125
1 70603C
05/28 06/03
Phone Svcs -Heritage Prk
56.22
OTAL .'UE VENDOR --------}
56.22
GTE California
GTE
+118-4098-2125
1 706030
05/28 06/03
Pore Sics-City On Line
154.82
rGIAL D'UE VENDOR --------)
163.42
,TE California
+001-4331-2125
3yyy06/03
f�
Phone Svcs -Sycamore Cyn
73.87
yF
'-IAL .0 }
73.37
GTE Leasing
GTELease
4001-4090-2130
2 70603C 01/4701
051128 06/03
1810963
NorstarEquipRent-May/June
933.58
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------}
933.58
uoldenberg, Michael
Gcidenberg
+001-4210-4100
1 7060,3F;i5("'�
06/0'3`.^g'T;Ri!"ty5-4�o
22
120;,11
�,aL ISE VE"OR--------}
TLV L:
0
.��.J
*n City of Diamond Bar*
RUN TIME' 08:49 05/29/,97 V u U C H E R R E 3 1 S T 'E R
DUE THRU.............06/03/97
PAGE 3
`ENDOR NAPS iD. * * PREPAID * *
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-K3 ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK
--------------------------- }---.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graffiti Control Systems GrafitiCan
*001-4558-5520 2 706030 01/5792 05/28 06/03 DB0497 Graffiti Re�eoval-April 3,930.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 3,930.00
HDL, Caren & Cone
HDLCaren
*001-4090-4010
1 70603E 01/4995
05/28 06/03
DocumntTrnsfrAudtJan/Jqne
264.37
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
264.37
Hall & Foreman
Hall&Fores
*001-4510-5227
2 70603D 01/5562
05/28 06/03
33881
Engr-InspectnSvcs-F1cnVw
438.75
*001-2300-1012
4 70603D
05/28 06/03
33895
InspSvcs-F1cnVw-W6-140
1,395.00
*001-4510-5227
4 70603D 01/5565
05/28 06/03
33896
Engr-InspctnSvcs-T47850
3,217.50
*001-2300-1012
3 74603D
05/28 06/03
33897
InspSvcs-F1cnVw-EN95-84
360.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 5,411.25
Heimberger Hirsch & Heiuberger
*250-4310-6415 06597 28 70603G 01/4673 05/28 06/03 ProfSvcsPanteraPrk-P1nRvw 7,370.00
*250-4310-6415 06597 8 706030 01/4517 05/28 06/03 96011 PlnRvwSvcs-Pantera 720.00
*250-4310-6415 06597 26 706035 01/5767 05/28 06/03 96011 CIP-PanteraPrkPrj 5,800.00
HighPoint Graphics
*001-4095-2111
Hiles, Perri
*001-2300-1002
Hughes, Norman
*001-3478
HighPoint
2 70603D 01/4648
HilesP
6 70603D
05/28 06/03 58729
05/28 06/03 .36177
Hunsaker & Associates Hunsaker
*'50-4310-6415 06597 16 7060H 01/4960
:C."IA Retirement Trust -457 '1_wA
*0,;1-211110-1007 1 706030
*001-4090-0090 1 706030
06/03 21649
05t28 06/03
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 13,890.00
PrePressSvcs-OdeToDbarArt
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
Refrd-SumtrdgeSecrtyDepst
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
Recreation Refund
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
HytraulcAniysDrainPantera
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
;q r;306/(}3 PP. ._j 1 -PayrollGeductns
_ C6 P- une" ort - act l.cr.tr:5
P-2
06103 rune-CafeCop trib-AIIDpts
-.3'AL it;E VE?V1OR
21.65
21.65
50.00
50.00
41.00
41.00
652.00
65.00
414.00
400.00
7,,,394.?4
R 708. 0`4
tiuN 71ME: 08:49 0,7129%'y7 % J L E r(
DUE THRU.............06/03/''7
--GE
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID. * * P*;ERAiD # *
ACC01)NT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINElNO. ENTRY/OUE INVOLCE LEECRiPfION AMOUNT DATE CHECK
;CMA Retirement -401 ICMA401
3E '
*0vc-2110-1t:U7
'Inland Empire
andE; p
#001-4350-5310
4 70603E
01/5508
V-5, /23) 064,13
05149'
4112-4::60-53i!i
4 L: a
,�•' -=,t3
:r ;_ ;c; )3
"�i'37
*125-421:-5310
7tjt:,:E
`
tj., .°:;;,t:
05 r'o _;6 ; _
7
C.4'� .
c
7
#012-43U0- J_ .iv
- '�c'�L
v�%•.,4..
-- .�; s
_...
lniand '4ailey Ciy 3ulletn
*tit; i- t,.• i''��1�} - 'ti;�'=�`
*t.01 -23v0-'_010 _ '`,.60:3D
*001-2300-1010 4 706!}3D
*250-4510-6411 01497 2 706030 :)105782
5 l `. 5 - 7 VC7': -:
*SSG-415-t4it 11.137 - 06O�D 02�.�;
x250-4510-6411 09997 4 7`)6033D
*2`0-4510-6411 09997 6. 7060.3D 04/5732
*,n}1-2300-1010 = 7::603D
706030
Istik, Jack IstikJ
*001-4553-4100 1 70603E
K & V Blueprint Service K&VB1uePrt
*001-4090-2200 2 706030 01/5706
KNH Air Svstee
*001-3414 1 7
L.A. County -Sheriff's Dep LACSheriff
*001-4411-5401 1 70603D
if: l.. h:l •r .
-.:1,'1,1
.!5/28 '36!i.'1 CY
oS/28 0,/03 02501278
05 /'26 O -.3' 02 501.27
j5/'LO 06/x3 1`501:76
15123 06/03 15501299
05/28 06/03
05/53 06/03 59523
05/28 06/03
05/28 06/03 84420
=F?%c--tire Contrib
71
TAL IDUE VENDOR -------->
E:t�ur-HurtgtnL ibry-5%14
s Lin tgtiILibry-5/14
t;'nL1or%iE%cur-5/14
mnaPageant-5/3
VE..
.E'+OR--------,
Lega!Ad-FPL 96=28
1egalAd-FPL 96-03
�d-aids-SlurySeal
rd-aids-AspenGrve
Ad-BidsBrCynRehab
Ad -124, dsFt�.fdrR.ehab
LegalAd-FPL 97-13
LegalAd-SPL 97-05
TOTAL DUE VFW --------)
Trfc&Trnsp-Mtg5/8
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
Xer x251JAgrmt-4/'37-4/93
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
Refund -Mechanical Permt
TOTAL DLE VENDOR --------)
5;+8.90
4;11.1,00
3' ,.
464.00
146.25
3"t. 60
70.20
56.25
6:1.4.33
29. 25
29.25
?6.53
73.04
655.80
40.00
40.00
325.00
325.' 00
10.40
10.40
April -Contract Services 299,473.99
TOTAL OLE VENDOR --------) 239,473:99
RUN TIME: 08:49 05/29/97 - v 0 U C N E R R E G 16 T E R °AGE 10
.^
t7ENDDR NAME VEMM ID. # PREPAID +
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-Na 1 +LI(E/N0. ENTRY!D E INY1,1 ICE 7LEGCR7PTT0N AMOUNT DATE CHECK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
L.A.County Public Works LACPubMk
+ji:1-4510-5507 7:603E O1j4573 05/2c vbr`j- `_ Traffic Signl Maint-Apr 444..`_:7
:r_, ,. . - 18.05
+001-4510-5507 4 te-01 01E:ci2$ ';A _ rfC�•^nlMalnt`A 3
TOTAL DUE VENLOR--------} 4,762.62-
Landscape
,762.62
-andscape West
LandscapeW
eanardd
1141-4541-5500
: 7t_,603G 0114614 0~i ':-/k::} 21074
April Maint-Dist #41
2 ';50•ij�j
c�
*001-4558-5508
;� ,. 4f:lg :,5.", ,�. r,< <lt,';5edAbateSvcs-April
. ; . : _0 01, -, t.-
RG+}nd-RecExursn-Loepoc
4,645.84
*141-4541-'2210
a 7060:3L. 01/4615 �7`;�_ `'�J03 10;7
Maint-Grounds & Bldg-Aprl
515.07
-u-'FAL UE VENDOR --------} 5,110.91
Le, Robert K
L=R
eanardd
#001-3472
1 7060:31
05/28 1.16/0'
,`: 16
RG+}nd-RecExursn-Loepoc
63.00
T-TAL DUE VENDOR --------}
63.00
Laighton and Associates
Leighton
LewisEngra
*;101-2300-1012
0 70003D�
j5 `,
' „" �`
-
''
Prof Sv_s-EN 95-139
373.64
*001-2300-1012
7 :'.b t:?h
05/23 'h, ,3
1: 1'i
, ,•,
f Svcs -EN i5-139
1'- 89 .36
+001-2300-1012
5 7060:0
05%2: !j61i
174;;
Prof Svcs -EN 'a6-140
483.00
'7- 'At. L;1E VENDOR --------} 1,051.00
Leonard Colby, Joyce
eanardd
*001-4.553-4100
2
70603E
051.28 06/03
Trf&TrnspMtg-5/3
40.00
TOTAL OLE VENDOR --------}
40.00
Lewis Engraving Inc.
LewisEngra
+001-4095-2113
4
706030 01/5230
05/28 06/03 325035
EngravgSvcs-Tiles•
3464
+001-4095-2113
2
706030 01/5230
05/28 06/03 025159
EngrSvcs-LanterwOtr
17.32
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------}
51.96
Lin,J'sdy
.�
*001-3475
7
7
r_.�
05/28 06/0' 211" '4
i?:Cf catlGn Refund
Q•UO
J AL !a VE.4n R --------}
00
-;nscott caw & 3rarnspan
Lott
-455:-222
'.TAL _UE VENDOR --------}
;01.90
MacKenzie Electric Inc MacKenzie
*250-4310-6415 02497 4 70603A 01/5618 05(28 06/03 1436 InstallFldLghts-PtrsnPrk 25,182.00 06/03/97 0000034418
TOTAL PREPAID AKW ----) 25,18'2.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 0.00
MacKenzie Electric Inc MacKenzie
*250-4310-6415 02497 10 70603D 01/5613 05;'28 06/0^ 1441 FieluLghtg-PtrsnPrk 9,000.00
*250-4310-6415 02497 12 70443D 01/5618 05/28 06/03 1441 SportsFieldLghts-Petersn 130,387.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 139,887.00
Mariposa Horticultural Mariposa
*001-4311-2"210 4 70603D 01/5484 05/28 06:/03 1087 Sand- 3rowprk 500.00
*001-4313-'4210 4 70603D 02/5484 05/23 06/03 IN76 Sand-NeritgePrk 500.00
*001-431931210 4 706030 03/5484 05/28 06/03 10876: Sand-Geterso^F'r! 500.)0
*001-4=2-2.10 8 70603D 04/5484 05/28 06/03 1:076 Sand-RonReagan 500.00
* v:-4•' S-2210 4 70 85/2$ Q61G:3 1._71 -r_-=� �`i�.eF'r'r. 52;0,)0
5 '
*t+ k-'1-�c0 X10 4 1 �. /23 u6l �+,3 i:,�: j'� �_di U 7uif5Titr`�qe ^rk .�t��)•Q0
-43x1-221^ 4 7 OS/28 06 0"
1.�". :3 -Sv_- ^:PrK 1.')+)0,•)
xa _. GG ------- 4,'00.0
^art nez. +vette Mar•tinezL
Siert - &:rtyLE st-Ronk2agn
AL ENLOR
L _�C 'i'_fl
=UN Tl"+E: ;a,:49 ')`%"92'27
v
_ - = i; 3 '
=AGE 11
.............. 4.!'?=i%'a7
VENDOR NAME
YEN= ID.
* PREPAID
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NQ 9A .LINE/Ntl.
ENT=:y/DU
;N4'C 3E uc PTi0!
AMOt;NT
DATE CHECK
7
Los Angeles County MTA
LACMTA
*112-4553-5533
6 706034 01/5679
05,1-28 06/0:3
5-970536 May-T.rnstSubsdyPrgm
364.40
_3
#? 12-4:.53-5.,�5
7 _. ,,
- , .:60 �t t�2/. 6,
5 ,`,;"6,103
3 •1
-9705-, 6 May-TrrstSubsdyFares
,
550.60
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
1,015.00
MMASC
' ,MASC
*001-4030-2325
1 70603A
05128 06jp3
Gey, Mtg-5/29-Frtzl/Hrksn
40.04)
06/`?"/07
TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----)
40.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
0.00
MMASC
MMASC
*001-4030-2315
1 70603D
05/28 06/03
MernbershipOues-Fritzal
40.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
40.00
MacKenzie Electric Inc MacKenzie
*250-4310-6415 02497 4 70603A 01/5618 05(28 06/03 1436 InstallFldLghts-PtrsnPrk 25,182.00 06/03/97 0000034418
TOTAL PREPAID AKW ----) 25,18'2.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 0.00
MacKenzie Electric Inc MacKenzie
*250-4310-6415 02497 10 70603D 01/5613 05;'28 06/0^ 1441 FieluLghtg-PtrsnPrk 9,000.00
*250-4310-6415 02497 12 70443D 01/5618 05/28 06/03 1441 SportsFieldLghts-Petersn 130,387.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 139,887.00
Mariposa Horticultural Mariposa
*001-4311-2"210 4 70603D 01/5484 05/28 06:/03 1087 Sand- 3rowprk 500.00
*001-4313-'4210 4 70603D 02/5484 05/23 06/03 IN76 Sand-NeritgePrk 500.00
*001-431931210 4 706030 03/5484 05/28 06/03 10876: Sand-Geterso^F'r! 500.)0
*001-4=2-2.10 8 70603D 04/5484 05/28 06/03 1:076 Sand-RonReagan 500.00
* v:-4•' S-2210 4 70 85/2$ Q61G:3 1._71 -r_-=� �`i�.eF'r'r. 52;0,)0
5 '
*t+ k-'1-�c0 X10 4 1 �. /23 u6l �+,3 i:,�: j'� �_di U 7uif5Titr`�qe ^rk .�t��)•Q0
-43x1-221^ 4 7 OS/28 06 0"
1.�". :3 -Sv_- ^:PrK 1.')+)0,•)
xa _. GG ------- 4,'00.0
^art nez. +vette Mar•tinezL
Siert - &:rtyLE st-Ronk2agn
AL ENLOR
L _�C 'i'_fl
4 t V 7' ! a Ji n a r
4UN TIME: 08:49 05/129/97 d 0 C H E R I c v T I= R
:!LE THRLl.............C6/0--;?7
"AGE 12
VENDOR 9AME
ID.
FREF'AID # #
ACCOW
PROJ.TX Noi AN).
ENTRY/DUE
INVGICE
DESCRITT IGN
n f
AMOIiN's DAIS CHECK
Metro Mobile
Metraftil
*126-4411-6240
2 706030 01/5361
05/28
06/03
Kenwood-TK86 Mobile Radio
1,5"32.43
-'GTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
1,932.43
Metrolink
Metrolink
*112-4553-5533
8 70603D 01/5677
05/28
06/03
May-TrnstSubsPrgrm
4,410.80
*112-4553-5535
5 706030 02/5677
05/28
06/03
May-TrnstSubsdyFares
17,643.20
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
22,054.00
�licroage
Micrcage
*001-4040-4030
2 70603D 05/5631
05/28
06/03
'Llk-Tape Backup system
842.17
*001-4210-6234
2 1OW3D 03/5681
)5,23
06/02
Coml)vlCaptrWkstation
-,925.85
*001-4310-6230
70603D 04/5681
05/228
06/03
ComSvcCmptrWkstation
2,925.85
*001-4510-6230
2 70603D 02/5681
05/2`8
06/03
PubWksCmptrWkstation
1,462.92
¢126-4411-6230
2 70603D 01/5681
05/23
06/03
COPE -CmptrWkstati on
1,462.92
*126-4411-6230
3 70603D
05/28
06/03
COPS-CmptrWkstation
1,462.92 -
*126 -4411-6230
4 70603D
05/28
06/0'
COFS-CmptrWkstation
.3,7'29.06 .
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
11,885.85
Microage
Mi,croage
*118-4098-2205
2 70603D 01/5778
05/18
06/03 19216
32 MB Memory For Server
227.33
)lob i I
*001-4310-22)00
Morris, Roland
*001-4553-4100
Mob 11
2 70603D 01/5728
3
Mt Calvary Lutheran
*001-4095-2353 10
MarisR
Mt. Baldy United Way UnitedWay
*001-2110-1013 1 70603F
05/28 06/03 15366
05/28 06/03
450 06/03
05/28 06/03
TOTAL WE VENDOR --------} 227.33
Starter Svc-ChevyTrkPks 54.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR---------) 54.00
7rfc&TrnspMtg-5/8 40.00
'O -AL DUE 'VENDOR --------) 40.00
StaffLrch-AnnvCeleb-4/20 34.50
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 34.50
FP?/10/11-PayrallDeductin 81.50
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) '1.50
�*� of Diamond Bar +�#*
RUN TIME: 08:49 05/29/97 City V O U C H E R R E r, I S T E R PAGE 13
DUE THRu.............06/03/97
VENDOR NAME -10.. * * PREPAID
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NQ N"Uwjm. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION Am"T DATE CHECK.
------------------------- ---- -----------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
-
--
Ilk
Nice, Stephen Nice9
*001-4553-4100 4 70603E 05/2'3 06./03 Trfc&TrnspMtg-5/8 40.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------- } 40.00
O'Connor, Debby CconnerD
*001-4095-2353 13 70603E.
Ocampo, Richard
X00' -:3470
ffice depot
*gin � 1-4210-1200
#0014210-1200
*001-4350-1200
001-4210-1200
#001-4210-1200
c"01-4210-1200
*001-4030-1200
X001-4040-1"�'UO
*001-4090-1200
*001-4210-1200
*001-4510-1200
*001-4350-1200
*001-4350-1200
Jrejel, Lillian
*001-4095-2353
Pacific Soils Eng
*250-4310-6415 02,
Parda, Cynthia
*001-3478
L 341
4 70603F
?fficeDepo
5 70603F 64/4566A
70603F 61/4.,}J6A
2 70603F 58/4566A
3 70603F 12/4566A
6 70603F 65/4566A
7 70603F 66/4566A
70603F 67/4566A
1 7060',T 69/4566A
6 70603F 68/4566A
4 70603F 63/4566A
1 70603F 70/4566A
3 70603F 59/4566A
4 70603F 60/4566A
OrejelL
05/-3 06i"03 MileageReimb-AnnvCeleb
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
0,05/Z8 06/03 216"02 Recreation Refund
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
054228 06/03
020528454
Suppls-Plug
05/'*28 (*.u,/03
)20593954
Suppls-Ping
05/28 06/03
020649048
Suppls-Comm Svcs
05/28 06iO3
02064QO49
Suppis-Ping-Cr Memo
05/28 06/03
020649050
Suppls-Ping-Cr Menlo
05/28 06/0:3
02074:;081
Suppls-Ping-Cr Memo
05/28 06/03
020767781
Suppls-Ping-Cmgr
05/28 X6/03
,7-2076-0645
Suppls-CClk
05/28 06/03
020768658
Suppls-Gen Govt
05/28 06/03
0'20768929
Suppls-Ping -
05/28 06/03
020768970
Suppls-Pub Wks
05/28 06/03
120769100
Suppls-Comm Svcs
05/28 06/03
020769122
Suppls-Comm Svcs
1.34
1 70603F
06/03
06/03 60333
05/28 06/03 21636
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
Reimb-AnnZelebSuppls
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
CIF-PtrsnPrkFldLghts
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
Recreation Refund
TL'AL DUE VENDOR --------
8.37
-9.37
42.00
4'2.00
74.51
3.65
7.95-
17.33-
40.54
.95-
17.33-
40.54
141.42
137.94
19.68
62.61
21.20
156.64
620.31
177.28
177.28
470.75
470.75
10.00
10.00
uN T1"IE: 08:19
VENDOR NAIL vENDOR ID. # *
ACCOUNT PPOJ.TX-NO "
BATCH PO.LUE/WO. ENinDIE ii�iCE -`TinN AMCUNT DAT.c +'
-------------------------------------------------------
Partsmaster Inc. Partsmastr
i�: 1-4+.ii-L21r' 6 'J<: +E t)1/5T�6
Payroll Transfer Payrollzr
i.l-1l_ ' 6D3
aur 1'?0 i i0.�.
Photo Flus by Kim PhotGplus
*001-4095-2112 2 7060F 01/4649
*1001-4095-2112 4 70603F 01;'4649
Parona Judicial District Pomiudoist
*00 i-.3223 1 70603E
Pomona Valley Humane Soc. ^VHS
*001-4431-5403 2 70603E 01/4579
Ponona Vly Transportation PomonaVly
}112-4360-5310 6 10603E 01.15642
59.23
:±UE VENCOR--------) 5 23
�, .LJ
I%vl i
c, 2 ti S NP'013 -,•7 F'F10-Pay-n-ll T^arsfer
TONAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----? 53,600.00
TOTA.L DUE VENDOR --------> 0.00
05128 06/0= 0276c9
,5/28 06/03 027692
='hotc/Film ProcessingSvcs
Phatc/FilmProcessSvcs
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------
Apr-Parking Cites
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
05/28 06/0:3 42500-08 June-AnimalCntrlSvcs
TOTAL DUE VENBOR --------
05/28 06/03 1127
Prudential Service Bureau PSBI
*001-2110-1004 1 70603E 05/28 06/03
#001-2110-1006 1 70600 ,;,; 03/28 06/03
Public Empl Retirement
4+)01-2110-1008 1 70W3A 05/28 06/03
s''01-2110-11'.08 2 7060.3A 05.+/28 06/0',
Public Empl Retirement `' RS
*00'-21 L,-1008 ? '
1
4+:01-'2110-1`108 4
10.01
38.69
48.70
575.00
575.00
4,959.17
4,959.17
Shuttels-AnvCeleb-4/20 1,120.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 1,120.00
June -Dental Ins Prems 1,628.28
June -Vision Ins Prems 831.49
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 2,459.77
PP9-RetireContrib-Emplye
P? -'':et treCtmtr ib-Emplyr
TDTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----)
".,TAL DUIE VENDOR --------)
r, /2A 06!0 P'_:- e`:reContrlb'EnpiJ2
05 3 +_r -' r'_. ='e tveCo,,trlb-Emplyr
-- 7<1 E VENDi;R
-----?
3,721.73 06/03/97 Olk?0034414
3,335.30 06/03/97 0000034414
7,057.53
0.00
` 7
'•5'7,31 01 ('7 :+ :). +i
R"JN TIME: 08,49 1 U
iir
1ENDOR NAME VEti�E�t, ID• _ -
.. ;r
r�Mf..ii�1 .00'i '..
ACCDJNT PRDJ.TX-NEi BR :1afE/N0. ENT%Y , ---
-------------- c , ------ ------- �'----------------------- ------------------------- -
---------------------------:!'.---
P r�:iss Rcse-RSI Flurkiss
X250-41-110-6415 117'x7 18 'i}6[} F 01/4906
5,1-4.310-6415 11'97 �'� ;"�G:.E 01 4'.'6 -- 4 _:B0A+APrknetrFt �1.4
j
!1 -------
M7 AL DUE VE„CuR } � �.u•�
R S J Blueprint R&'B,ue
#250-4310-6415 11797
14
70W,03E
01;57'4
5i
vbr.-
}�50-4''15-6420
1. 97
4
.. _'�cF''
`"''
#250-4510-6411
014'?7
8
70603E
.c.7 '
01;.�r 1
1 'lig
u5/,,_
}
ue,j0:3
104 ;
._ .
.7'�-451 V-0411
'v .'��7
1t7
✓f.'L
U.�f Jl7�=.:i(-f
ifj
#23u-4510-6411
1097
12
70603F
0415772
O5,''»
06/03
J473
R,m Design Rw'Uesig11
*250-4310-6415 06596 24 706036 01/4249
ander, Cathy
"a pos Grocery Co.
iiJ1_$;: J LA -JJ
#[;01-4;5U-1200
-_4
^ i',3F
'Ra 1Ny�5
17 lt4_:13F 01 c
_
?, 7oF,03F O1 J4639
v5 8 1) . t-s.J
Robert Driver Ins !Ca. RobCrive
#001-2300-1004 1 70603A 05128 06/03
Roberts, Brian
*001-4090-4000 4 05/28 4E;3'
C i'r'-�=�•APro�--atrsnPrk
--s-BidsAsperGrve
�opies-;.ds-S1rySeal
3cpys-yids/Specs-BKyn
Copys-BrCyn/Pthfdr
ii i F!L 1, �E VENDOR --
Praro:�cs-CIP-PanteraFrk
TuirL LuE VEKOR--------}
F;ecr Dat ia� Re}und
5: pp,ies-Anry Celeb
my Tots Supplies
1071L DUE iJENDn-R-------->
!ct-SpecEvrtInsurnce
CTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
Audio Visual6vcs5/3,6
TOTAL 3 E VENDOR -------->
115.79
a -„a
81.11
98.51
555.49
6,6273.32
6,623.38
60.35
28.49
88.84
340.00 06/03147 D-00.0'.4113
340.00
0.00
375.00
:375.00
,;_!Zick:a, Joseph T. '. iu7lckaJ
#001-4210-4100 2 7':603F 35x` 8 [76%0:3 °IngComtmMtgs-4f8,22 120.00
12U.00
-7AL DUE VENDOR -------->
C.tr or' Dao1 gar t**
RUN TIME. M:4905/29/97 JG!JCHER REG1S'rca
Li.IE THRL'.............06/O: /97
Schad, Dan Schadf) -
*001-4210-4100 5 70603F 05/22 06/03
Sevilla, Barbara 3evillaB
*001-7300-1002 9 70603F 05/23 06%03
Sharp Seating Caapany
Shar*at
*001-4350-5310
6 7 7$9
* * PREPAID *
VENDOR NAME ID.
ACCOUiT PROJ,.T•11 /N0.
ENTRY/DUE
INVOICE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT TATE CHECK.
-------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2 42
*001-4095-2353
19 70603F 01/5716
*001-4095-2353
Salandanan, Lourdes
*001-2300-1002
Salandana<3
8 70603F
05/2$ 06103
.35263
Refnd-PrkSecrtyDepst
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
50.00
San Gabriel Vly Tribune SGVTribune
*001-2300-1010 9 70603F
05/28 06/03
05955
Legal Ad -FPL 97-13
113.04
*001-2300-1010
7 70603E
05/28 06/03
11476
Legal Ad -FPL 96-023
102.96
*001-2300-1010
11 70603F
05/28 06/03
12932
Legal Ad -FPL 97-05
102.96
*001-2300-1010
10 70603F
05/28 06/03
12983
Legal Ad -FPL 96-03
83.52
*001-2300-1010
8 70603F
05/28 06/03
19357
Legal Ad -FPL 96-003
173.52
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
576.00
San Gabriel Vly Tribune SGVTribune
*250-4510-6411 01497 14 70603F 0115783
05123 06/03
214454
Ad-Bids-S1urySPa1
7?,00
*250-4215-6420 11597
6 70603F 02/5783
05/28 06/03
24359
Ad-Bids-AspenGrve
87.84
*250-4510-6411 09997
16 70603F 03/5783
051/123 06/03
24397
Ad-BrCynRehab
40.68
*250-4510-6411 10297
18 706WF 04/5783
05/28 06103
24397
Ad-SidsPthfdrRehab
40.68
Schad, Dan Schadf) -
*001-4210-4100 5 70603F 05/22 06/03
Sevilla, Barbara 3evillaB
*001-7300-1002 9 70603F 05/23 06%03
Sharp Seating Caapany
Shar*at
*001-4350-5310
6 7 7$9
Smart & Final
.*001-4090-2325
8" 22
*001-4415-1200
2 42
*001-4095-2353
19 70603F 01/5716
*001-4095-2353
21 70603E 01/5716
*125-4215-1200 60197
6 70603F 01/4646
*125-4215-1200
4 714-1t')'3F 01;4646
05/23 06/03 168
05/28 06/03
05/23 06/03
05/28 06.•`0:3
"A1,13 4. _"
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
.-g „=-. Mtgs-4/8,22
"ITAL 3UE VENDOR -------->
Refnd-PrkScrtyDepsI
T.,.AL '.. LJE +'EN
- R --------1
`DO
I;_pc_it-ReS�Parade
''AL LIUE VENDOR --------)
6''1BCitnS-MtgS
tr 't 'nrSUPPIs
r,-eleb-&�,Qol.ies
-w =b-Sqp 1 ies
•41es-SrB:ngo
1*0.00
6.4.00
634.00
10.77
140.'36
65. !}+?
=-.26
1'..47
c,... Jif.
** : 1 t y 0 r u i a A 0 1 tl a r ***
RUN11IE- 08.4905/29/97 v0UCHER REGISTER
UE TPRU.............06/03/97
VENDOR NW
ACCOUNT tROJ.TX-1 ENTRY QE INVOICE
.,
------------------------+' - --•---------------------
:9U
Southern Ca, Edison sib
*250-4310-6415 02497 2 70603A 01/5836 05/28 06/03
Spicers Paper Spacers
*125-4215-1200 80197 2 70603E 02/5244
Standard Insurance
of Ore Standardln
*001-2110-1005
1 70603E
*001-2110-1005
2 70603E
*001-2110-1005
3 70603F
Subway
*001-4090-2325
*001-4090-2325
'he Gas Company
*001-4314-2126
Tim's Mobil
*001-4090-2200
Time Out Personnel
*001-4040-4000
*001-4040-4030
*001-4210-4000
*001-4040-4030
*001-4210-4000
*001-4040-4030
*001-4040-4030
U.S. Postmaster
*001-4095-2120
Subway
4 70603F 01/4947
6 70602F 01/4947
SoCaGas
1 70603F
Tiaftil
5 70603F 01/5774
I''FiGE 17
* * PREPAID * *
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT LATE C, 4.ECK
------------------------------------------------------------
Insp-PetrsnPrkLights 1,027.78 06/03/97 00000:24415
TOTAL PREPAID AM(i141T ----) 1,027.78
TOTAL DUE VENOM --------) 0.00
05/28 06/03 347708 SrPrgr®-Paper Products
TOTAL DUE VENDat--------
05128 06/03 June-Suppl Life Ins
05/28 06;'03 june-Life Ins Preas
05/28 06/03 Ovrpymt-Pembletan
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
05/23 06/03 Mtg Supplies -5/12
05/28 06/03 MtgSupplies-BdgtWlcshp5/20
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------
05/28 06/03
05/28 06/03 15019
4 70603E 01/5673
06/03 2123
06/03 2123
06/03 2123
06/03 2141
06/03 2141
06/03 2160
05/28 06/03 2179
Gas Services-MrtgePrk
TOTES_ M VENDOR --------
ArCndtrRepair-Corsica
TOTAL. DUE VENDOR -------->
Temp5vcsReceptnst-4/23-25
Temp5vcs-Scanng4/21,23
TempSvcs-Ping-4/25
TempSvcs-1kocmntScang-5/2
TempSvcsPing*t-4/28-5/2
Tem05vcs-DocantScang-5/5
TempSvcs-Scanng-5/12-16
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
74.61
74.61
98:40
464.00
14.50-
547.90
5.99
15.96
21.95
68.08
68.08
680.30
680.30
195.20
173.25
80.08
63.00
400.40
68.25
325.50
1,305.68
USFostmstr
1 70603F 05/28 06/03 Postage-Fees-SummrNwsltr 2,500.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------} 2,500.00
RUN TIME. C-3:4905/29/97 v0UC4ER REG 1 5 T R
CUE THRU.............06/03/97
* PREPAID
)ENDOR NAME ID. - r, Srrp AMOUNT DATE CHECK
ACCOUNT PRfI<1.TX-!�i ENTRY/DLA -N4C Ct E�. T:DN
,., -------------------------------------------------------
UCR Extension tend
)01-4310-2340 2 70603F 01/5483 05/28 06%03 34414 Lndscae/RskMg�atSemnr-4/9 144.00
'YAL " VENDOR --------> 144.00
+Jan Winkle and Affiliates TwYanWink
1001-4553-5222 4 70603F 01/5731 05/28 06/'33 19
)irginkar, Arun Virginkar
*001-4553-4100 5 70603F 05/28 06/03
Walnut Vly Water Dist wVWaterDis
4001-4311-2126 1 70603F 05/28 06/03
*f)01-4313-1126 1 70603 05/28 06/03
4001-4316-2126 1 70603F 05/28 06/03
Walnut Vly Water Dist WvWaterDis _
*138-4538-2126 1 70603F 05/28 06/03
Walnut Vly Water Dist WVWaterDis
}139-4539-2126 1 70603F 05/28 06/03
Welders Warehouse
+001-4310-1:
West Coach
4001-4310-1
Welded. .
06/03 80781
06/03 25491
Wright, Paul WrightP
*001-4090-4000 2 70603A 01/4599 05/28 06/03
Video-StreetSpeedMinnequa
411.65
TOTAL DLE VENDOR --------}
411.65
Trf&TrnspMtg-5/8
40.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
40.00
Water Usage -Paul Grow
1,290.69
Water Usage-HeritagePrk
755.74
Water Usage -Maple Hill
1,361.68
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
3,408.11
Water Usage -Dist 438
3,411.44
TOTAL DLA VENBOR -------->
3,411.44
Water Usage -Dist 439
243.81
;DIAL DUE VENDOR --------}
243.81
Welding Aire-Prks
332.30
Tm.TAL �UuE VENDOR -------->
32.
NameCerrectn-PLRCmmHldr
10.78
TOTAL [N.IE VENDOR --------]
10.78
Audio/VisualSvcs-Apr/May
450.00 06/03/97 00000334411
TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----)
450.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
0.00
+ �1t c+ D a,j n Ear ##
RUN T1 113:49 05129/'i7 i J L' H= R :. G i 5 i t R
UNC SUMMARY REPORT
SUE TnRU.............06163/97
;„ G/L 3JE WILL POSI GJE HAS POSTED
FUND BIRM PAY REVENUE EXPENSE REVENUE EXPENSE
-------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
001 General Fund 513,995.82 103,870.94
139 LLAD #39 Fund 6,533.81
250 C.I.P. Fund 216,657.12
12'j CUBG Fund 2 ,358.90
112 Prop A -Transit F 41,761.02
13o LLAD #38 Fund 8,326.44
2h COPS Fund 40,067.45
118 Air Quality Imp 17,k36.05
141 LLA. 441' Fund 3,465.01
PAGE 1
FUTURE TRANSACTIONS
REVENUE EXPENSE
----------------------
938.00 409,186,88
6,533.81
216,657.12
8,358.90
41,761.02
'26.44
.0,067.45
i7,4 6. s
,x61.07
T�
LL ONUS 256,651.63103,u70.''4 938.00 151,!42.74
r,:; Y
01TY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997 JN\ REPORT DATE: April 20, 1997
FROM: Linda G. Magnuson, Accounting Manager
TITLE:
Treasurer's Report - April 30,1997
SUMMARY:
Submitted for the City Council's review and approval is the Treasurer's Statement for the month of April, 1997.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review and approve.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _
Resolution(s) _
_ Ordinance(s) _
_ Agreement(s)
Public Hearing Notification
Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's office)
Other:
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes
_ No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority vote?
_ Yes
_ No
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
N/A _ Yes
_ No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
N/A _ Yes
_ No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
N/A _ Yes
—No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Terrence L. Belanger Frank M. Usher Linda G. Magnuson
City Manager Assistant City Manager Accounting Manager
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Treasurer's Statement - April 30, 1997
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Per City policy, the Finance Department presents the monthly Treasurer's Statement for the City
Council's review and approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the April, 1997 Treasurer's Statement.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
No fiscal impact.
BACKGROUND:
Submitted for the Council's review and approval is the Treasurer's Statement for the month of April,
1997. This statement shows the cash balances for the various funds, with a breakdown of bank
account balances, investment account balances and the effective yield earned from investments.
The City's Deferred Compensation balances which are managed by ICMA are also being reported.
The City receives ICMA statements on a quarterly basis. The balances reported are as of March 31,
1997.
PREPARED BY:
Linda G. Magnuson
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TREASURER'S MONTHLY CASH STATEMENT
April 30, 1997
GENERAL FUND
$11,210,966.77
$1,794,368.14
$854,924.13
$12,150,410.78
LIBRARY SERVICES FUND
106,924.45
1,432.60
250.62
108,106.43
TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
(0.10)
5,011.06
5,010.96
GAS TAX FUND
2,385,505.07
229,880.11
2,615,385.18
TRANSIT TX (PROP A) FD
1,709,177.63
92,760.22
39,866.33
1,762,071.52
TRANSIT TX (PROP C) FD
1,924,934.52
71,547.71
1,996,482.23
INTEGRATED WASTE MGT FD
124,408.06
12,432.62
5,288.83
131,551.85
AIR QUALITY IMPRVMNT FD
122,230.97
1,521.68
1,522.66
122,229.99
TRAILS & BIKEWAYS FD (SB 821)
25,811.70
689.40
344.70
26,156.40
PARK FEES FUND
374,389.42
4,804.16
379,193.58
S PARKS GRANT (PRP A) FD
(18,180.39)
9,017.00
(9,163.39)
COM DEV BLOCK GRANT FD
(33,370.09)
3,995.28
(37,365.37)
CITIZENS OPT -PUBLIC SAFETY F
186,729.64
2,543.62
136.95
189,136.31
LANDSCAPE DIST #38 FD
216,470.92
87,017.43
8,440.09
295,048.26
LANDSCAPE DIST #39 FD
44,238.86
54,829.36
3,624.68
95,443.54
LANDSCAPE DIST #41 FD
219,105.57
40,999.52
3,715.00
256,390.09
GRAND AV CONST FUND
139,130.78
139,130.78
CAP IMPROVEMENT PRJ FD
165,281.99
1,444.99
9,827.58
156,899.40
SELF INSURANCE FUND
591,033.24
7,915.75
598,948.99
TOTALS
$19,494,789.011
$2,418,215.37
$931,936.85
$0.00 $20,981,067.53
DEMAND DEPOSITS:
INVESTMENTS:
GENERAL ACCOUNT $1,030,548.40
PAYROLL ACCOUNT 1,648.50
CHANGE FUND 175.00
PETTY CASH ACCOUNT 500.00
TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS $1,032,871.90
TIME CERTIFICATES $0.00
COMMERCIAL PAPER 0.00
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FD 19,948,195.63
TOTAL INVESTMENTS 19,948,195.63
TOTAL CASH $20,981,067.53
Note: The City of Diamond Bar is invested in the State Treasurer's Local Agency Investment Fund. All funds are available
for withdrawal within 24 hours. Investment in the Local Agency Investment Fund is allowed under the City's formally
adopted investment policy.
L.A.I.F - Effective Yield for March 1997 5.580%
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TREASURER'S MONTHLY CASH STATEMENT
April 30, 1997
INVESTMENT: DEFERRED COMPENSATION ACCOUNT (AS OF 03/31/97)
MA Retirement Comoration 457 Plan:
AGGRESSIVE OPPORTUNITY FUND
8,100.67
INTERNATIONAL FUND
8,000.35
GROWTH STOCK FUND
85,116.02
BROAD MARKET FUND
28,508.96
EQUITY INCOME FUND
3,840.38
ASSET ALLOCATION FUND
27,709.39
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FUND
0.00
CORE BOND FUND
7,164.94
US TREASURY FUND
3,234.20
CASH MANAGEMENT FUND
749.82
PLUS FUND
294,013.36
GUARANTEED FUND
0.00
TRADITIONAL GROWTH
10,273.18
MS CAPITAL APPRECIATION
3,659.03
MS GROWTH & INCOME
3,742.91
TOTAL OF DEPOSITS
484,113.21
Note: These investment options are at the discretion of the employees.
Due to the complexity of the funds, which are solely handled by ICMA, the City is only reporting the balances available in
in the various instruments
The reporting period reflects the most current quarter reported by ICMA to the City.
TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS
$21,465,180.74
All investments are placed in accordance with the City of Diamond Bar's Investment Policy.
The above summary provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six month's
estimated expenditures.
Terrence L. Belanger, Treasurer
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997 REPORT DATE: May 15, 1997
FROM: Joann M. Gitmed, Senior Accountant
TITLE:
Proposition A Local Return Fund, Proposition C Local Return Fund and Transportation Development
Act Audits for the fiscal years ended June 30, 1996 and 1995.
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, 1996 was completed in December 1996 by Simpson &
Simpson, C.P.A.
The final version of the audits were received in the City offices in May 1997 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, 1996 and 1995.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: _Staff Report —Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s) —Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
Ordinances(s) XX Other (Copies of Respective Audits)
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
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:
REVIEWED BY:
Terrence L. Belanger Frank fA. Us er Linda Magnu
City Manager Assistant City Manager Accounting Manager
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE
PROPOSITIONA LOCAL RETURN FUND
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1996 AND 1995
2 Illi SOyl ��
p impwn
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND
.For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FINANCL4L SECTION
Page
Independent Auditor's Report 4
Balance Sheet 6
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance -
Budget and Actual 7
Notes to Financial Statements 8
COMPLL4NCE SECTION
Independent Auditor's Report
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
11
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
1gson�
CER77FIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
a.. -
SENIOR PARTNERS
Brainard C. Simpson, CPA
Carl P. Simpson, CPA
Frederick A. Simpson, CPA INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT
January 9, 1997
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 -MM
We have audited the balance sheet of the Proposition A Local Return Fund of the City of
Diamond Bar (City) as of June 30, 1996 and 1995, and the accompanying statement of
revenues, 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, 1996 and 1995, 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 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 C PW
The CPA. Never Underestimate The Value`
impson S im_ yson
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 and LACMTA is a matter of public record.
W�7
Los Angeles, California
5
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND
BALANCESHEET
June 30
1996 1995
ASSETS
Cash $ 1,446,391 $ 1,040,245
LACMTA Receivable 51,643 44,754
Due from Other Fund (Note 6) 0 49.694
Total Assets
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities
Accounts Payable
Accrued Payroll
Due to Other Fund (Note 7)
Total Liabilities
Fund Balance
Restricted
Total Fund Balance
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
$ 1,498,034 $ 1,134,693
$ 47,529 $ 34,219
686 751
0 8,234
•n 11 r In ^^A
1,449,819 1,091,489
1,449,819 1,091,489
$ 1,498,034 $ 1,134,693
The notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
n
CITY OF D14,VOND BAR
PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30. 1996
(With Comparative Totals for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995)
The notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
7
1996
Variance
Favorable
(Un-
1995
Bud¢et
Actual
favorable)
Actual
Revenues
Proposition A (Note 4)
$ 551,000
$ 556,623 $
5,623 S
539,951
Interest Income (Note 5)
60,000
70,681
10,681
50,966
Project Generated
245,000
201,622
(43,378)
137,966
Sale of Asset (Note 8)
0
4,000
4,000
3,000
Total Revenues
856,000
832,926
(23,074)
731,883
Expenditures
Various Projects (Exhibit 1)
635,682
474,596
161,086
599,754
Total Expenditures
635,682
474,596
161,086
599,754
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues
Over Expenditures
220,318
358,330
138,012
132,129
Fund Balance at Beginning
of Year
1,091,489
1,091,489
0
959,360
Fund Balance at End of Year
$ 1,311,807
S 1,449,819 $
138,012 $
1,091,489
The notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
7
CITY OF DL- TIOND BAR
PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Fund Accountinm
The operations of the Proposition A Local Return Fund (PALRF) are accounted for in
separate sets of self -balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund balance,
revenue and expenditures.
PALRF accounts for the City's share of the 1i2% Proposition A Local Return allocations
which are legally restricted for specific purposes.
Basis ofAccounting
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.
Budgets and Budgetary Accounting
The budgeted amounts presented in this report for comparison to the actual amounts are
presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
NOTE 2 - ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
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.
NOTE 3 - PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT
In accordance with Proposition A Local Return Program Guidelines, funds received
pursuant to these guidelines may only be used for Proposition A Local Return programs.
NOTE 4 - PROPOSITION A REVENUE
Proposition A revenue is the following:
1996 1995
Proposition A Local Return Fund S 556,623 $ 539,951
These notes are an integral part of the preceding financial statements.
8
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
(Continued)
►li I OW -M .1-i DUT WDIM113 VDI .11 *111
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.
The Due from Other Fund in the amount of $49,694 was PALRF revenue that was
erroneously recorded as Proposition C Local Return Fund (PCLRF) revenue in fiscal year
1994/95. PCLRF reimbursed PALRF in fiscal year 1995/96.
The Due to Other Fund in the amount of $8,234 was PALRF expenditure that was
recorded under the General Fund in fiscal year 1994/95. PALRF reimbursed the City's
General Fund in fiscal year 1995/96.
In fiscal year 1995/96, two Dodge vans were sold for $4,000 over the net book value of
the assets. In fiscal year 1994/95, one Dodge van was sold for $3,000 over the net book
value of the asset.
These notes are an integral part of the preceding financial statements.
01
COMPLIANCE SECTION
10
-- gson 5750 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 288
1 SUn--______--_---_-------.—__-.-_----_ --_- Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90036
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS TELEPHONE (213)938-3324
FAX (213) 930.0885
SENIOR PARTNERS
Brainard C. Simpson, CPA INDEPENDENT A UDITOR'S REPORT
Carl E Simpson. CPA
Frederick A. Simpson. CP
January 9, 1997
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 sheet and statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes
in fund balance of the Proposition A Local Return Fund of the City of Diamond Bar (City)
for the years ended June 30, 1996 and 1995, and have issued our report thereon dated
January 9, 1997. Our audits were made in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards; the rules and regulations of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (LACMTA); the Proposition A Local Return Guidelines (revised
1995); 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
Recreational Transit
Recreational Transit (Ranch Festival)
Transit Subsidy
Senior & Disabled Dial -A -Cab
Elderly Disabled Paratransit
Bus Stop Bench Program
Bus Stop Improvement
Holiday Ride
Park & Ride Lot Expansion
Transportation Planning
Fund Exchange - Lancaster
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 and LACMTA is a matter of public record.
JA41
. WA7
Los Angeles, California
11
(OPA�
The CPA. Never Underestimate The Value"
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
12
EXHIBIT 1
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, 1996
(With Comparative Actual Amounts for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995)
Proj ect
Code
Description
01-125
Program Promotion
03-103
Elderly Disabled Paratransit
01-121
Transportation Planning
02-105
Recreational Transit
02-105
Recreational Transit
0
(Ranch Festival)
01-130
Holiday Ride
01-220
Fund Exchange - Lancaster
01-163
Park & Ride Lot Expansion
01-250
Transit Subsidy
01-109
Transit Subsidy
01-131
Bus Stop Improvement
02-130
Senior/Disabled Dial -A -Cab
01-135
Bus Stop Bench Program
Total Expenditures
(1) The project's expenditures were less than anticipated.
(2) The true variance is computed as follows:
Total Expenditures $ 264,071
Less: Project Generated Revenue (201,622)
Proposition A Expenditures 62,449
Less: LACMTA Budget (65,000)
True Variance Over/(Under) $ (2,551)
13
Variance
LACMTA
(Over)
1995
Actual
Budget
$ 4,000 $
Actua
0 $
Und
4,000 $
0
0
0
0
10,719
5,432
5,432
0
5,432
52,000
20,379
31,621 (1)
16,515
4,000
2,984
1,016 (1)
3,299
20,000
2,602
17,398 (1)
25,965
0
0
0
300,000
70,000
0
70,000
0
65,000
264,071
(199,071) (2)
94,531
80,000
0
80,000
77,931
150,000
0
150,000
45,544
182,000
179,128
2,872
18,219
3,250
0
3,250
1,599
$ 635,682 $
474,596 $
161,086 $
599,754
(1) The project's expenditures were less than anticipated.
(2) The true variance is computed as follows:
Total Expenditures $ 264,071
Less: Project Generated Revenue (201,622)
Proposition A Expenditures 62,449
Less: LACMTA Budget (65,000)
True Variance Over/(Under) $ (2,551)
13
EXHIBIT I A
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND
SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS
June 30, 1996
Date Balance Balance
Acquired Description 7/l/95 Additions Deletions n 6/30/96
5/93 2 Dodge Vans $ 3,500 $ 0 $ (3,500) $ 0
Totals $ 3,500 $ 0 $ (3,500) $ 0
14
EXHIBIT 2
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND
EXIT CONFERENCE
June 30, 1996
An exit conference was held on January 16, 1997, at the City of Diamond Bar. Those in
attendance were:
Simpson & Simpson Representative:
Johnny Minassian, Auditor
City's Representative:
Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant
Matters Discussed:
Results of the audit disclosed no significant financial or compliance issues.
15
CITY OF DJAMOND BAR
ANNUAL FINANCLAL REPORT OF THE
PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1996 AND 1995
i�r�psvn c ' IMPSon
CITY OF DL4MOND BAR
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FINANCIAL SECTION
Independent Auditor's Report 4
Balance Sheet 6
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance -
Budget and Actual 7
Notes to Financial Statements
COMPLIANCE SECTION
Independent Auditor's Report
8
11
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Exhibit 1 - Schedule of Expenditures - Actual and LACMTA
Approved Project Budget 13
Exhibit 1 A - Schedule of Fixed Assets 14
Exhibit 2 - Exit Conference
2
15
FINANCIAL SECTION
inyson
�� ,Ton
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS /
SENIOR PARTNERS
Brainard C. Simpson, CPA
Carl P. Simpaon, CPA
Frederick A Simpson, CPA
January 9, 1997
INDEPENDENTAUDITOR'S REPORT
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) 9190.0865
We have audited the balance sheet of the Proposition C Local Return Fund of the City of
Diamond Bar (City) as of June 30, 1996 and 1995, and the accompanying statement of
revenues, 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 ?, 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. 1996 and 1995, 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
C PA 5
The CPA. Never Underestimate The Value-
ti iTPson S .�
ink 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 and LACMTA is a matter of public record.
7
Los Angeles, California
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND
BALANCESHEET
June 30
ASSETS
Cash
LACMTA Receivable
Accounts Receivable (Note 6)
Total Assets
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities
Due to Other Fund (Note 7)
Total Liabilities
Fund Balance
Restricted
Total Fund Balance
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
1996 1995
$ 1,417,748 $ 1,413,871
44,395 37,714
$ 1,462,143 $ 1,469,585
$ 0 $ 177,120
0 177,120
$ 1,462,143 $ 1,469,585
The notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
6
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1996
(With Comparative Totals for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995)
1996
The notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
7
Variance
Favorable
(Un-
1995
Budget
Actual
favorable)
Actual
Revenues
Proposition C (Note 4)
$ 452,520 $
469,969 $
17,449 $
445,826
Interest Income (Note 5)
60,000
77,576
17,576
77,851
Other Revenue (Note 6)
0
0
0
98,850
Total Revenues
512,520
547,545
35,025
622,527
Expenditures
Various Projects (Exhibit 1)
1,718,000
197,867
1,520,133
709,046
Total Expenditures
1,718,000
197,867
1,520,133
709,046
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues
Over Expenditures
(1,205,480)
349,678
1,555,158
(86,519)
Fund Balance at Beginning
of Year
1,292,465
1,292,465
0
1,378,984
Reclassification to
Discretionary Fund (Note 6)
(180,000)
(180,000)
0
0
Fund Balance at End of Year
$ (93,015) $
1,462.143 $
1,555,158 $
1,292,465
The notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
7
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Fund Accounting
The operations of the Proposition C Local Return Fund (PCLRF) are accounted for in
separate sets of self -balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund balance,
revenue and expenditures.
PCLRF accounts for the City's share of the 1/2% Proposition C Local Return allocations
which are legally restricted for specific purposes.
Basis ofAccounting
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.
Bud,ets and BudgetaryAccoun
The budgeted amounts presented in this report for comparison to the actual amounts are
presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
NOTE 2 - ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
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.
NOTE 3 - PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT
In accordance with Proposition C Local Return Program Guidelines, funds received
pursuant to these guidelines may only be used for Proposition C Local Return programs.
NOTE 4 - PROPOSITION C REVENUE
Proposition C revenue is the following:
1996 1995
Proposition C Local Return Fund S 469,969 S 445,826
These notes are an integral part of the preceding financial statements.
8
CITY OF DIAILIOND BAR
PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
(Continued)
NOTE 5 - REVENUE - INTEREST
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.
NOTE 6 - ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE/OTHER REVENUE
The Accounts Receivable balance of $18,000 in fiscal year 1994/95 consists of the
accumulated 10% retention of Other Revenue for fiscal years 1994/95 ($98,850) and
1993/94 ($81,150) in the amounts of $9,885 and $8,115, respectively. The Other
Revenue represents the Proposition C revenue for Grand Avenue Traffic Signal
Synchronization/Arterial Improvements project, MOU #217-246-2-93-94. The
accumulated amount of $180,000 ($98,850 plus $81,150) is adjusted and reclassified
separately as Discretionary Fund balance and not as part of PCLRF in fiscal year
1995/96.
NOTE 7 - DUE TO OTHER FUND
The Due to Other Fund in the amount of $177,120 in fiscal year 1994/95 consists of
$127.426 payable to General Fund and $49,694 payable to Proposition A Local Return
Fund (PALRF). The City initially expended out of the General Fund to cover PCLRF
expenditures. Also. the City erroneously recorded the PALRF allocation revenue under
the PCLRF.
These notes are an integral part of the preceding financial statements.
9
COMPLIANCE SECTION
H
- u JV n�� /yJ� 5750 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 286
�� so/ . LOS ANGELES, CIW FORNIA 90036
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS TELEPHONE (213) 938 3321
FAX (213) 99044
SENIOR PARTNERS
Brainard C. Simpson, CPA
Cafl P. Simpson, CPA INDEPENDENT A UDITOR'S REPORT
Frederick A. Simpson, CPA
January 9, 1997
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 sheet and statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes
in fund balance of Proposition C Local Return Fund of the City of Diamond Bar (City)
for the years ended June 30, 1996 and 1995, and have issued our report thereon dated
January 9, 1997. Our audits were made in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards; the rules and regulations of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (LACMTA); the Proposition C Local Return Guidelines
(revised 1995); 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:
Pavement Management System Grand Avenue Traffic Signal
Diamond Bar Boulevard Rehabilitation Synchronization & Arterial
Traffic Signal Installation
Brea Canyon Road
Sunset Crossing Rehabilitation
Seniors & Disabled Dial -A -Cab
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 and LACMTA is a matter of public record.
7
Los Angeles, California
11 FC PA 5
The CPA. Never Underestimate The Value'"
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
12
EXHIBIT 1
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, 1996
(With Comparative Actual Amounts for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995)
13
Variance
Project
LACMTA
(Over)
1995
Code
Prosect Name
Budget
Actual
Under
Actual
01-440
Diamond Bar Boulevard
Rehabilitation
$ 60,000 $
46,115 S
13,885
S 550,000
01-185
Grand Ave. Synchronization
140,000
142,070
(2,070)
128,698
01-220
Sunset Crossing Rehab.
500,000
0
500,000
0
03-470
Pavement Management
System
39,000
0
39,000
30,348
01-440
Brea Canyon Road
450,000
0
450,000
0
01-185
Traffic Signal Installation
375,000
9,682
365,318
0
02-130
Seniors & Disabled
Dial -A -Cab
154,000
0
154,000
0
Total Expenditures
S 1,718,000 $
197,867 $
1,520,133
$ 709,046
13
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND
Date
Acquired Description
None
Totals
SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS
June 30, 1996
Balance
7/1/95 Additions
$ 0 $
EXHIBIT 1A
Balance
Deletions 6/30/96
$ $ 0
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
14
EXHIBIT 2
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND
EXIT CONFERENCE
June 30, 1996
An exit conference was held on January 16, 1997, at the City of Diamond Bar. Those in
attendance were:
Simpson & Simpson Representative:
Johnny Minassian, Auditor
City's Representative:
Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant
Matters Discussed:
Results of the audit disclosed no significant financial or compliance issues.
15
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1996 AND 1995
imsvn ��, a
_p �-� WIPSvn
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Fme
FINANCIAL_ SECTION
Independent Auditor's Report 4
Balance Sheet - Section 99234 6
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance -
Budget and Actual 7
Notes to Financial Statements
8
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Schedule of Transportation Development Act Allocation for Specific Projects 12
Schedule of Completed Projects 13
COMPLIANCE SECTION
Report on Transportation Development Act Compliance 15
Schedule of Finding(s) 16
Exit Conference
17
FINANCIAL SECTION
son t�' um son
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS �!
SENIOR PAWNERS
Brainard C. Simpenn, CPA
Carl P. Simpson. CPA
Frederick A. Simpson, CPA
December 9, 1996
INDEPENDENTAUDI TORW REPORT
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, SURE 286
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90036
TELEPHONE (213) 9383324
FAX (213) 9190 -MM
We have audited the balance sheet of the Transportation Development Act Fund of the
City of Diamond Bar (City) as of June 30. 1996 and 1995, and the related statement of
revenues, 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, 1996 and 1995, 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 C w'
The CPA. Never Underestimate The Vatue"
TP im_ pson
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 and LACMTA is a matter of public record.
7
Los Angeles, California
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
BALANCESHEET
Pertaining to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code
June 30
The notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
6
1996
1995
ASSETS
Cash (Note 3)
$ 26,264 $
142,205
Total Assets
$ 26,264 $
142,205
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities
Due to LACMTA (Note 7)
$ 16,308 $
0
Total Liabilities
16,308
0
Fund Balance
Restricted - Local (Note 5)
9,956
44,205
Restricted - Regional (Note 5)
0
98,000
Total Fund Balance
9,956
142,205
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
26,264 $
142,205
The notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
6
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1996
(With Comparative Totals for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995)
1996
The notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
7
Variance
Favorable
(Un-
1995
Bud¢et
Actual
favorable)
Actual
Revenues
Intergovernmental Allocations:
Article 3 $
0 $
0 $
0 $
21,391
Miscellaneous:
Interest
3,000
7,755
4,755
8,410
Total Revenues
3,000
7,775
4,755
29,801
Expenditures
Construction
34,000
123,696
(89,696)
50,000
Total Expenditures
34,000
123,696
(89,696)
50,000
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues
Over Expenditures
(31,000)
(115,941)
(84,941)
(20,199)
Fund Balance at Beginning
of Year
142,205
142,205
0
162,404
Excess Regional Funds to be
Returned to LACMTA
(Note 7)
0
(16,308)
(16,308)
0
Fund Balance at End of Year $
111,205 $
9,956 $
(101,249) $
142,205
The notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
7
CITY OF DIA YIOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Fund AccountinP
Section 99234 Funds of the Transportation Development Act are pooled 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.
Basis ofAccounting
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 Budgetary Accountin
The budgeted amounts presented in this report for comparison to the actual amounts are
presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
Comparative 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 Transportation
Development Act 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 with other City's funds to maximize investment opportunities and yields.
Investment income resulting from this pooling is allocated to the respective funds
These notes are an integral part of the preceding financial statements.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
(Continued) '
including the Transportation Development Act Fund, based upon their average monthly
cash balances.
NOTE 4 - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT COMPLIANCE
REQUIREMENTS
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.
NOTE 5 - FUND BALANCE
Total fund balance was calculated as follows:
Beginning Fund Balance @ 7/1/95
Article 3 Local Allocation
Interest Income - Local
Total Available
Reclassification of FY 1994/95
Expenditures
Less: Construction
Excess Regional Funds to be Returned
to LACMTA (Note 7)
Ending Fund Balance @ 6/30/96
Re i� onal Local Total
$ 98,000 $ 44,205 $ 142,205
0 0 0
0 7,755 7,755
98,000 51,960 149,960
(50,000) 50,000 0
(31,692) (92,004) (123,696)
(16,308) 0 (16,308)
$ 0 $ 9,956 $ 9,956
NOTE 6 - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS RESERVED
In accordance with TDA Article 3 (SB821) Guidelines, funds which will not be spent
during the fiscal year have been placed on reserve in the reserve Local Transportation
Fund (LTF) account with the County Auditor -Controller to be drawn down whenever the
funds become eligible for a specific project and an approved draw down request is
received by LACMTA. As of June 30, 1996, the City has funds of $20,417 on reserve
which is the fiscal year 1995/96 revenue allocation.
However, $9,956 of TDA Article 3 funds that remained on hand with the City is in
noncompliance with TDA Article 3 (SB 821) Guidelines.
These notes are an integral part of the preceding financial statements.
0
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
(Continued)
NOTE 7 - DUE TO LACMTA/ EXCESS REGIONAL FUNDS TO BE RETURNED
TO LACMTA
In accordance with TDA Article 3 (SB821) Guidelines, all excess regional funds,
including accumulated interest earned on the excess funds, from completed projects must
be returned to LACMTA. As of June 30, 1996, the unexpended regional allocations in
the amount of $16,308 from the completed Sidewalk/Bikeway project were recorded as
payable to LACMTA.
These notes are an integral part of the preceding financial statements.
10
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
SCHEDULE OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT
ALLOCATION FOR SPECIFIC PROJECTS
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1996
Project_ Description
Regional Allocations
Sidewalk/Bikeway
Local Allocations
Sidewalk/Bikeway
Sidewalk/Bikeway
Sidewalk/Bikeway
Interest Applied
Totals
Excess Regional Funds
to be Returned to
LACMTA (Note 7)
Unexpended Interest
Accumulated to Date
Fund Balance @ 6/30/96
Totals to Date
Program Unexpended Project
Year Allocations Expenditures Allocations Status
1991-92 $ 98,000 $ 81,692 $
1993-94 19,761 19,761
1994-95 21,391 21,391
1995-96 0 20,172
1995-96 20,172 0
* See Schedule of Finding(s).
$ 159,324 $ 143,016
16,308 Closed
0 Closed
0 Closed
(20,172) Closed
20,172
16,308
(16,308)
a oc4
$ 9,956 *
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
SCHEDULE OF COMPLETED PROJECTS
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1996
Totals
Project Description Allocations Expenditures
Regional Allocations
Sidewalk/Bikeway (1991/92) $ 98,000 $ 81,692
Interest Applied 0 0
Local Allocations
Sidewalk/Bikeway (1993/94)
Sidewalk/Bikeway (1994/95)
Sidewalk/Bikeway (1995/96)
Interest Applied (1995/96)
Totals
13
19,761
19,761
21,391
21,391
0
20,172
20,172
0
$ 159,324 $ 143,016
COMPLIANCE SECTION
14
Z7son S •/y/y/}J�./�
/y/
i, so
5750 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 288
V
1
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90038
:,J
CERTMED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS JJJ
TELEPHONE (213) 938 324
FAX (213) 930 UBB5
SENIOR PARTNERS
Brainard C. Skopeoo, CPA
Cari E Simpson, CPA
Frederick A, Simpson, CPA
REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT COMPLIANCE
December 9, 1996
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 sheet and statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes
in fund balance of the Transportation Development Act Fund of the City of Diamond Bar
(City) for the years ended June 30, 1996 and 1995, and have issued our report thereon
dated December 9, 1996. 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 LACMTA
regulations.
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
LACMTA rules and regulations, except as explained in the Schedule of Finding(s) on the
following page.
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 and LACMTA is a matter of public record.
7
Los Angeles, California
15 C95
The CPA. Never Underestimate The Value"
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
SCHEDULE OF FINDING(S)
For the Year Ended June 30, 1996
No.
Noncompliance
City Management Comments
1.
According to the Public Utilities Code
The City of Diamond Bar was unaware that
(PUC), Section 99234 and LACMTA
all funds including interest earned must be
Guidelines, a jurisdiction may draw down
used during the fiscal year. The City has
only the funds estimated to be used during
budgeted to use the remaining $9,956
the fiscal year for specific bicycle and
during fiscal year 1996/97.
pedestrian projects. Remaining funds
must be placed on reserve in the reserve
The City will be sure to comply with the
TDA Article 3 account with the County
use of TDA Article 3 Funds and interest in
Auditor -Controller and may be transferred
the future.
to the jurisdictions whenever they become
eligible and an approved draw -down
request is received at LACMTA.
As of June 30, 1996, we noted that the
City had excess funds of accumulated
interest earned in the amount of $9,956.
We recommended that the jurisdiction
comply with the PUC Section 99234
which requires the return of any
unexpended funds to LACMTA to be
placed in the reserve Local Transportation
Fund (LTF) account with the County
Auditor -Controller.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
EXIT CONFERENCE
June 30, 1996
An exit conference was held on December 17, 1996, at the City of Diamond Bar. Those
in attendance were:
Simpson & Simpson Representative:
Albert Li, Auditor
City's Representative:
Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant
Linda G. Magnuson, Accounting Manager
Matters Discussed:
Results of the audit disclosed a noncompliance issue related to the Public
Utilities Code (PUC), Section 99234 and LACMTA guidelines. The
management of the City concurred with our finding but disagreed with our
recommendation that the unexpended funds be returned to LACMTA to be
placed on reserve. The disagreement is due to the City's intention of
expending the funds in fiscal year 1996/97.
17
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE
PROPOSITIONA LOCAL RETURNFUND
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1996 AND 1995
� iyr� svn
�' ITTson
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paye
FINANCIAL SECTION
Independent Auditor's Report 4
Balance Sheet 6
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance -
Budget and Actual 7
Notes to Financial Statements
COMPLL4NCE SECTION
Independent Auditor's Report
8
11
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Exhibit 1 - Schedule of Expenditures - Actual and LACMTA
Approved Project Budget 13
Exhibit IA - Schedule of Fixed Assets 14
Exhibit 2 - Exit Conference
2
15
FINANCIAL SECTION
_Sig son
..p z son
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 7
SENIOR PARTNERS
Brainard C. Simpson, CPA
Carl P. Simpson, CPA
Frederick A. Simpson, CPA
January 9, 1997
INDEPENDENT A UDITOR'S REPORT
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, SURE 286
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90036
TELEPHONE (213) 938 -MA
FAX (218) 930 -OM
We have audited the balance sheet of the Proposition A Local Return Fund of the City of
Diamond Bar (City) as of June 30, 1996 and 1995, and the accompanying statement of
revenues, 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, 1996 and 1995, 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 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 C PW
The CPA. Never Underestimate The Value:"
imyson
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 and LACMTA is a matter of public record.
Los Angeles, California
5
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND
BALANCESHEET
June 30
1996
1995
ASSETS
Cash
$
1,446,391
$
1,040,245
LACMTA Receivable
51,643
44,754
Due from Other Fund (Note 6)
0
49,694
Total Assets
$
1,498,034
$
1,134,693
_ LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities
Accounts Payable
$
47,529
$
34,219
Accrued Payroll
686
751
Due to Other Fund (Note 7)
0
8,234
Total Liabilities
48,215
43,204
Fund Balance
Restricted
1,449,819
1,091,489
Total Fund Balance
1,449,819
1,091,489
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
$
1,498,034
$
1,134,693
The notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
6
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1996
(With Comparative Totals for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995)
Revenues
Proposition A (Note 4)
Interest Income (Note 5)
Project Generated
Sale of Asset (Note 8)
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
1996
Budget
Actual
$ 551,000 $
556,623 $
60,000
70,681
245,000
201,622
0
4,000
856,000
832,926
Variance
474,596
Favorable
599,754
(Un-
1995
fqvoMt1gJ
Actual
5,623 $
539,951
10,681
50,966
(43,378) 137,966
635,682
474,596
161,086
599,754
635,682
474,596
161,086
599,754
220,318
358,330
138,012
132,129
1,091,489
1,091,489
0
959,360
$ 1,311,807
$ 1,449,819 $
138,012 $
1,091,489
The notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
7
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
NOTE I - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Fund Accounting
The operations of the Proposition A Local Return Fund (PALRF) are accounted for in
separate sets of self -balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund balance,
revenue and expenditures.
PALRF accounts for the City's share of the 1/2% Proposition A Local Return allocations
which are legally restricted for specific purposes.
Basis of Accounting
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.
Budgets and Budgetary Accounting
The budgeted amounts presented in this report for comparison to the actual amounts are
presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
NOTE 2 - ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
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.
NOTE 3 - PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT
In accordance with Proposition A Local Return Program Guidelines, funds received
pursuant to these guidelines may only be used for Proposition A Local Return programs.
NOTE 4 - PROPOSITION A REVENUE
Proposition A revenue is the following:
1996 1995
Proposition A Local Return Fund $ 556,623 $ 539,951
These notes are an integral part of the preceding financial statements.
8
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
(Continued)
U1, DQUJOW911DIZ-A
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.
Do 3 .OSI_I II DI 'AAW i
The Due from Other Fund in the amount of $49,694 was PALRF revenue that was
erroneously recorded as Proposition C Local Return Fund (PCLRF) revenue in fiscal year
1994/95. PCLRF reimbursed PALRF in fiscal year 1995/96.
The Due to Other Fund in the amount of $8,234 was PALRF expenditure that was
recorded under the General Fund in fiscal year 1994/95. PALRF reimbursed the City's
General Fund in fiscal year 1995/96.
NOIE 8 - SALE OF ASSET
In fiscal year 1995/96, two Dodge vans were sold for $4,000 over the net book value of
the assets. In fiscal year 1994/95, one Dodge van was sold for $3,000 over the net book
value of the asset.
These notes are an integral part of the preceding financial statements.
we
COMPLIANCE SECTION
10
SiSV I ` ��yy 5750 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 286
S - / / CO� LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA)938- 90096
' TELEPHONE (4 938 3324
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS FAX (213) 9304M
SENIOR PARTNERS
Brainard C. Simpson. CPA INDEPENDENT A UDITOR'S REPORT
Carl P. Simpson, CPA
Frederick A Simpson, CPtanuary 9, 1997
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 sheet and statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes
in fund balance of the Proposition A Local Return Fund of the City of Diamond Bar (City)
for the years ended June 30, 1996 and 1995, and have issued our report thereon dated
January 9, 1997. Our audits were made in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards; the rules and regulations of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (LACMTA); the Proposition A Local Return Guidelines (revised
1995); 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
Recreational Transit
Recreational Transit (Ranch Festival)
Transit Subsidy
Senior & Disabled Dial -A -Cab
Elderly Disabled Paratransit
Bus Stop Bench Program
Bus Stop Improvement
Holiday Ride
Park & Ride Lot Expansion
Transportation Planning
Fund Exchange - Lancaster
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 and LACMTA is a matter of public record.
Los Angeles, California
CN
The CPA. Never Underestimate The Value'"
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
12
r
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, 1996
(With Comparative Actual Amounts for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995)
(1) The project's expenditures were less than anticipated.
(2) The true variance is computed as follows:
Total Expenditures $ 264,071
Less: Project Generated Revenue (201,622)
Proposition A Expenditures 62,449
Less: LACMTA Budget (65,000)
True Variance Over/(Under) $ (2,551)
13
Variance
Proj ect
LACMTA
(Over)
1995
Code
Description
Budeet
Actual
Under
Actual
01-125
Program Promotion
$ 4,000 $
0 $
4,000 $
0
03-103
Elderly Disabled Paratransit
0
0
0
10,719
01-121
Transportation Planning
5,432
5,432
0
5,432
02-105
Recreational Transit
52,000
20,379
31,621 (1)
16,515
02-105
Recreational Transit
(Ranch Festival)
4,000
2,984
1,016 (1)
3,299
01-130
Holiday Ride
20,000
2,602
17,398 (1)
25,965
01-220
Fund Exchange - Lancaster
0
0
0
300,000
01-163
Park & Ride Lot Expansion
70,000
0
70,000
0
01-250
Transit Subsidy
65,000
264,071
(199,071) (2)
94,531
01-109
Transit Subsidy
80,000
0
80,000
77,931
01-131
Bus Stop Improvement
150,000
0
150,000
45,544
02-130
Senior/Disabled Dial -A -Cab
182,000
179,128
2,872
18,219
01-135
Bus Stop Bench Program
3,250
0
3,250
1,599
Total Expenditures
$ 635,682 $
474,596 $
161,086 $
599,754
(1) The project's expenditures were less than anticipated.
(2) The true variance is computed as follows:
Total Expenditures $ 264,071
Less: Project Generated Revenue (201,622)
Proposition A Expenditures 62,449
Less: LACMTA Budget (65,000)
True Variance Over/(Under) $ (2,551)
13
EXHIBIT IA
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND
SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS
June 30, 1996
Date Balance Balance
Acquired Description 7/1/95 Additions Deletions 6/30/96
5/93 2 Dodge Vans $ 3,500 $ 0 $ (3,500) $ 0
Totals $ 3,500 $ 0 $ (3,500) $ 0
14
EXHIBIT 2
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND
EXIT CONFERENCE
June 30, 1996
An exit conference was held on January 16, 1997, at the City of Diamond Bar. Those in
attendance were:
Simpson & Simpson Representative:
Johnny Nfinassian, Auditor
City's Representative:
Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant
Matters Discussed:
Results of the audit disclosed no significant financial or compliance issues.
15
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE
PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1996 AND 1995
� rm�s°n im� _ svn
_p
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FINANCIAL SECTION
Independent Auditor's Report 4
Balance Sheet 6
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance -
Budget and Actual 7
Notes to Financial Statements
COMPLIANCE SECTION
Independent Auditor's Report
11
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Exhibit 1 - Schedule of Expenditures - Actual and LACMTA
Approved Project Budget 1;
Exhibit IA - Schedule of Fixed Assets 14
Exhibit 2 - Exit Conference
15
FINANCIAL SECTION
Sigson,F-S
� on
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ,r
SENIOR PARTNERS
Brainard C. Simpson, CPA
Carl P. Simpson, CPA
Frederick A Simpson. CPA
January 9, 1997
INDEPENDENT A UDITOR IS REPORT
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 80036
TELEPHONE (213) 938-3324
FAX (213) 930MM
We have audited the balance sheet of the Proposition C Local Return Fund of the City of
Diamond Bar (City) as of June 30, 1996 and 1995, and the accompanying statement of
revenues, 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 Z, 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, 1996 and 1995, and the results of its operations and changes in the
fund balance for the years then ended, in conformity with the Los Angeles Countv
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
C PA w
The CPA. Never Underestimate The Value—
S'itypson SaTson
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 and LACMTA is a matter of public record.
Los Angeles, California
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND
BALANCESHEET
June 30
ASSETS
Cash
LACMTA Receivable
Accounts Receivable (Note 6)
Total Assets
MBILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities
Due to Other Fund (Note 7)
Total Liabilities
Fund Balance
Restricted
Total Fund Balance
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
1996 1995
$ 1,417,748 $ 1,413,871
44,395 37,714
$ 1,462,143 $
1,469,585
$ 0 $
177,120
0
177,120
1,462,143
1,292,465
1,462,143
1,292,465
$ 1,462,143 $
1,469,585
The notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
6
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1996
(With Comparative Totals for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995)
Revenues
Proposition C (Note 4)
Interest Income (Note 5)
Other Revenue (Note 6)
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Various Projects (Exhibit 1)
Total Expenditures
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues
Over Expenditures
Fund Balance at Beginning
of Year
Reclassification to
Discretionary Fund (Note 6)
Fund Balance at End of Year
Budget
$ 452,520 $
60,000
0
512,520
1,718,000
(1,205,480)
Actual
469,969 $
77,576
0
547,545
197,867
197,867
349,678
1,292,465 1,292,465
Variance
(180,000)
Favorable
0
(Un-
1995
favorable)
Actual
17,449 $
445,826
17,576
77,851
0
98,850
35,025 622,527
1,520,133
1,520,133
1,555,158
0
(86,519)
1,378,984
(180,000)
(180,000)
0
0
$ (93,015) $
1,462,143 $
1,555,158 $
1,292,465
The notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
7
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Fund Accounting
The operations of the Proposition C Local Return Fund (PCLRF) are accounted for in
separate sets of self -balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund balance,
revenue and expenditures.
PCLRF accounts for the City's share of the 1/2% Proposition C Local Return allocations
which are legally restricted for specific purposes.
Basis of Accounting
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.
Budgets and Budgetary Accounting
The budgeted amounts presented in this report for comparison to the actual amounts are
presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
NOTE 2 - ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
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.
NOTE 3 - PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT
In accordance with Proposition C Local Return Program Guidelines, funds received
pursuant to these guidelines may only be used for Proposition C Local Return programs.
NOTE 4 - PROPOSITION C REVENUE
Proposition C revenue is the following:
1996 1995
Proposition C Local Return Fund S 469,969 $ 445,826
These notes are an integral part of the preceding financial statements.
8
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
(Continued)
NOTE 5 - REVENUE - INTEREST
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.
NOTE 6 - ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE/OTHER REVENUE
The Accounts Receivable balance of $18,000 in fiscal year 1994/95 consists of the
accumulated 10% retention of Other Revenue for fiscal years 1994/95 ($98,850) and
1993/94 ($81,150) in the amounts of $9,885 and $8,115, respectively. The Other
Revenue represents the Proposition C revenue for Grand Avenue Traffic Signal
Synchronization/Arterial Improvements project, MOU #217-246-2-93-94. The
accumulated amount of $180,000 ($98,850 plus $81,150) is adjusted and reclassified
separately as Discretionary Fund balance and not as part of PCLRF in fiscal year
1995/96.
NOTE 7 - DUE TO OTHER FUND
The Due to Other Fund in the amount of $177,120 in fiscal year 1994/95 consists of
$127.426 payable to General Fund and $49,694 payable to Proposition A Local Return
Fund (PALRF). The City initially expended out of the General Fund to cover PCLRF
expenditures. Also, the City erroneously recorded the PALRF allocation revenue under
the PCLRF.
These notes are an integral part of the preceding financial statements.
M
COMPLIANCE SECTION
H
_.Sirr� son -
�' S son
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS S
SENIOR PARTNERS
Brainard C. Simpson, CPA
Carl. r. Simpson, CPA INDEPENDENT A UDITOR'S REPORT
Frederick A. Simpson, CPA
January 9, 1997
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 80036
TELEPHONE (213) 9383324
FAX (213) 9140.0865
We have audited the balance sheet and statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes
in fund balance of Proposition C Local Return Fund of the City of Diamond Bar (City)
for the years ended June 30, 1996 and 1995, and have issued our report thereon dated
January 9, 1997. Our audits were made in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards; the rules and regulations of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (LACMTA); the Proposition C Local Return Guidelines
(revised 1995); 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:
Pavement Management System
Diamond Bar Boulevard Rehabilitation
Traffic Signal Installation
Brea Canyon Road
Grand Avenue Traffic Signal
Synchronization & Arterial
Sunset Crossing Rehabilitation
Seniors & Disabled Dial -A -Cab
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 and LACMTA is a matter of public record.
Los Angeles, California
11
(C—pw
The CPA. Never Underestimate The Value?
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
12
EXHIBIT 1
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, 1996
(With Comparative Actual Amounts for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995)
13
Variance
Project
LACMTA
(Over)
1995
Code
Project Name
Budget
Actual
Under
Actual
01-440
Diamond Bar Boulevard
Rehabilitation
$ 60,000 $
46,115 $
13,885
$ 550,000
01-185
Grand Ave. Synchronization
140,000
142,070
(2,070)
128,698
01-220
Sunset Crossing Rehab.
500,000
0
500,000
0
03-470
Pavement Management
System
39,000
0
39,000
30,348
01-440
Brea Canyon Road
450,000
0
450,000
0
01-185
Traffic Signal Installation
375,000
9,682
365,318
0
02-130
Seniors & Disabled
Dial -A -Cab
154,000
0
154,000
0
Total Expenditures
$ 1,718,000 $
197,867 $
1,520,133
$ 709,046
13
EXHIBIT 1 A
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND
SCHEDULE OF FIXED ASSETS
June 30, 1996
Date Balance Balance
Acquired Description7/1/95 Additions Deletions aa, 6/30/96
None $ 0 $ $ $ 0
Totals $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
14
EXHIBIT 2
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND
EXIT CONFERENCE
June 30, 1996
An exit conference was held on January 16, 1997, at the City of Diamond Bar. Those in
attendance were:
Simpson & Simpson Representative:
Johnny Minassian, Auditor
City's Representative:
Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant
Matters Discussed:
Results of the audit disclosed no significant financial or compliance issues.
15
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1996 AND 1995
`rn son
--
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ANTIUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pase
FINANCL4L SECTION
Independent Auditor's Report 4
Balance Sheet - Section 99234 6
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance -
Budget and Actual 7
Notes to Financial Statements
8
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Schedule of Transportation Development Act Allocation for Specific Projects 12
Schedule of Completed Projects 13
COMPLIANCE SECTION
Report on Transportation Development Act Compliance 15
Schedule of Finding(s) 16
Exit Conference 17
2
FINANCIAL SECTION
Si7son son
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
SENIOR PARTNERS
Brainard C. Simpson, CPA
Carl P. Simpson, CPA
Frederick A. Simpson, CPA
December 9, 1996
INDEPENDENT A UDITOR'S REPORT
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) 9360885
We have audited the balance sheet of the Transportation Development Act Fund of the
City of Diamond Bar (City) as of June 30, 1996 and 1995, and the related statement of
revenues, 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, 1996 and 1995, 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
4C W,
The CPA. Never Underestimate The Value-
Sim�'son �S impson
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 and LACMTA is a matter of public record.
7
Los Angeles, California
Cash (Note 3)
Total Assets
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
BALANCESHEET
Pertaining to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code
June 30
1996 1995
ASSETS
$ 26,264 $ 142,205
$ 26,264 $ 142,205
L)ABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities
Due to LACMTA (Note 7)
Total Liabilities
Fund Balance
Restricted - Local (Note 5)
Restricted - Regional (Note 5)
Total Fund Balance
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
$ 16,308 $ 0
16,308 0
9,956 44,205
0 98,000
9,956 142,205
$ 26,264 $ 142,205
The notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
6
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1996
(With Comparative Totals for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995)
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
Excess Regional Funds to be
Returned to LACMTA
(Note 7)
Fund Balance at End of Year
0
1996
(16,308)
0
$ 111,205 $
9,956 $
Variance
142,205
Favorable
(Un-
1995
Budy,et
Actual
favorable)
Actual
0 $
0 $
0 $
21,391
3,000
7,755
4,755
8,410
3,000
7,775
4,755
29,801
34,000
123,696
(89,696)
50,000
34,000
123,696
(89,696)
50,000
(31,000)
(115,941)
(84,941)
(20,199)
142,205
142,205
0
162,404
0
(16,308)
(16,308)
0
$ 111,205 $
9,956 $
(101,249) $
142,205
The notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
7
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Fund Accounting
Section 99234 Funds of the Transportation Development Act are pooled 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.
Basis 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 Budgetary Accounting
The budgeted amounts presented in this report for comparison to the actual amounts are
presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
Comparative 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 Transportation
Development Act 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 with other City's funds to maximize investment opportunities and yields.
Investment income resulting from this pooling is allocated to the respective funds
These notes are an integral part of the preceding financial statements.
E
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
(Continued)
including the Transportation Development Act Fund, based upon their average monthly
cash balances.
NOTE 4 - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT COMPLIANCE
REQUIREMENTS
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.
NOTE 5 - FUND BALANCE
Total fund balance was calculated as follows:
Beginning Fund Balance @ 7/1/95
Article 3 Local Allocation
Interest Income - Local
Total Available
Reclassification of FY 1994/95
Expenditures
Less: Construction
Excess Regional Funds to be Returned
to LACMTA (Note 7)
Ending Fund Balance @ 6/30/96
Regional
$ 98,000
0
0
98,000
(50,000)
(31,692)
Local
$ 44,205
0
7,755
51,960
50,000
(92,004)
Total
$ 142,205
0
7,755
149,960
0
(123,696)
(16,308) 0 (16,308)
$ 0 $ 9,956 $ 9,956
NOTE 6 - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS RESERVED
In accordance with TDA Article 3 (SB821) Guidelines, funds which will not be spent
during the fiscal year have been placed on reserve in the reserve Local Transportation
Fund (LTF) account with the County Auditor -Controller to be drawn down whenever the
funds become eligible for a specific project and an approved draw down request is
received by LACMTA. As of June 30, 1996, the City has funds of $20,417 on reserve
which is the fiscal year 1995/96 revenue allocation.
However, $9,956 of TDA Article 3 funds that remained on hand with the City is in
noncompliance with TDA Article 3 (SB821) Guidelines.
These notes are an integral part of the preceding financial statements.
9
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
(Continued)
NOTE 7 - DUE TO LACMTA/ EXCESS REGIONAL FUNDS TO BE RETURNED
TO LACMTA
In accordance with TDA Article 3 (S13821) Guidelines, all excess regional funds,
including accumulated interest earned on the excess funds, from completed projects must
be returned to LACMTA. As of June 30, 1996, the unexpended regional allocations in
the amount of $16,308 from the completed Sidewalk/Bikeway project were recorded as
payable to LACMTA.
These notes are an integral part of the preceding financial statements.
10
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
SCHEDULE OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT
ALLOCATION FOR SPECIFIC PROJECTS
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1996
Project Description
Regional Allocations
Sidewalk/Bikeway
Local Allocations
Sidewalk/Bikeway
Sidewalk/Bikeway
Sidewalk/Bikeway
Interest Applied
Totals
Excess Regional Funds
to be Returned to
LACMTA (Note 7)
Unexpended Interest
Accumulated to Date
Fund Balance @ 6/30/96
Totals to Date
Program
Year Allocations Expenditures
1991-92 $ 98,000 $ 81,692 $
1993-94 19,761 19,761
1994-95 21,391 21,391
1995-96 0 20,172
1995-96 20,172 0
* See Schedule of Finding(s).
$ 159,324 $ 143,016
12
Unexpended Project
Allocations Status
16,308 Closed
0
Closed
0
Closed
(20,172)
Closed
(16,308)
$ 9,956
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
SCHEDULE OF COMPLETED PROJECTS
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1996
Project Description
Reizional Allocations
Sidewalk/Bikeway (1991/92)
Interest Applied
Local Allocations
Sidewalk/Bikeway (1993/94)
Sidewalk/Bikeway (1994/95)
Sidewalk/Bikeway (1995/96)
Interest Applied (1995/96)
Totals
Allocations Expenditures
$ 98,000 $ 81,692
0 0
19,761 19,761
21,391 21,391
0 20,172
20,172 0
Totals $ 159,324 $ 143,016
13
COMPLIANCE SECTION
14
-S -b ,. o r575o WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 288
Z son LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90098
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS TELEPHONE ( 9383324
S FAX (218) 890.- 0O 885
SENIOR PARTNERS
Brainard C. Simpson, CPA
Carl P. Simpson, CPA
Frederick A Simpson, CPA
REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT COMPLIANCE
December 9, 1996
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 sheet and statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes
in fund balance of the Transportation Development Act Fund of the City of Diamond Bar
(City) for the years ended June 30, 1996 and 1995, and have issued our report thereon
dated December 9, 1996. 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 LACMTA
regulations.
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
LACMTA rules and regulations, except as explained in the Schedule of Finding(s) on the
following page.
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 and LACMTA is a matter of public record.
Los Angeles, California
15 C CPA
The CPA. Never Underestimate The Value"
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
SCHEDULE OF FINDING(S)
For the Year Ended June 30, 1996
16
Noncompliance
According to the Public Utilities Code
City Management Comments
The City of Diamond Bar was unaware that
No.
1.
(PUC), Section 99234 and LACMTA
all funds including interest earned must be
Guidelines, a jurisdiction may draw down
used during the fiscal year. The City has
only the funds estimated to be used during
budgeted to use the remaining $9,956
the fiscal year for specific bicycle and
during fiscal year 1996/97.
pedestrian projects. Remaining funds
The City will be sure to comply with the
must be placed on reserve in the reserve
TDA Article 3 Funds and interest in
TDA Article 3 account with the County
use of
Auditor -Controller and may be transferred
the future.
to the jurisdictions whenever they become
eligible and an approved draw -down
request is received at LACMTA.
As of June 30, 1996, we noted that the
City had excess funds of accumulated
interest earned in the amount of $9,956.
We recommended that the jurisdiction
comply with the PUC Section 99234
which requires the return of any
unexpended funds to LACMTA to be
placed in the reserve Local Transportation
Fund (LTF) account with the County
Auditor -Controller.
16
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND
EXIT CONFERENCE
June 30, 1996
An exit conference was held on December 17, 1996, at the City of Diamond Bar. Those
in attendance were:
Simpson & Simpson Representative:
Albert Li, Auditor
City's Representative:
Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant
Linda G. Magnuson, Accounting Manager
Matters Discussed:
Results of the audit disclosed a noncompliance issue related to the Public
Utilities Code (PUC), Section 99234 and LACMTA guidelines. The
management of the City concurred with our finding but disagreed with our
recommendation that the unexpended funds -be returned to LACMTA to be
placed on reserve. The disagreement is due to the City's intention of
expending the funds in fiscal year 1996/97.
17
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997 REPORT DATE: May 27, 1997
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Exoneration of Cash Deposit in Lieu of Grading Bond (Faithful Performance, Labor & Material) for
2194 Indian Creek Road in Diamond Bar.
SUMMARY: The Principal, Robert L. Granato requests the release of his Cash Deposit in Lieu of Grading
Bond for improvement security as required in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. The City Engineer
finds that the Principal performed all works as shown on the grading plan on file with the City.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the exoneration of Check Number
3574, in the amount of $4,140.00 posted with the City on January 3, 1996 and that the City Clerk notify the
Principal and Surety of this action.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
x Other: Final Grading Certificate
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
L41, �� y
Terrence L. Belanr Frank M. usher
City Manager Assistant City Manager
N/A —Yes —No
Majority
N/A _ Yes _ No
N/A _ Yes _ No
N/A _Yes _ No
orge A. en
City Engin
riTv muNru, REPORT
AGENDA NO. _
MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L.Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Exoneration of Cash Deposit in Lieu of Grading Bond (Faithful
Performance, Labor & Material) for 2194 Indian Creek Road in
Diamond Bar.
ISSUE STATEMENT
Consider exoneration of Cash Deposit in Lieu of Grading Bond for improvement security as required
in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the exoneration of Check Number 3574, in the
amount of $4,140.00 posted with the City on January 3, 1996 and that the City Clerk notify the
Principal and Surety of this action.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
This action has no fiscal impact on the City.
BACKGROUND
In accordance with Section 66462 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City entered into agreement with
Unitech Engineering, Inc. to complete grading and retaining wall improvements located at 2194 Indian
Creek Road, Diamond Bar. The developer guaranteed faithful performance of this agreement by
posting with the City on January 3, 1996, a cash deposit in lieu of a grading bond for Grading
Improvements. All grading has been approved on March 18, 1997 by the City's Consultant, Mr. John
Whitman of Charles Abbott Associates.
DISCUSSION
The following bond is recommended for exoneration:
Account Number: Check Number 3574, Cash Deposit in Lieu of Grading Bond
Amount: $4,140.00
Reason: All grading and retaining wall improvements have been completed and
approved by the City.
PREPARED BY:
ROSE MANELA
CITY vF DIAnnOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. k'
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997
REPORT DATE: May 22,1997
FROM: Joann M. Gitmed, Senior Accountant
nd
TITLE: Resolution Number 97-XX,A and 89-11Aesolution fthe City and Appro�ngcll of the Cove Covery of age AIIDOffi�e s and
Rescinding Resolution 89-11
Employees Under One Master Faithful Performance Bond.
rks
SUMMARY: Prior the January 1, 1997, the
ld California
bondingCode required that City requirements have been met with an
City
Treasurers be individuallynde
insurance bond covering the officials as well as other city employees.
With the passage of Assembly Bill 3472, Section 35, effective January 1, 1997, Government
Code Section 1481 bonding provisions have been extended to cities and joint powers
authorities. This section allows the use of a "master bond" to cover a group of officials or
employees
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 97 -XX, Rescinding Resolution 89-11 and 89-11A and Approving Coverage
of All Officers and Employees Under One Master Faithful Performance Bond.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: — Staff Report
XX Resolution(s)
— Ordinance(s)
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's office)
— Other:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
— Yes
— No
by the City Attorney?
Yes
2. Does the report require a majority vote?
_
Yes
—No
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
—
—No
No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
—Yes
—
Which Commission?
Yes
No
5. Are other departments affected by the report.
—
—
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
EWED BY:
Terrence L. Belanger
City Manager
Frank M, Usher _i
Assistant City Manager
Lind MGaLind agnu'sdh
Accounting Manager
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT:
Resolution Number 97 -XX, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, Rescinding
Resolution 89-11 and 89-11A and Approving Coverage of All Officers and Employees Under One Master
Faithful Performance Bond.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Consideration of bond coverage for all officials and employees under one master faithful performance
bond.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution 97 -XX, Rescinding Resolution 89-11 and 89-
11A and Approving Coverage of All Officers and Employees Under One Master Faithful Performance
Bond.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
N/A
BACKGROUND:
Prior to January 1, 1997, the California Government Code required that City Clerks and City Treasurers
be individually bonded. City Councils also had the authority to require bonds of other officers or
employees. The City of Diamond Bar met these requirements with insurance bonds covering the City
Manager/Treasurer, Accounting Manager, Mayor and City Clerk as well as a blanket performance bond
for all other employees.
DISCUSSION:
A recent legal review of Government Code Section 1481, allowing the use of a "master bond" covering
a group of officials or employees, determined its application was only for County and Special District
employees. Cities and other types of public entities were to maintain separate bonds for specified public
officials. This requires that each person complete an application for the bond, and incur additional cost.
Since counties and special districts were already allowed by Government Code to purchase a master
bond (Section 52336 allowed the use of master bonds for special districts) it seemed more economical
in both time and expense to amend the California Government Code to extend these same benefits to
cities.
2
With the passage of Assembly Bill 3472, Section 35, effective January 1, 1997, Government Code
Section 1481 bonding provisions have been extended to cities and joint powers authorities. The
legislation requires the City Council to adopt a resolution, or otherwise approve, coverage of all their
officers and employees under one master bond. Passage of the resolution will eliminate the necessity
of writing bonds on specifically named individuals for their term of office, reducing both cost and
paperwork.
PREPARED BY:
Joann M Gitmed
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION
89-11 AND 89-11A AND APPROVING COVERAGE OF ALL
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES UNDER ONE MASTER
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND
WHEREAS, prior to January 1, 1997, the California Government Code required that city
clerks and city treasurers be individually bonded, and;
WHEREAS, City Councils also had the authority to require bonds of other officers or
employees; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 1481 was amended January 1, 1997
with Assembly Bill 3472 to extend master bonding provisions to cities; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 3472 requires the City Council to adopt a resolution
approving coverage of all their officers and employees under one master bond; and
WHEREAS, approval of such resolution eliminates the necessity of writing bonds on
specifically named individuals for their term of office, reducing both cost and paperwork,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Diamond
Bar, California authorizes the coverage of all their officers and employees under one master
bond.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS day of
71997
Mayor
I, TOMMYE NICE, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1997.
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Tommye A. Nice, Deputy City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA NO. � L
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the CityPORT DATE: May 22, 1997
ncil
MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Award of Contract for Design Services for Street Improvements on Diamond Bar Boulevard
between Palomino Drive and Northerly City Limit at Temple Avenue
ino
SUMMARY: The City proposes to rehabilitate the final segment ofDiamond
c iamo dto secure Bar
Bo the servilevard ces Palom fed
Drive to Temple Avenue. To accomplish the improvements,
it is of qua
pavement testing and civil engineering firms to provide pavement analysis and design services. Staff has
received and evaluated twenty-one (21) proposals for the design services.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to enter into a
professional services agreement with Dewan, Lundin and Associates in an amount not -to -exceed $44,960
with a contingency amount of $3,000.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:_X Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
_X Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
Public Hearing Notification
—_ Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's office)
_X Other: Proposals (on file in City Clerk's office)
1� Yes . Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed —
No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote. N/Aority Yes _ No
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? — No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? N/A — Yes —
Which Commission? No
5. Are other departments affected by the report? N/A —Yes —
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
Frank M. Usher
David G. Li
Terrence L. WBe er Deputy Director of Public Works
City Manager Assistant City Manager P y
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Design Services for Street Improvements on
Diamond Bar Boulevard between Palomino Drive and Northerly City Limit
at Temple Avenue
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The City proposes to rehabilitate Diamond Bar Boulevard. Toccompli g� h ering firms t ovementprovis
necessary to secure the services of qualified pavementS and civil
pavement analysis and design services.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize
the Mayor to enter into a an amount not -to -exceed $44 960 w ith aservices
agreement with Dewan, Lundin and Associates i
contingency amount of $3,000.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The design services are being funded from Proposition C monies, $75,000 was budgeted. for FY
1996-97.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The Capital Improvement Program includes design services for street rehabilitation improvements
on
a 1.44
Diamond Bar Boulevard, between Palomino Drive and Temple Avenue (Approximately
To determine the most practical and economical approach for a restoring
the
streets
evalfull function, the
existing pavements of the above mentioned streets must
be is
anticipated that the varied condition of the existing roadway pavings will result in optional
rehabilitation treatments (i.e. overlay, asphalt rubber hot mix, etc.).
On March 10, 1997, staff initiated a Request For Proposal
ed direr 1) to retain civil engineering firms to over seventy (70) firms on the or
the design services. The RFP was advertised and ng Y
City's consultant list. A total of twenty-one (21) engineering proposals were received and evaluated
by the Selection Committee.
2
avid
The Selection Committee consisted. of five (5) staff members:
and discussion of nose twenty one (21)
, Kellee
Fritzal, Rose Manela, and Cedra Thomas. Upon rev
proposals, the Committee unanimously short-listed five (5) firms for interview and further
consideration.
On May 5, 1997 the Interview Panel consisting of Jim DeStefano, David Liu and Kellee Fritzal,
interviewed the following four (4) firms:
1. Dewan, Lundin and Associates
2. Norris-Repke, Inc.
3. CNC Engineering Co.
4. INCA Engineers Inc.
Due to personnel changes, RKA Civil Engineer Inc. verbally withdrew their proposal on Monday
May 5, 1997 prior to being interviewed.
Based upon review of the proposals, interviews, and reference checks,
the Committee unanimously
believes that DL&A represents the best qualified firm. The Committeeassigned to the job, and
discussed:erience of the
demonstrated track record, adequate number of qualified
project managers/engineers, ability to work withonscheduleability f knowledge bilolocal street conditions,
to stay within budget, and
involvement with related projects, ability to keep
demonstrated interest. For the interviews, the Committee also placed emphases on pavement analysis,
traffic control, aerial survey, design cross sections, and quality assurance.
The respective fees for the project are as follows:
EIBM p20P0-WD_FEE
DL&A
$44,960
TDH i iNE
13 weeks
Norris-Repke
$47,471
18 weeks
CNC
$55,670
17 weeks
INCA
$49,988
13 weeks
RKA
$59,820
15 weeks
For the respective project DL&A presented the emebestn s. Designet s the
o be completed within
thorough understanding of the City's key requireme
thirteen weeks from the date of Notice to Proceed.
David G. Liu
Kellee A. Fritzal
3
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of juAL3,1997 by and between the City of Diamond Bar, a
municipal corporation ("City")
and Dewan L: Rdi-q 4 Associates , ("Consultant").
RECITALS
A. City desires to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor to provide
consulting services to City as set forth in Exhibit "A", the City's Request for Proposals dated March 10_•
1997.
B. Consultant represents that it is fully qualified to perform such consulting services by virtue of
its experience and the training, education and expertise of its principals and employees.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the covenants and conditions
herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Consultant's Services.
A. Scope of Services. The nature and scope of the specific services
es to be perflormed
by Consultant are as described in Exhibit "B" the Consultants Response, dated April�
City's Request for Proposals.
B. Level of Services/Time of Performance. The level of and time of the specific
services to be performed by Consultant are as set forth in Exhibit "B."
2. Term of Agreement. This Contract shall take effect June 16. 1997, and shall continue
until So St Mbgr zn_ 1997 unless earlier terminated pursuant to the provisions herein.
3. Compensation. City agrees to compensate Consultant for each service which
Consultant performs to the satisfaction of City in compliance with the schedule set forth in Exhibt I "B.11
Payment will be made only after submission of proper invoices in the form specified by City.
To
payment to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed forth four thousand nine hundred
an ixty dollars ($_419-0.
4. General Terms and Conditions. In the event of any inconsistency between the
provisions of this Agreement and Consultant's proposal, the provisions of this Agreement shall control.
5. Addresses. Consultant:
City: City Manager
CSurender Dewan, P.E.
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive Dewan, Lundin &Associates
12377 Lewis Street, Suite 101
Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765 Garden Grove, CA 92840
6. Status as Independent Consultant.
A. Consultant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent
igation, or
contractor. Consultant shall have no power
to incur any Neither City nor,anyl of its agentsashall,have control over the
on behalf of City or
otherwise act on behalf of City as an age
conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, except as set forth in this Agreement.
Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its agents or employees are
in any manner agents or employees of City.
B. Consultant agrees to pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Consultant un
this Agreement, and to indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties,
and interest asserted against City by reasoObthan n Fedenal or Stat agency regarding the independent contractor relationship created by dent
Agreement. In the event that City is auditedy Y of a
contractor status of Consultant and theaudit
City and Consultantin any way fails to , then Consulstain the tant agrees to reimburse
independent contractor relationship appeals
City for all costs, including accounting and attorney's fees, arising out of such audit and any app
relating thereto.
C. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers' compensation law regarding
Consultant and Consultant's employees. Consultant h alicable worker's compensation lawsolC ty shall avety s
from any failure of Consultant to comply pp
the right to offset against the amount of any pant s failureue to to promptly payt under tto City any reimbursement ore.
to City from Consultant as a result of Consu
indemnification arising under this Section 6.
7. Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all work at the standard of care
and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession under similar conditions.
8, Indemnification. Consultant agrees to indemnify the City, its officers, agents,
volunteers, employees, and attorneys against, and ill hold and save thm d each property, penaltiese obligations,00rtl abil t em haes that
less
from, and all actions, claims, damages topersons orp political subdivision or other
may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm, entity, corporation, p
organization arising out of the acts, errors or omissions of Consultant, its agents, employees,
subcontractors, or invitees, including each person or entity responsible for the provision of services
hereunder.
In the event there is more than one person or entity named in the Agreement as a Consultant, then all
obligations, liabilities, covenants and conditions under this Section 8 shall be joint and several.
9, Insurance. Consultant shall at all times during the term of this Agreement carry,
maintain, and keep in full force and effect, with an insurance company admitted to do business in
California and approved by the City (1) a policy or policies of broad -form comprehensive general
liability insurance with minimum limits of $1,000,000.00 combined single limit coverage against any
injury, death, loss or damage as a result of wrongful or negligent acts by Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents, and independent contractors in performance of servicesunder
his Agrilityeement;
(2)
property damage insurance with a minimum limit of $500,000.00; (3) automotive
mtivliability insurance
with minimum combined single limits coverage of $500,000.00; (4) professional
(errors and omissions) to cover or partially cover damages that may be the result of errors, omissions, or
negligent acts of Consultant, in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence; and (5) worker's
he amount required by law,
compensation insurance with a minims limit
of
and vol0unteers.00 or tshall be named as additionainsureds whichever
is greater. 500
City, its officers, employees,attorneys,
on the policy(ies) as to comprehensive general liability, property damage, and automotive liability. The
policy (ies) as to comprehensive general liability, property damage, and automobile liability shall
provide that they are primary, and that any insurance maintained by the City shall be excess insurance
only.
A. All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be non -
se modified (except through the addition of additional insureds to
renewed, canceled, reduced, or otherwi
the policy) by the insurance carrier without the insurance carrier giving City thirty (30) day's prior
written notice thereof. Consultant agrees that it will not cancel, reduce or otherwise modify the
insurance coverage.
B. All policies of insurance shall cover the obligations of Consultant pursuant to the terms
of this Agreement; shall be issued by an insurance mpany which is admitted to City; and shall be p aced with a current A.M. usiness in Best'se
of California or which is approved m writing Y
rating of no less that A VII.
C. Consultant shall submit to City (1) insurance certificates indicating compliance with the
minimum worker's compensation insurance requirements above, and (2) insurance policy endorsements
indicating compliance with all other minimum insurance requirements above, not less that one (1) day
prior to beginning of performance under this Agreement. Endorsements shall be executed on City's
appropriate standard forms entitled "Additional Insured Endorsement", or a substantially similar form
which the City has agreed in writing to accept.
10. Confidentiality. Consultant in the course of its duties may have access to confidential
data of City, private individuals, or employees of the City. Consultant covenants that all data,
documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for
performance of this Agreement are deemed
c snchntial and authorization t dinot sclosureois required by law. by Consultant without
written authorization by City. City shall grantcovenant under
City data shall be returned to City upon thethis Aation of h1s Agreement. Notwrthstandi Bothe foretgoforegoing, t the extent
this section shall survive the termination of Agreement.
Consultant prepares reports of a proprietary nature specifically for and in connection with certain
projects, the City shall not, except with Consultant's prior written consent, use the same for other
unrelated projects.
11. Ownership of Materials. All materials provided by Consultant in the performance of
this Agreement shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon its use or
dissemination by City.
12. Conflict of Interest.
A. Consultant covenants that it presently. has no interest and shall not acquire any
interest, director or indirect, which may be affected by the services be performed
e or s by Cos ltaneund der
this Agreement, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance
r.
Consultant further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest
shall be employed by it. Furthermore, `v'CIO��e l�talavoid of its servappearance
ces pursuant to this Agreement.
which would conflict m any mann performance
B. Consultant covenants not to give or receive any compensation, monetary or
otherwise, to or from the ultimate vendor(s) of hardware or software to City as a result of the
performance of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under this section shall survive the termination of
this Agreement.
13. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause upon
fifteen (15) days' written notice to the other parry. However, Consultant shall not terminate this
Agreement during the provision of services on a particular project. The effective date of termination
shall be upon the date specified in the notice of termination, or, in the event no date is specified, upon the
fifteenth (I 5th) day following delivery of the notice. In the event of such termination, City agrees to pay
Consultant for services satisfactorily rendered prior to the effective date of termination. Immediately
upon receiving written notice of termination, Consultant shall discontinue performing services.
14. Personnel. Consultant represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all
personnel required to perform the services under this Agreement. All of the services required under this
Agreement will be performed by Consultant or under it supervision, and all personnel engaged in the
work shall be qualified to perform such services. Consultant reserves the right to determine the
assignment of its own employees
ood cause, to reqrmance of Consulnts services under this Agreement, uire Consultant toext
clude any employee from performing
City reserves the right, for g q
services on City's premises.
15. Non -Discrimination and Equal Employment opportunity.
A. Consultant shall not discriminate as to race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital
status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual
orientation, in the performance of its services and duties pursuant to this Agreement, and will comply
with all rules and regulations of City relating thereto. Such nondiscrimination shall include but not be
limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfers, recruitment or recruitment
advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training,
including apprenticeship.
B. Consultant will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or
on behalf of Consultant state either that it is an equal opportunity employer or that all qualified
applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sex,
marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual
orientation.
C. Consultant will cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all subcontracts
for any work covered by this Agreement except contracts or subcontracts for standard commercial
supplies or raw materials.
16. Assignment. Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor
the performance of any of Consultant's obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of City,
and any attempt by Consultant to so assign this Agreement or any rights, duties, or obligations arising
hereunder shall be void and of no effect.
17. Performance Evaluation. For any contract in effect for twelve months or longer, a
written annual administrative performance evaluation shall be required within ninety (90) days of the
first anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, and each year thereafter throughout the term of
this Agreement. The work product required by this Agreement shall be utilized as the basis for review,
and any comments or complaints received by City during the review period, either orally or in writing,
shall be considered. City shall meet with Consultant prior to preparing the written report. If any
noncompliance with the Agreement is found, City may direct Consultant to correct the inadequacies, or,
in the alternative, may terminate this Agreement as provided herein.
18. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances,
codes and regulations of the federal, state, and local governments.
19. Non -Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one or
more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other condition
of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the making by City of any payment to
Consultant constitute or be construed as a waiver by City of any breach of covenant, or any default which
may then exist on the part of Consultant, and the making of any such payment by City shall in no way
impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City with regard to such breach or default.
20. Attorney's Fees. In the event that either party to this Agreement shall commence any
Y to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the
legal or equitable action or proceeding
prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including costs of expert witnesses and consultants.
21. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by this Agreement shall be
deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand during regular business hours or by
facsimile before or during regular business hours; or (b) on the third business day following deposit in
the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses heretofore set forth in the Agreement, or to such
other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the provisions of
this section.
22. Governing Law. This Contract shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
er of
23. Counterparts. This Agreement
and all of which togetherin any shall constbtute one and the same h of
which shall be deemed to be the original,
instrument.
24. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and any other documents incorporated herein by
specific reference, represent the entire and integrated agreement between Consultant and City. This
Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements. This
Agreement may not be amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a writing signed
by the parties which expressly refers to this Agreement. Amendments on behalf of the City will only be
valid if signed by the City Manager or the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk.
25. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are incorporated herein by this
reference.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
"City"
ATTEST: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
By: By
City Clerk Mayor
Approved as to form:
By:
City Attorney
..0 NYI
Dewapn, Lundin & Associates
By: L1U" tA-4 r �t✓iM
Its:--
&ITV GF C>fAMbNC> BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997 REPORT DATE: May 28,1997
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR PANTERA PARK
SUMMARY: The City Council approved the release of plans and specifications for the construction of
Pantera Park on April 1, 1997. Six bids were received and opened on May 8, 1997. The bid package included
a base bid and three alternative bid items. The base bids ranged from $2,079,288 to $2,401,728. The bid
alternative items included: (1) 1,045 sq. ft. activity room for use by the community for small events and
contract classes; (2) vertical backstop in place of the "shell" backstop, which are better backstops with the
ability for more sports organizations to utilize the fields; and (3) hydroseed in lieu of hydrostolonization, which
is more appropriate for the planting season proposed. It will be cost effective to build the activity room and
vertical backstops during the initial building of the park and not to retrofit the park at a later date. The base bids
with the three alternative bid items ranged from $2,251,208 to $2,530,433. With the proposed FY 1997-98
budget, adequate funds are available to facilitate the base bid with all three alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council award a construction contract to Valley Crest Landscape, Inc.
in the amount not -to -exceed $2,251,208 and provide a contingency amount of $168,840 (7.5%) for project
change orders to be approved by the City Manager, for a total authorization amount of $2,420,048.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s) X Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's
office)
Ordinance(s) _ Other:
X Agreement(s)
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been
reviewed by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority vote?
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
REVIEWED BY:
a I GV
Terrence L. Belan
City Manager
X Yes _ No
X Yes
—No
X Yes
_ No
NIA _ Yes
_ No
NIA _ Yes
_ No
Assistant City Manager Deputy Director of Public Works
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997 Agenda No.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR PANTERA PARK
ISSUE STATEMENT
To award a contractfor the construction of Pantera Park to also include the bid alternatives of an activity room,
vertical backstops and hydroseed.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council award a construction contract to Valley Crest Landscape, Inc. in the amount not -to -
exceed $2,251,208 and provide a contingency amount of $168,840 (7.5%) for project change orders to be
approved by the City Manager, for a total authorization amount of $2,420,048.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Funding for the development of Pantera Park consist of the following for a total of $2,421,000:
Safe Parks Grant 92
$1,780,000
Safe Parks Grant 96
$
276,000
Quimby Fees
$
130,000
Developer Fees
$
35,000
Prop A Transit Sale
$
200,000
BACKGROUND DISCUSSION
On April 1, 1997 the City Council released plans and specifications for the construction of Pantera Park. The
design of the park was developed through a series of community/neighborhood meetings. The plans include
the development of 2 ballfiekis with 2 full soccer overlay fields; 3 lighted basketball courts with a roller hockey
rink overlay; 2 lighted tennis courts; restroom/concession building; tot lot; and picnic facilities. Included in the
plans and specifications were three bid alternative items. The bid alternative items consisted of the following:
(1) Activity Room - 1,045 sq. ft for use by the community for small events and contract classes;
(2) Vertical backstop in place of the "shell" backstop. The vertical backstops are better backstops with
the ability for more sports organizations to utilize the fields; and
(3) Hydroseed in lieu of hydrostolonization, which is more appropriate for the planting season proposed.
Six Bids were received on May 8,1997. Based upon the base bids and alternatives ,it is desired that the park
be built in one phase.
The bids received were as follows
Company
Base Bid Amount
Base w/alternatives
1. Valley Crest, Inc.
$2,096,003
$2,251,208
2. Terra -Cal Construction
$2,079,288
$2,265,288
3. Allied Sprinkler Company
$2,168,243
$2,320,243
4. Ecology Construction
$2,224,317
$2,444,947
5. Hondo Construction
$2,347,732
$2,530,433
6. Emma Corporation
$2,4011,728
Did not bid on alternatives
The bid of $2,251,208 by Valley
Crest Landscape, Inc. has
been determined by Staff to be the lowest
responsible bid. Valley Crest references have been contacted
and staff has received favorable responses.
Report Prepared by:
Kellee A. Fritzal
Assistant to the City Manager
Attachment
AGREEMENT
The following agreement is made and entered into, in duplicate, as of the date executed by
the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk, by and between Valley Crest Landscaping, Inc.
hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR" and the City of Diamond Bar, California,
hereinafter referred to as "CITY."
WHEREAS, pursuant to Notice Inviting Sealed Bids or Proposals, bids were received,
publicly opened, and declared on the date specified in the notice; and
WHEREAS, City did accept the bid of CONTRACTOR Valley Crest Landscaping,
Inc. and;
WHEREAS, City has authorized the Mayor to execute a written contract with
CONTRACTOR for furnishing labor, equipment and material for the Pantera Park Project in
the City of Diamond Bar.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, it is
agreed:
1. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK: CONTRACTOR shall furnish all necessary
labor, tools, materials, appliances, and equipment for and do the work for the construction of
Pantera Park in the City of Diamond Bar. The work to be performed in accordance with the
plans and specifications, dated April 1, 1997 (The Plans and Specifications) 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 Plans and Specifications are incorporated herein by reference and
made a part hereof with like force and effect as if set forth in full herein. The Plans and
Specifications, CONTRACTOR'S Proposal dated May 7, 1997, 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.
TERMS OF CONTRACT
The CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work within 150 working days from
the date of the notice to proceed.
The CONTRACTOR agrees further to the assessment of liquidated damages in the
amount of five hundred ($500.00) dollars for each calendar day the work remains incomplete
beyond the expiration of the completion date, City may deduct the amount thereof from any
monies due or that may become due the CONTRACTOR under this agreement. 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. Workers' Compensation Insurance: Before beginning work, the
CONTRACTOR shall furnish to the City a certificate of insurance as proof
that he has taken out full workers' compensation insurance for all persons
whom he may employ directly or through subcontractors in carrying out
the work specified herein, in accordance with the laws of the State of
California. Such insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect
during the period covered by this contract.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor
Code, every CONTRACTOR shall secure the payment of compensation to
his employees. The CONTRACTOR, prior to commencing work, shall
sign and file with the City a certification as follows:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which
requires every employer to be insured against liability for 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 admitted 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; and the Los Angeles County
Regional Park and Open Space District.
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 the policy;
4) Contain a clause substantially in the following words:
"It is hereby understood and agreed that this policy may not be
canceled nor the amount of the coverage thereof reduced until
thirty (30) days after receipt by City of a written notice of such
cancellation or reduction of coverage as evidenced by receipt of a
registered letter."
5) Otherwise be in form satisfactory to 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.
The CONTRACTOR shall, within ten (10) days from the date of the notice
of award of the Contract, deliver to the City Manager or his designee the
original policies of insurance required in paragraphs a. and b. hereof, or
deliver to the City Manager or his designee a certificate of the insurance
company, showing the issuance of such insurance, and the additional
insured 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 prevailing rate
of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under this Agreement, by him or by any
subcontractor under him.
6. APPRENTICESHIP EMPLOYMENT: In accordance with the provisions of
Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code, and in accordance with the regulations of the California
Apprenticeship Council, properly indentured apprentices may be employed in the performance of
the work.
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 CONTRACTOR'S on the public works
site are making such contributions.
The CONTRACTOR and subcontractor under him shall comply with the
requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices.
Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules and other
requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex -officio the
Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of
Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices.
7. LEGAL HOURS OF WORK: Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal
day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract, and the CONTRACTOR
and any 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 the laborer, workman or mechanic is required or permitted to
labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of the 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 ("Idemnitees") shall not be answerable or accountable in any manner for
any loss or damage that may happen to the work or any part thereof, or for any of the materials or
other things used or employed in performing the work; or for injury or damage to any person or
persons, either workmen or employees of the CONTRACTOR, of his subcontractor's 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.
The CONTRACTOR will indemnify Indemnitees against and will hold and save
Indemnitees harmless from any and all actions, claims, damages to persons or property, penalties,
obligations or liabilities that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm, entity, corporation,
political subdivision, or other organization arising out of or in connection with the work,
operation, or activities of the CONTRACTOR, his agents, employees, subcontractors or invitees
provided for herein, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part of
City. In connection therewith.-
a.
herewith:
a. The CONTRACTOR will defend any action or actions filed in connection
with any such 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 Indemnitees 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 Indemnitees harmless
therefrom.
C. In the event Indemnitees are 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
hereunder, the CONTRACTOR agrees to pay to Indemnitees and any all
costs and expenses incurred by Indemnitees 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.
This indemnity provision shall survive the termination of the Agreement and is in
addition to any other rights or remedies which Indemnitees may have under the law.
This indemnity is effective without reference to the existence or applicability of any
insurance coverages which may have been required under this Agreement or any additional
insured endorsements which may extend to Indemnitees.
CONTRACTOR, on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it,
hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Indemnitees, while acting
within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising our of or incident to
activities or operations performed by or on behalf of the Indemnitor regardless of any prior,
concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Indemnitees.
10. NON-DISCRIMINATION: Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1735, no
discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons in the work contemplated by this
Agreement because of the race, color or religion of such person. A violation of this section
exposes the CONTRACTOR to the penalties provided for in Labor Code Section 1735.
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 May 7, 1997.
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 this 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, without cause,
upon the giving of a written "Notice of Termination" to CONTRACTOR at least thirty (30) days
prior to the date of termination specified in the 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, tha parties bm to have ammomd this ASree mot with mU the
tbrm Win requkW by law on the tdata met forth opposite their 4pmtm s.
Stats of Califfornia
"CONTRACTOR'S" Imes No. 13397_
!k 29 1997
Ate
1)"
Valley Crest Landscape, Inc.
12087-10 N. Lopez Cyn. Rd.
San FaTodo, Califomia 91
By:
Branch Manager
TILE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
BY _
MAYOR
By:
ATTEST:
rrry CT. Bu
CONTRACTOR'S Bwmess Phone (818) 834-iOW
Emerl wy Phmc at W*b
CONTRACTOR can bemadW at any time (816) 756-0111
APPROVED AS TO FORM,
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.(--/
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997 REPORT DATE: May 15, 1997
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF CONTRACT WITH DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT
FOR DIAMOND RIDE SERVICES
SUMMARY: In March 1995, the City Council entered into a sixteen month contract with Diversified
Paratransit, Inc. The contract allowed for four (4) one-year extensions by mutual
agreement. The City has previously extended the contract with Diversified Paratransit for
one year. Three eligible one-year extensions remain. Diversified Paratransit has requested
a second one-year extension to the contract. Diversified Paratransit has agreed to maintain
the fare schedule as established in March 1995. The service level provided by Diversified
has met all City requirements and has been above satisfactory based upon a recent audit of
the system.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council extend the contract with Diversified Paratransit,
Inc. for a one year period. The contract amount is $240,000
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: Diversified Paratransit Inc.
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes —No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A _ Yes _ No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
TJrence L. Belan er Frank . Usher Kellee A. Fritzal
City Manager Assistant City Manager Assistant to the City Manager
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997 Agenda No.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manger
SUBJECT: ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF CONTRACT WITH DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT
FOR DIAMOND RIDE SERVICES
ISSUE STATEMENT
Should the City Council extend the contract with Diversified Paratransit for Dial -A -Cab services for one year?
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council extend the contract with Diversified Paratransit, Inc. for a one year period.
The contract amount is $240,000.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
The Dial -A -Cab program is funded through Proposition A Transit funds. Adequate funds are budgeted for the
program.
BACKGROUND DISCUSSION
An audit of the Dial A Cab program conducted by Diversified Paratransit, Inc. which consisted of telephone
interviews with participants, and a review of the dispatch logs to evaluate call "wait" times was recently completed.
The audit demonstrates that 83% of the taxis arrive earlier than 30 minutes or at 30 minutes from the call. In
addition, of the 36 people contacted 23 of the participants use the Dial -A -Cab program daily or weekly. The
dispatch logs demonstrate a 98% on time ratio (within the required thirty minute time period). The Dial -A -Cab
program is running with 25% shared rides. The City has distributed 480 Identification Cards. It is estimated that
90% of the riders have the identification cards.
Currently, Diversified Paratransit provides for four (4) dedicated drivers in Diamond Bar Monday through Friday.
These four drivers account for 90% of the calls. When an issue of customer service arises, Diversified Paratransit
has responded and resolved the issue in a timely fashion.
Report Prepared by:
Kellee A. Fritzal
Anne Haraksin
AMENDMENT NO.2 TO THE AGREEMENT FOR
DIAL -A -CAB SERVICES
This Amendment No. 2 to the City's Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of
, 1997, between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter
referred to as "CITY") and DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, INC. (hereinafter referred to as
"CONTRACTOR").
A. Recitals:
(i) The CITY has heretofore entered into an agreement, with Diversified Paratransit, Inc.
to provide Dial -A -Cab services to the eligible elderly and persons with disabilities who reside in
Diamond Bar, dated March 21, 1995 ("SAID AGREEMENT" hereinafter).
(ii) CONSULTANT has submitted a proposal ("PROJECT" hereinafter), a full, true and
correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" to extend said services for a period of one
(1) year.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and CONTRACTOR:
Section 17 of the original agreement is hereby amended as follows:
"17. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence March 21, 1995 and shall
be extended through June 30, 1998. The CITY shall have the option to extend this Agreement up
to two (2) additional one (1) year periods, subject to negotiations regarding the terms and conditions
contained herein. CITY shall give written notice of exercise of the intent to renew at least thirty (30)
days prior to the expiration of the term of this Agreement, or of any subsequent one (1) year
extensions."
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.
1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Supplemental
Agreement as of the day and year first set forth above:
ATTEST:
2
CONTRACTOR:
DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, INC
Brian Hunt
President
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Mayor
DATE:
City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
0
3
DIAL -A -CAB AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT "C"
FARES, HOURS, AND GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES OF SERVICE
FARES:
Fares shall be:
Within City limits and Industry Metrolink Station - $0.50 per trip
Outside City limits, within boundaries or medical facilities - $1.50 per trip
HOURS:
The hours shall be 24 hours per day, seven (7) days per week
GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES:
The boundaries shall be Arrow Highway to the north; Imperial Highway/Carbon Canyon Road to the
south; Central Avenue to the east; Hacienda Boulevard/Amar/Sunset to the west.
Designated Facility for $1.50: Ontario International Airport
Mission Hills Shopping Center at Mission/Temple, Pomona
In addition the following Medical Facilities and/or Doctor's Offices:
Brea Community Hospital - 380 West Central Avenue, Brea
Casa Colima - 2850 N. Garey (255 E. Bonita), Pomona
Chino Community Hospital - 5451 Walnut Ave., Chino
Christian Heritage Home - 275 Garnet St., Upland
City of Hope - 1500 E. Duarte Rd., Duarte
Covina Valley Medical Building - 855 Lark Ellen, West Covina
Dialysis Center - 1547 W. Garvey Ave., West Covina
El Encante Convalescent Hospital - 555 EI Encante, Industry
Foothill Presbyterian - 250 S. Grand Ave., Glendora
Friendly Hills Medical Group - 6301 Beach Boulevard, Buena Park
Friendly Hills Medical Group - 1251 East Lambert Rd., La Habra
Glendora Community Hospital - 135 West Acosta, Glendora
Glendora Rehabilitation Center - 435 Gladstone, Glendora
Kaiser Permanente - 1011 Baldwin Park Boulevard, Baldwin Park
Kaiser Permanente - 9961 Sierra Ave., Fontana
Kaiser Permanente - 441 N. Lakeview Ave., Anaheim
Kaiser Permanente - 1188 N. Euclid, Anaheim
Lanterman Development Center - 3530 Pomona Blvd., Pomona
Medical Building - 927 Haven Ave., Rancho Cucamonga
Medical Offices - 412 W. Carroll Ave., Glendora
Medical Offices - 12454 E. Washington Blvd., Whittier
NeroSurgery Medical Offices - 405 E. Acosta Ave., Glendora
Nova Care - 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Ontario
Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center - 1798 N. Garey Ave., Pomona
Queen of the Valley Hospital - 1115 S. Sunset Ave., West Covina
San Antonio Hospital - 999 San Bernardino Rd., Upland
St. Jude's Medical Center - 101 E. Valencia Mesa Dr., Fullerton
St. Jude Heritage Foundation - 433 W. Bastanchury Rd., Fullerton
U.S. Family Care Hospital - 5000 San Bernardino St., Montclair
DIAL -A -CAB AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT "C"
FARES, HOURS, AND GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES OF SERVICE
FARES:
Fares shall be:
Within City limits and Industry Metrolink Station - $0.50 per trip
Outside City limits, within boundaries or medical facilities - $1.50 per trip
HOURS:
The hours shall be 24 hours per day, seven (7) days per week
GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES:
The boundaries shall be Arrow Highway to the north; Imperial Highway/Carbon Canyon Road to the
south; Central Avenue to the east; Hacienda Boulevard/Amar/Sunset to the west.
Designated Facility for $1.50: Ontario International Airport
Mission Hills Shopping Center at Mission/Temple, Pomona
In addition the following Medical Facilities and/or Doctor's Offices:
Brea Community Hospital - 380 West Central Avenue, Brea
Casa Colima - 2850 N. Garey (255 E. Bonita), Pomona
Chino Community Hospital - 5451 Walnut Ave., Chino
Christian Heritage Home - 275 Garnet St., Upland
City of Hope - 1500 E. Duarte Rd., Duarte
Covina Valley Medical Building - 855 Lark Ellen, West Covina
Dialysis Center - 1547 W. Garvey Ave., West Covina
El Encante Convalescent Hospital - 555 El Encante, Industry
Foothill Presbyterian - 250 S. Grand Ave., Glendora
Friendly Hills Medical Group - 6301 Beach Boulevard, Buena Park
Friendly Hills Medical Group - 1251 East Lambert Rd., La Habra
Glendora Community Hospital - 135 West Acosta, Glendora
Glendora Rehabilitation Center - 435 Gladstone, Glendora
Kaiser Permanente - 1011 Baldwin Park Boulevard, Baldwin Park
Kaiser Permanente - 9961 Sierra Ave., Fontana
Kaiser Permanente - 441 N. Lakeview Ave., Anaheim
Kaiser Permanente - 1188 N. Euclid, Anaheim
Lanterman Development Center - 3530 Pomona Blvd., Pomona
Medical Building - 927 Haven Ave., Rancho Cucamonga
Medical Offices - 412 W. Carroll Ave., Glendora
Medical Offices - 12454 E. Washington Blvd., Whittier
NeroSurgery Medical Offices - 405 E. Acosta Ave., Glendora
Nova Care - 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Ontario
Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center - 1798 N. Garey Ave., Pomona
Queen of the Valley Hospital - 1115 S. Sunset Ave., West Covina
San Antonio Hospital - 999 San Bernardino Rd., Upland
St. Jude's Medical Center - 101 E. Valencia Mesa Dr.; Fullerton
St. Jude Heritage Foundation - 433 W. Bastanchury Rd., Fullerton
U.S. Family Care Hospital - 5000 San Bernardino $t., Montclair
0 -'on 6 n,f-_'JA
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Co � 0 I `l 7
AGENDA REPORT I/.
f
AGENDA NO. '
Honorable Mayor and City Council
MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997 REPORT DATE: May 28, 1997
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Call for review of the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a proposed
wireless telecommunications facilty located at 24401 Darrin Drive, (CUP 96-10 and
DR 96-9)
SUMMARY: On May 6, 1997 the City Council voted to call for review the decision of the
Planning Commission approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 96-10 and
Development Review (DR) 96-9 for the installation of a wireless telecommunications
facility at 24401 Darrin Drive. The issue before the City Council is whether or not
to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review the decision of the Planning
Commission and direct staff as appropriate.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification
_ Ordinance(s) X Other: (see staff report attachments)
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: Applicants
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed N/A
_ Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority vote?
X Yes _ No
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
X Yes _ No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
X Yes _ No
Which Commission? PLANNING COMMISSION
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
_Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
Terrence L. Beger
City Manager 16
Frank M. Usher JatM§ DeStefano
Assistant City Manager Community Developm nt Director
10
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERRENCE L. BELANGER, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CALL FOR REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO APPROVE A PROPOSED WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 24401 DARRIN
DRIVE (CUP 96-10 AND DR 96-9)
DATE: JUNE 3, 1997
SUMMARY:
On May 6, 1997 the City Council voted to call for review the
decision of the Planning Commission approving CUP 96-10 and DR
96-9 for the installation of a wireless telecommunications facility at
24401 Darrin Drive. The issue before the City Council is whether or
not to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission conducted public hearings for the proposal
on January 28, 1997, February 25, 1997, March 25, 1997 and April
22, 1997. On April 22, 1997 the Planning Commission completed its
public hearing approving CUP 96-10 and DR 96-9 by a 4 to 1 vote
and adopting Resolution No. 97-6.
The Planning
Commission approval permits
the construction of a
wireless telecommunications facility on a site
adjacent
to and below
Armitos Place.
As proposed, the facility will
consist
of equipment
cabinets and antennas,
all located below the
street, not visible from
Armitos Place,
designed with landscaping and
screening
to blend into
the hillside site
as viewed from above and the
Pomona
Freeway.
On May 6, 1997 the City Council voted to call for review the
decision of the Planning Commission approving CUP 96-10 and DR
96-9. Councilman Harmony requested that the Planning Commission
decision be called up for review as outlined within Section 22.60.200
of the Planning and Zoning Code.
Memorandum to the City Council
June 3, 1997
Page 2
Pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Code Sec. 22.60.40, notification
of the City Council hearing was made in the San Gabriel Valley
Tribune on May 13, 1997 and in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on
May 14, 1997. Approximately 275 property owners within a 500'
radius of the exterior boundaries of Tract 42584 were notified of the
public hearing by mail on May 14, 1997.
At the request of the City Council the applicant has constructed a 3
dimensional mock-up of the proposed telecommunications facility on
the subject site, which can be viewed by the Council and members
of the public.
Pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Code 22.60.250 upon initiating a
call for review, the City Council may affirm the action of the
Planning Commission, refer the matter back to the Commission for
further review, or take any action that in the opinion of the Council,
is indicated by the evidence. The City Council's decision may
address all aspects of the project, including the addition or deletion of
any conditions. Once a decision is made, the Council shall direct
staff to develop a resolution with the appropriate findings to be
brought back to the next meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council review the decision of the
Planning Commission and direct staff as appropriate.
Attachments:
Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 22, 1997
Planning Commission Resolution No. 97-6
Approved Development Plans
Minutes of the City Council Meeting of May 6, 1997
Minutes of Planning Commission Meetings of January 28,. 1997,
February 25, 1997, March 25, 1997 and April 22, 1997.
Letter dated. April 29, 1997 from Councilman Harmony
Petitions from Residents dated 2/25/97 and 4/15/97
First Amendment to the CC&R's for Tract 42584
2
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
REPORT DATE:
MEETING DATE:
CASE/FILE NUMBER:
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
APPLICANTS:
PROPERTY OWNERS:
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
6.1
April 16, 1997
April 22, 1997
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10
Development Review No. 96-9
A request for the co -location of
telecommunications facility by two
service providers on a residential
property and a request for an
amendment to Tract Map 42584,
removing a restriction from said
map prohibiting vehicular ingress
and egress to Armitos Place.
24401 Darrin Drive
Cox California PCS, Inc.
2381 Morse Avenue
Irvine, CA 92714
Pacific Bell Mobile Services
5959 W. Century Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Eric and Robin Stone
24401 Darrin Drive
Diamond Bar CA 91765
1
SIIMMARY-
The applicant is proposing the construction of an unmanned wireless
telecommunications facility by two service providers. This use is
conditionally permitted within the Single Family Residential (R-1) zone.
The proposed antennas and equipment cabinets will be located on the
sloped area of the subject property, below street level, facing away
from the residences. The facility will not be visible from the
surrounding residential neighborhood and will be screened from the
view of freeway travelers. The project will not generate significant
additional traffic, create noise or light, or impair views. The facility
is required to comply with federal regulations regarding radio
frequency emissions. Staff therefore recommends approval of the
proposed telecommunications facility.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
The property owners, Eric and Robin Stone, and the applicants, Cox
California PCS, and Pacific Bell Mobile Services (PBMS) are requesting
approval of Conditional Use Permit #96-10 and Development Review
#96-9 This request involves the placement of three antennas and
equipment cabinets to be placed on the sloped portion of a
residentially zoned parcel. This project also includes a request for an
amendment to Tract Map 42584, removing a restriction from said
map prohibiting vehicular ingress and egress to Armitos Place.
This project was originally scheduled for the January 28, 1997
Planning Commission meeting. Notification was sent to all property
owners within a 500' radius of the subject site pursuant to the
Planning and Zoning Code notification requirements for conditional use
permits. Because the project included a request to remove a
restriction from a tract map, the City Attorney advised staff, that in
addition to the customary notice, notice to all property owners within
he boundaries of the tract map and within a 500' radius of the
exterior boundary of the tract would be required.
Based on this determination, the project was renoticed and scheduled
for the February 25, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. At that
time the applicant was proposing the telecommunications facility on a
barn to be located on the site's flat pad area fronting on Armitos
Place.
2
Staff
had specific concerns regarding the size
and aesthetics of the
barn.
It was determined that the
barn would
be incompatible with
the architecture of the homes in the
surrounding
neighborhood. There
were
also concerns that the barn
may have
partially blocked the
views
of the residents on the other
side of Armitos
Place.
As a result, the applicant requested continuance of this project to
allow time to prepare and submit an alternative design addressing
these concerns. The Planning Commission granted a continuance to
the meeting of March 25, 1997. At this meeting the applicant
requested additional time to finalize the project design and prepare
plans. The Planning Commission granted an additional continuance to
the meeting of April 22, 1997.
The site's General Plan designation is Low Density Residential (RL)
and it is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-10,000). The proposed
use is conditionally permitted within this zone pursuant to the
Planning and Zoning Code Section 22.20.100. The land uses
surrounding the subject site include the Pomona Freeway (SR 60) to
the north, and single family residential development to the south, east
and west.
The proposed facility will be part of a national wireless Personal
Communication Services (PCS) telecommunication system by Cox
California PCS, Inc. and Pacific Bell Mobile Services.
Since the City's incorporation, eighteen (18) cell sites have been
approved within the City. Generally, these sites are located adjacent
to or near the freeways or heavily roadways in order to capture the
maximum number of users. This is the first cell site to be proposed
within residential neighborhood, although there are facilities located at
Diamond Bar High School, which has a residential zoning designation..
APPLICATION ANALYSIS:
Subject Site
The subject property is an irregularly shaped lot located at the
northwest corner of Armitos Place and Darrin Drive, south of the 60
Freeway. The site is approximately 6.87 net acres, surrounding a
25,270 square foot parcel owned by the County and occupied by a
fire station.
3
The project site is relatively flat along its Armitos Place and Darrin
Drive frontage. It trends downward at an approximately 2:1 slope (at
its steepest point) to a canyon and then slopes upwards towards the
northerly property boundary adjacent to the freeway. There is an
existing 1,400 square foot single family residence on the site with
frontage and access on Darrin Drive.
With the exception of the residence, the site is undeveloped.
Vegetation consists primarily of sage scrub plants typically found on
the lower slopes of the City. The site also contains scattered trees
believed to be oak and walnut. These trees will be retained although
two walnuts may need to be trimmed to insure adequate line -of -sight
for the antennas.
The subject site is Lot 51 of Tract 42584. There are easements on
the site for storm drain and storm drain ingress and egress and
public utility purposes. Additionally, there is a map restriction on the
subject property granting the County of Los Angeles (upon
incorporation this right was transferred to the City) the right to
restrict vehicular ingress and egress to Armitos Place.
Proiect Proposal
The current proposal consists of three (3) antennas and equipment
cabinets. The facility is proposed on the subject site's northerly
slope, facing the freeway below the undeveloped area between the
fire station and the dwelling unit.
Each antennas sector consists of three (3) panel antennas measuring
5.5' wide, 2" thick and 51" high. The antennas will be mounted
back-to-back on three separate vertical poles placed in an angled row,
going up the slope. The first antenna (PBMS) will be placed
approximately 40' from the northerly property line adjacent to the 60
Freeway. This antenna will be placed at the lowest elevation on the
slope and will be 26.5.' The next antenna (Cox) is 24' and will be
placed 10' south, above of the first antenna, going up the slope.
The third antenna will be placed 10' south of the second antenna
and will be 22' in height. All three antennas will rise to the same
height and at their highest point will be approximately level with the
flat, street level portion of the site.
Within the R-1 zoning district the height limit for buildings is two
stories or 35.' However, these height limits don't apply to
conditionally permitted uses such as the proposed facility. For these
4
projects, the maximum height is determined by the hearing officer, in
this case, the Planning Commission.
As proposed, the antennas will be approximately 150' from the
nearest residence and as conditioned the antennas will not be visible
from the street level along Armitos Place. The antennas will be
visible (although screened) from the 60 Freeway.
The facility will also involve the placement of equipment cabinets on
a concrete slab located south and perpendicular to the antennas. The
slab will be placed into an area cut into the side of the hill and
oriented parallel to the existing contours. Retaining walls not to
exceed 6' in height will be used to accommodate the necessary cut.
Each cabinet will occupy an area of 2'5' x 2'5' and will be 5' in
height. The slab area will be 280 square feet in size. There will
also be a coaxial cable run underground from the equipment cabinets
to the antennas.
The equipment cabinets will be enclosed with a 6' high chain link
fence. The antennas, equipment cabinets and other support hardware
will be painted to match the existing vegetation.
The applicant is proposing access to the site via a 15' wide
easement extending from the curb to concrete steps going down to
the equipment cabinet enclosure.
Maintenance visits to the facility will be required approximately 2-3
time per year and will require a maximum of two hours per visit.
ISSUES
Radio Frequency Emissions/ Health Impacts
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires that all
cellular and PCS providers comply with safety standards for radio
frequency electromagnetic fields. The American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) and Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
(IEEE) have established standards for safe human exposure to radio
frequency electromagnetic fields.
The Telecommunications Reform
Act of 1996
prohibits
local
governments from allowing one carrier
and excluding
another and
bars
state and local governments from
regulating facilities
because of
the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions as long as facilities
comply with FCC regulations.
However,
that does not
preclude cities from
requiring that
telecommunication
providers submit documentation
showing safety
standard
compliance. As an
example, to ensure
that this occurs,
staff could require that the
applicant submit a
radio frequency
radiation
(RFR) field measurement
study to the
Planning Division
verifying
compliance with FCC
emission standards.
Locational Criteria
The design and location of telecommunication facility sites is
determined by several factors. Sites must be close enough to the
caller to receive the signal generated by a half -watt portable phone.
Sites must be far enough from one another to eliminate cross -talk
and sites must be located away from sources of interference (i.e. tall
buildings, large bodies of water) which will cause signal distortion and
poor communication quality.
Height is one of the most important considerations when locating a
site because telecommunications facilities function on a line -of -sight
transmissions. Antennas must be placed at precise heights in relation
to one another in order to transmit and receive signals. Therefore,
topography plays a major role when determining antenna heights.
Other considerations include availability of road access, electric power,
land based telephone lines and/or microwave link capability, structural
capacity for equipment and maximum coverage in the desired area
with minimal sites.
According to a representative from Pacific Bell Mobile Services
(PBMS), the proposed project fills a gap in cellular coverage for
approximately 1/2 to 1 mile along the 60 Freeway and the adjacent
communities.
According to this representative, the project location was chosen
because it was one of the few sites which was viable from a radio
frequency standpoint that had a landlord that was willing to lease to
PBMS.
Correspondence received from PBMS (see Exhibit 1 attached) describes
the alternate sites that were considered and dismissed.
0
Land Use Compatibility
Telecommunications facilities, including antennas are conditionally
permitted within the Single Family Residential zone.
According to the Planning and Zoning Code Sec. 22.56.010, a
conditionally permitted use is a use which, because of specific
characteristics such as size, technological processes, or location,
requires "special consideration" to "ensure proper integration with
other existing or permitted uses in the same zone... Conditional
uses are generally approved with conditions ensuring that this
integration is achieved.
Uses permitted by right in the R-1 zone are single family residences,
accessory structures, such as garages, guest houses workshops,
storage sheds, etc. Conditionally permitted uses in the R-1 zone
include, adult day care facilities, churches, golf courses, fire stations,
libraries and other uses determined to be appropriate in a residential
zones, subject to the imposition of conditions ensuring compatibility.
Land uses within the neighborhood surrounding the subject property
consists of single family residences and a fire station.
A land use that had the potential to increase crime, produced
excessive noise or light, emitted a hazardous substance, generated
excessive traffic or negatively impacted the appearance of a residential
neighborhood would be considered an incompatible use.
It is unlikely that the proposed use would generate or have the
potential to cause additional crime within the neighborhood, because
the facility is unmanned and there will be no activities associated
with this use, other than infrequent site maintenance visits.
The antennas and equipment cabinets will not be lighted and will not
generate any noise.
Health hazards are addressed by the Telecommunications Act, which,
as previously stated, prohibits the City from disapproving
telecommunications facilities because of the environmental effects of
radio frequency emissions as long as the facilities comply with FCC
regulations.
The proposed use will generate minimal amounts of additional traffic
within the neighborhood.
7
Strategy 2.2.4 of the General Plan states "Require that new
developments be designed so at to respect the views of existing
developments..." The applicant has redesigned the project, eliminating
the barn, because it was determined that it was incompatible in its
size and appearance with the existing neighborhood and because
neighbors had expressed a concern that the barn would block their
views.
The proposed facility will not be visible from the street of the
residential neighborhood and will not block the view of the hillside to
the north of the 60 Freeway. Therefore, in terms of its appearance
it will not be incompatible with the existing neighborhood.
Aesthetics
The redesigned project proposes to move the antennas away from the
flat pad area, to the slopes below and has proposed painting the
antennas a concealing color and providing landscaped screening. The
equipment cabinets are proposed to be screened by a chainlink fence
painted to match the surrounding landscaping and topography.
The redesigned project represents a significant aesthetic improvement
over the barn. Staff has reviewed the project and is proposing
several enhancements and modifications should the project be
approved.
The first modification is to the antennas. A condition of approval
has been included requiring that the individual antenna heights be
reduced so that they are approximately six feet (6') below the grade
of the flat pad area. This will provide additional assurance that the
antennas are far enough away from the street and the residences so
they will not be visible when viewed from the street. To further
ensure that the antennas are screened, a berm will be required to be
created at the northerly boundary of the pad area. This berm will be
a minimum of 4' in height, and will be landscaped with trees for
additional screening.
The flat pad area fronting on Armitos Place will also be required to
be landscaped, enhancing its appearance and creating an amenity for
the neighborhood.
A condition has also been included requiring replacement of the
proposed chain link fence with a block wall painted to match the
topography and additional landscaping along the wall as further
screening.
To screen the antennas from the freeway, trees will be required to
be planted in between the antennas, in a quantity and pattern which
creates the appearance of a natural grove.
Staff believes, that the project, with the recommended conditions will
not have a negative aesthetic impact on the residential neighborhood,
or have a negative visual impact when viewed from the freeway.
Access
Part of the original project application was a request to remove the
map restriction prohibiting vehicular ingress and egress on Armitos
Place. Any decision to remove map restrictions must be supported
by findings that the removal is of significant benefit to the City.
Vehicular access to the project site would be utilized a few times a
year for maintenance of the telecommunications facility. Since the
equipment cabinets and antennas are located on the slope, access by
foot would be necessary even with a driveway. On -street parking is
not restricted in this area, and therefore the maintenance crews could
park their trucks on the street for the limited time that service visits
require.
Vehicular access to the site would be of benefit solely to the
telecommunications service providers. Further, a curb cut on Armitos
Place would detract from the appearance of the streetscape.
Public Response
Since the
time when this
project was originally advertised,
staff has
received
correspondence
from neighborhood residents
expressing
opposition
to this project in the form of a letter, and petitions which
were submitted to the Planning
Commission at the February
25, 1997
meeting and
most recently
received by staff on April 15,
1997 and
which are
included as part
of the project package as Exhibit
2.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Pursuant
to the
terms
of the California
Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA),
the City
has
determined that
this project will have no
significant
impact
on the
environment and
has been determined to be
%J
Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to
Section 15303.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Notification of the public
hearing
for this project has
been
made in
the San Gabriel Valley
Tribune
and Inland
Valley
Daily
Bulletin
newspapers on January
7, 1997,
February 4,
1997 and
April 11,
1997. Ninety-six (96) property
owners within
a 500'
radius
of the
project site were notified
by mail on January 8,
1997.
494
property
owners within a 500'
radius of
the exterior
boundaries
of Tract
42584 were notified by
mail on
February 4,
1997
and
April 11,
1997.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Conditional Use Permit 96-10, and Development Review 96-9 subject
to the Conditions of Approval contained within Planning Commission
Resolution 97 -XX.
ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission may direct staff to prepare a resolution of
denial or continue the project to a date certain for further discussion.
REQUIRED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS:
1. The proposed project is in compliance with the General Plan;
2. The requested use at the location proposed will not:
(a) Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of
persons residing or working in the surrounding area or,
(b) Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or
valuation of property of other persons located in the
vicinity of the of site, or
(c) Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to
the public health, safety or general welfare; and
3. The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading
10
facilities, landscaping and other development features, or as is
otherwise required in order to integrate said use in the
surrounding area;
4. The proposed site is adequately served:
(a) By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved
as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic
such use would generate; and
(b) By other public or private service facilities as are required.
REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS:
1. The design and layout of the proposed project is consistent
with the applicable elements of the City's general plan, design
guideline of the appropriate district, and any adopted
architectural criteria for the specialized area, such as designated
historic districts, theme area, specific plans, community plans,
boulevards, or planned developments;
2. Approval of
the
design and layout of
the proposed project is
compatible
with
the characteristics
of
the surrounding
neighborhood
and
will maintain the harmonious,
orderly attractive
development
contemplated by Chapter
22.72
of Development
Review Ordinance
No. 5 (1990) and the
City's
General Plan;
3. The architectural design of the proposed project will not
unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of
neighboring existing or future development and will not create
traffic or pedestrian hazards;
4. The design of the proposed project would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its
neighbors through good aesthetic use of material texture and
color that will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a
reasonably adequate level of maintenance.
5. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
11
FINDINGS FOR REMOVAL OF MAP RESTRICTION:
1. The removal of the map restriction is of significant benefit to
the City.
PREPARED BY:
Catherine Johnson, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Application
Plans
Exhibit 1 - Correspondence from Pacific Bell Mobile Services
Exhibit 2 - Resident's petitions
Draft Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 96-10,
Development Review 96-9
12
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 97-6
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-10,
AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 96-9, A REQUEST FOR CO -
LOCATION OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY BY COX
COMMUNICATIONS AND PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES,
CONSISTING OF THREE ANTENNAS AND EQUIPMENT CABINETS AT
24401 DARRIN DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR CALIFORNIA.
A. RECITALS.
1. The property owners, Eric and Robin Stone and the
applicants, Cox Calif. PCS, Inc. and Pacific Bell Mobile
Services have filed an application for Conditional Use
Permit No. 96-10 and Development Review -No. 96-9 as
described above in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional
Use Permit and Development Review shall be referred to as
the "Application".
2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly or.y.%nized municipal corporation of
the State of California. Thereafter, the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14
(1990), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as
the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and
22 of the Los Angeles County Code contain the Development
Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently
applicable to development applications, including the
subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar.
3. On July 25, 1995, the City of Diamond Bar adopted its
General Plan. Action was taken on the subject
application as to the consistency with the General Plan.
It has been determined that the proposed project is
consistent with the General Plan.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar on
April 22, 1997 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the Application.
5. Notification of the public hearing for this project has
been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on January 7 1997,
February 4, 1997 and April 11, 1997. Ninety-six (96)
property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project
site were notified by mail on January 8, 1997. 494
property owners within a 500' radius of the exterior
boundaries of Tract 42584 were notified by mail on
February 4, 1997 and April 11, 1997.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by
the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as
follows:
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds
that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the
project identified above in this Resolution is
Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder,
pursuant to Section 15303 of Article 19 of Chapter
3 of Division 13 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations.
3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds
and determines that, having considered the record as
a whole including the findings set forth below, and
changes and alterations which have been incorporated
into and conditioned upon the proposed project set
forth in the application, there is no evidence
before this Planning Commission that the project
proposed herein wil, ::ave the potential of an
adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat
upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon
substantial evidence, this Planning Commission
hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects
contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations.
4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth
herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as
follows:
(a) The project relates to a developed parcel,
approximately 6.87 acres in size located at
24401 Darrin Drive.
(b) The project site has a General Plan land use
designation of Low Density Residential (RL).
It is within the Single Family Residential (R-
1-10,000) zone.
(c) Generally, the following uses surround the
project site: to the north is the Pomona
Freeway, to the south, east and west is single
family residential development. In
approximately the center of the project is a
separate parcel occupied by a fire station.
(d) The proposed project is a request for the co -
location of a te't:ommunications facility by
two service providers on a residential property
and a request for an amendment to Tract Map
42584, 'removing a restriction from said Map
allowing the City to prohibit vehicular ingress
and egress to Armitos Place.
(e) The proposed conditional use permit will not be
in substantial conflict with the adopted
General Plan. The General Plan provides for a
variety and mix of land uses and accessory uses
necessary for the health, safety, comfort and
convenience of the community. The facility's
operation offers a service to the community and
emergency agencies. Therefore, the proposed
facility is consistent with the General Plan
and is further authorized as a conditionally
permitted use within the R-1-10,000 zone
pursuant to the Planning and zoning Code,
Section 22.20.100.
(f) The proposed project will not:
(1) Adversely affect the health, peace,
comfort or welfare of persons residing in
the surrounding area; or
(2) Be materially detrimental to the use,
enjoyment or valuation of property of
other persons located in the vicinity of
the site; or
(3) Jeopardize, endanger or othe_se
constitute a menace to public health,
safety or general welfare for the
following reasons;
The Conditional Use Permit's approval allows
for the proposed telecommunications facility's
construction. The facility, as conditioned
complies with all City Codes and therefore does
not jeopardize, endanger or otherwise
constitute a menace to the public health,
safety or general welfare. Currently, the
consensus of the scientific community maintains
that the radio frequency radiation emitted and
the lower frequency electromagnetic fields
associated with this type of facility generally
do not produce adverse health effects in human -
because they are non -ionizing in nature and
normal exposures are controlled so as not to
result in thermal effects. As such, the
facility will not be detrimental to the use,
enjoyment or valuation of property or persons
located in the vicinity of the site.
(g) The proposed site is adequate in size and shape
to accommodate development features prescribed
in this approval to integrate the use in the
surrounding area.
(h) The project site is adequately served:
(1) By highways or streets of sufficient
width and improved as necessary to carry
3
the kind and quantity of traffic such use
would generate; and
(2) By other public or private service
facilities as are required.
The project site is served by Armitos Place.
However, the project site, which is Lot 51 of
Tract Map 42584, contains a map restriction
which gives the City the authority to restrict
ingress and ingress to Armitos Place. It has
been determined that vehicular access to the
site is not necessary and that maintenance
trucks can utilize on -street parking. The
facility does not significantly increase
vehicular traffic to and from the site. It
requires only a few routine maintenance checks
with one vehicle during a one year period.
Additionally, electrical and telephone service
to be utilized by the facility already exists
at the site.
(i) The proposed project is in compliance with
Development Review ordinance No. 5 (1990)-
(j) The -architectural design of this project is
compatible with the character :;f the
surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the'
harmonious, orderly and attractive development
contemplated by Chapter 22.72 of Development
Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990). The three
antennas will be approximately level with the
grade of the property's level pad area and will
not be visible when viewed from the street.
Additionally, berming and additional
landscaping will further screen and enhance the
appearance of the project site so that it will
be compatible with the neighborhood.
Additionally, the antennas will be painted to
match the existing landscaping and topography
and additional landscaping will be added to
create a naturalized grove on the slope. The
equipment cabinets will be screened -4-t1: a
block wall painted to match the surroundings
and screened with landscaping.
(k) The design of this project will provide a
desirable environment for its occupants and
visiting public as well as its neighbors
through good aesthetic use of materials,
texture and color that will remain
aesthetically appealing and will retain a
reasonably adequate level of maintenance.
(j) The proposed removal of the map restriction is
not of significant benefit to the C L :y. As
part of the project proposal, the applicant has
requested removal of a map restriction from
Tract Map 42584 which gives the City the
authority to restrict vehicle ingress and
ingress to Armitos Place. Removing this
restriction will only benefit the project
applicants and will provide no benefit to the
City as a whole, since vehicular access to this
site from Armitos Place is not needed for the
improvement of traffic or circulation within
the area. Therefore, the action for approval
of this project does not include the removal of
the map restriction from Lot 51 of Tract Map
42584.
5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth
above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the
Application subject to the following conditions:
(a) The project shall substantially conform to
plans collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" as
modified, dated April 22, 1997, as submitted
and approved by the Planning Commission.
(b) The site shall be maintained permanently in a
condition which is free of debris both during
and after the construction, addition, or
implementation of the entitlement granted
herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and
refuse;;-whather during or subsequent to
construction shall be done only by the property
owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste
contractor, who has been authorized by the City
to provide collection, transportation, and
disposal of solid waste from residential,
commercial, construction, and industrial areas
within the City. It shall be the applicant's
obligation to insure that the waste contractor
utilized has obtained permits from the City of
Diamond Bar to provide such services.
(c) The applicant shall comply with all State, R-1
Zone, Public Works Department and Building and
Safety Division requirements.
(d) This grant it valid for two years and shall be
exercised (i.e. construction started) within
that period or this grant shall expire. A one
year extension may be requested in writing and
submitted to the City 30 days prior to expi-
ration date.
(e) This grant shall not be effective for any
purpose until the permittee and owner of the
property involved (if other than permittee)
have filed, within fifteen (15) days of
approval of this grant, at the office of
Diamond Bar Community Development Department,
their Affia.Avit of Acceptance stating that the
applicant/owner is aware of and agrees to all
conditions of this grant. Further, this grant
shall not be effective until the permittee pays
5
any remaining City processing fees.
(f) If the Department of Fish and Game determines
that Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies
to the approval of this project, then the
applicant shall remit to the City, within five
days of this grant's approval, a cashier's
check, payable to the County of Los Angeles, of
$25.00 for a documentary handling fee in
connection with Fish and Game Code
requirements. Furthermore, if this project is
not exempt from a filing fee imposed because
the project has more than a de minimis impact
on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also
pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such
fee and any fine which the Department
determines to be owed.
(g) Prior to final inspection of the
telecommunications facility, the applicant
shall submit a radio frequency radiation (RFR)
field measurement study to the Planning
Division for review and approval which verifies
compliance with FCC emission standards. The
study shall be accompanied by a report
.describing cr^-rdiance with these standards in
language that can be understood by a lay
person. Any costs associated with this review
shall be borne by the applicant.
(h) One year from the date of project approval -and _.
yearly, on or before each subsequent
anniversary date, the applicant shall submit a
certification attested to by a licensed
engineer expert in the field of RF emissions,
that the facilities are and have been operated
within the then current applicable FCC
standards for RF emissions. Any costs
resulting from the review of this certification
shall be borne by the applicant.
(i) If the wireless telecommunications facility
approved by this ..esolution is operated or
maintained in violation of FCC standards, said
facility shall be subject to permit revocation
by the Planning Commission.
(j) In the event of any future maintenance
problems, abandonment of use or changes in
technology which render the above mentioned
facility and screening structure obsolete, the
applicant shall, upon notification by the City
of Diamond Bar, repair, replace or remove the
screening structure and/or facility within 90
days.
(k) Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall
submit landscaping/fencing and irrigation plans
to the Planning Division for review and
approval. Landscaping, incorporating the earth
removed from the equipment cabinet/pad area,
shall be provided on the flat pad area in
quantities sufficient to enhance the appearance
of the project site when viewed from the
street, creating a neighborhood amenity as
determined by the Planning Division.
The equipment cabinets shall be enclosed by a
block wall or other opaque fencing materials as
approved by the Planning Division, painted to
blend with the surrounding terrain and
landscaping. Landscaping shall be provided
adjacent to the walls, in quantities and
heights sufficient to soften the appearance of
the wall and provide additional screening.
Trees, shall also be provided between and
surrounding the antennas and shall be planted
in an arrangement representing a naturalized
grove of trees.
Plant materials shall emphasize drought -
tolerant materials and/or native species in the
following sizes and types: trees; 24 inch box,
20%, 15 gallon, 80%: shrubs; 5 gallon 70%, 1
gallon (herbaceous only) 30% In order to
guarant -e -!- --�,conttinuing health and maintenance
of the landscaping the applicant shall provide
a statement of surety in the form of cash,
performance bond or certificate of deposit
equal to 100% of the total value of all plant
materials, irrigation and installation costs
which shall be posted with the City for a two-
year period.
All landscaping shall be installed prior to
final project inspection.
(1) Plans shall conform to State and Local Building
Codes (i.e. 1994 editions of the Uniform
Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code,
and 1993 edition of the National Electrical
Code) as well as the State Energy Code.
(m) Proposed antennas shall be engineered to meet
wind loads of 80 m.p.h. with an exposure of
ofC.$I
(n) All cables or electrical conduits from the BTS
cabinet or any vault, shall be installed
underground. Any new or additional electrical
service associated with this project shall be
installed underground.
(o) Prior to permit issuance grading plans showing
all cut and fill quantities and drainage plans
shall be submitted to the Public Works
Department.
7
The Planning Commission shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this
Resolution, by certified mail to, Eric and
Robin Stone, 24401 Darrin Drive, Diamond Bar
CA, 91765, Cox California, PCS, Inc. 2381 Morse
Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714 and Pacific Bell
Mobile Services, 5959 W. Century Boulevard, Los
Angeles, CA 90045.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 1997 BY
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
BY: 2C�,-,4-e -Z ��
Joe zic , Chairman
I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed,
and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar,
at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22ND
day of April, 1997, by the following vote.:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SS
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
1, LYNDA CURCLSS, CITY CLERIC OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR. D) WRE-PtY CERTIFY UNDER
PENALTY OF VE113URY UNDF. , THE LAD'S OF THE
SIATE C: CALIFORP AA THE' FGRIGOING TO BE A
FGL:., TRUE ANE CGF."'I::l- COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL. AS SAME APP--:. zS 0,-1 FILE IN MY
OFFICE.
IN WITNESS R'HE.? , I HAVE HLREUNTO SET
MY HAND AND AFFIXED THY $E VIOF THE CITY
D
OF A OND BAR, THIS s� `'� DAN'
OF ` .19 -17
r LYNDA BURGESS, CITY CLERK
BY J t'(T
Depwty
COMMISSIONERS: Ru 2 i c k a, Fong ,
Goldenberg, McManus,
COMMISSIONERS: Schad
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Ja a
DeStefano, Secretary
r
b
R
�n�i rnrn3 O
�
O
'T
z
Yf
tp
U1
I
fnl
I
r
b
R
I
I
'
I
'AMR +I*►'+I
r
b
R
�r In r
D 11
�
r
A iu
O Y ➢
rn x D
m
3m
r��J
O
�'rt ,•
rn
r asr�`:
m
3m
4 z
Y � Q
o X
_ IL lu m
IL �
X
X00000000 0 9 0 9990®0 0 ® B® ®® ®®
--l"-1
V)
pz
{{``N
FO�
U
NLj
N
_
F z
U
.-. N��•
O Q n'pm
>J zy
mp
!n
V L*o
rAm VV
y,
W
<O
IL O
F
4 z
Y � Q
o X
_ IL lu m
IL �
X
X00000000 0 9 0 9990®0 0 ® B® ®® ®®
--l"-1
W
U
r`f
��z
6
n
�
I�
o
fUfC1�C� .
^
O1
��_�T
0.N
N VVV
O
rn
�
Xi
-Al
yx
.rr
I----
11
I I
LJ
D L
r•�* fEFt7
I
�
>> ��
S_11 4p la )tryq p7E (]nj�� m
Ji
Z iyi �$fy
w
�Tl k ", i ,
1 _
!+'as �� $ O X=y��p�c"( �r� ��-1 111 i�•"T V � pLp •--�o
1p{{ :1, ° � � z 1i
COW
�8bb°iiirr p��1D OlA 2'1 SQ' Oj�NNM1 �'�(�'Ewy� V
•T �y 1� >-� Y$ yS_ p� $ (Ci�iyl�� l � � � )�� DOzj � O
l�i'hIn lit, Ii p A i i
-4
0I'o0IMN71 .1
rrt-
�D
.0"M
rn
mSN
Oar •Di UI>
D
m 0 2 D O U
W Z
Uooz
ZOO)
n z m OO
D -0m 9z'i
C <
oc-C,:7
o�m
z
Z x
D
O
z m;u 0 >
( _
z A- YO
n O
D
•D
D m y
cD ZO7
j rr*1
1 r
P
<Z
rn�
z
n�0
CD O
P
C)
(rm.
D
D I*1
(,,
0
N
Z
O
A'
(Jv��z
0
0 cWD
Z
z�<o>O
zA�Oz
iC�
.t:
-t�.mNZ
n m
D Z. m
-
(n
-1 NnS.0
DrZ
I
�� O
p
,D
m T.n
N
0.-
-C'
mo�zm
rnCA(An
rn
rn-,)m
.i
NO
O�-nl
AD
<
0
F) D(n
D
m n
m
o z
n C
In
T M
I
�
>> ��
S_11 4p la )tryq p7E (]nj�� m
Ji
Z iyi �$fy
w
�Tl k ", i ,
1 _
!+'as �� $ O X=y��p�c"( �r� ��-1 111 i�•"T V � pLp •--�o
1p{{ :1, ° � � z 1i
COW
�8bb°iiirr p��1D OlA 2'1 SQ' Oj�NNM1 �'�(�'Ewy� V
•T �y 1� >-� Y$ yS_ p� $ (Ci�iyl�� l � � � )�� DOzj � O
l�i'hIn lit, Ii p A i i
-4
I 1
I 1
1 I
I 1
i
1 I
I 1
1 1
N-
N
? m D j �y
�D
Oar •Di UI>
>
m 0 2 D O U
W Z
DO z N `
n z m OO
D -0m 9z'i
D O
n N m Z
Z x
�m
o
z m;u 0 >
oz
O > _ m�
•D
->
Oo Z.
�
j rr*1
0
-an O C➢O
<Z
rn�
oz
',
C)
-4 Z
O A
D
D I*1
N
�
r
O
Z
A'
C)
rTl
I 1
I 1
1 I
I 1
i
1 I
I 1
1 1
N-
N
? m D j �y
�D
Oar •Di UI>
>
m 0 2 D O U
W Z
DO z N `
n z m OO
D -0m 9z'i
D O
n N m Z
Z x
f�T1
5
n -q o D V)
cn D
z m;u 0 >
oz
O > _ m�
�Z
->
Oo Z.
D z
D
m N�
Z7
:D51>
-an O C➢O
<Z
rn�
D ��z
? to
Z
-4 Z
O A
Z
D I*1
N
�
r
O
➢ �
A'
Or 'C" co,
�Z ZZ,
on
..0 )> >N
On ZZD
-0
z n
zX n O
O Tr-
pz Nim
Oo ern
Zm Z�D
f� 0�;0
�Zm nm
��
Mn
D.9y
zv uzi
n -m
aZ C
� rli
0-
0
9/
�2
s
1
2.
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUN,.AL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MAY 6, 1997
CLOSED SESSION: 5:30 p.m., AQMD Rooms CC -3 & 5
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (G.C. Section 54956.8):
PROPERTY: Former Water District property, westerly side of
Brea Canyon Road north of Pathfinder Road
NEGOTIATING PARTIES
LLA
UNDER NEGOTIATION
ADJOURNMENT:
p.m.
City of Diamond Bar and Diamond Crest Estates
Material terms of the agreement
Mayor Huff adjourned the Closed Session at 6:15
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Huff called the meeting to order at 6:37
p.m., in the SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led Mayor Pro Tem
Herrera.
INVOCATION: Pastor Rick Motz, Evangelical Free Church of
Diamond Bar
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Werner,
Mayor Pro Tem Herrera and Mayor Huff.
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Frank Usher,
Assistant City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; James DeStefano,
Community Development Director; George Wentz, Public Works Director;
Bob Rose, Community Services Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
In regard to the Closed Session held earlier, CA/Jenkins announced that Council
gave direction to the City Manager to extend negotiations with Diamond Crest
Estates LLA.
3./3.Commendation
ESENTATIONS, CERTIFIC TES, PROCLAMATIONS:
endation presented to rk Tuinel, Dallas Cowboys # for giving his
d resources to the D Pop Warner Football and C rleading Assn.
presen d to the D.B. Pop W er Football and
eading Assn. f heir continued activities to rd D.B. youth.
LAMATIONS:Proclaimed ay, 1997 as "Water Aware ss Month".
3.3.2 Proclaime May, 1997 as "Bicycle App ciation Month".
I r rr
MAY 6, 1997
PAGE 8
CITY COUNCIL
In resp se to MPT/Herrera, CM/Belanger xplained that staffs understood
that unci) will direct staff to prepare Urgency Ordinance, the purp e
4shuitime
h would be to establish a mor rium on these types of facilitie ntil
that permanent guid nes, standards and policies n be
ated through the Dev pment Code process. Th rgency
Ordinance would be agendiz for discussion and possible a ption. The
Ordinance would be effe a upon adoption by the Co il. Adoption
requires a super majori f irmative vote by four of five ncil Members.
Following discus'
, Werner moved, C/Ansari
to prepare a dra rgency Ordinance establish
issuance of pe its for telecommunications e
commercial poses and to prepare a dra rc
Ordinance) Council's consideration at its gulp
Motion ied by the following Roll Call e:
06nded, to direct staff
a moratorium on the
Brit and antennas for
inance (not an Urgency
r Mav 20, 1997 meeting.
AYES/ COUNCIL MEMBERS - nsari, Harmony, Wer
:S: COUNCIL MEMBE
ENT: COUNCIL MEMBE
/MPT/Herrera, M/Huff
- None
- None
9.8 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A PROPOSED WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 24401 DARRIN DRIVE (CUP 96-10
AND DR 96-9).
Don Schad suggested that Council read the information furnished in their
packets regarding electromagnetic radiation.
Craig Clute supported a review of this matter. He suggested that Council
Members visit his home and view the installation "in his neighbor's
backyard."
Responding to M/Huffs request for a showing of hands, the audience
indicated 12 to 7 that they supported a Council review of this matter.
Terry Birrell pointed out that a number of audience members voting against
the review were non-residents. She indicated the public can obtain
information about telecommunications facilities through the City Manager's
office. She suggested that Council continue the matter until after standards
have been established.
Marie LaBond said that because one meeting was cancelled, there were only
three Planning Commission Public Hearings, not four. She urged Council
to reconsider this matter.
2,04:� 1-5'
MAY 6, 1997 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL
public's concerns were being met by the Planning Commission action.
MPT/Herrera believed the Planning Commission worked with the applicant
and the neighboring residents to satisfactorily modify the project. A series
of public hearings were held and, as a result of the approval, the applicant
must comply with 15 conditions. She said she had faith in the Commission's
ability to make decisions that are in the best interest of D.B. residents.
Further, she expressed faith in staffs ability to recommend the project for
approval and felt there was no need to review this matter and that the
Planning Commission's Decision should stand.
C/Harmony moved, C/Ansari seconded, to call for review of CUP 96-10 and
DR 96-9 and set the matter for public hearing on June 3, 1997.
In response to C/Werner as to whether the City needs to obtain the
applicant's consent to review this matter, CA/Jenkins indicated that that was
not necessary.
C/Wemer asked if the Council may request that specific information from the
applicant and neighboring residents.
CA/Jenkins stated that this is a de novo hearing. The applicant and any
public member may submit any materials they wish. The Council cannot
require submission. However, lack of submission may be considered during
review of the application.
C/Werner asked what costs the City has incurred for this matter.
CA/Jenkins indicated the only fee paid is the application fee. Since there is
no appeal in this case, there is no appeal fee to be paid and that any
additional costs for review would be borne by the City.
In response to C/Werner, CM/Belanger responded that approximately
$3,000 in costs had already been incurred for the review process.
C/Werner asked for the motion to be amended to include his previous
request for three items: Petition updates, a three dimensional template
erection at the site and information regarding the amended CCBR's.
C/Harmony and C/Ansari agreed to amend the motion. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony, Werner
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Herrera, M/Huff
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
JANUARY 28, 1997 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
cellular sites in the City of Diamond Bar. Two additional
applications are pending approval with the City. He presented
a graphic indicating the cellular site locations. Staff
believes that a cellular site master plan exists based upon
provider's needs. Some sites accommodate several cellular
providers.
CDD/DeStefano responded to VC/Ruzicka that the City's
ridgeline elevation is not appropriate to accommodate the
reception and quality of desired service. At this time, it is
not anticipated that single family residences will be asked to
accommodate these kinds of services.
CDD/DeStefano presented background and historical information
regarding communications systems monitored by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). He spoke about neighboring
cities ordinances which provide for wireless facilities
incorporated within free standing art such as a clock tower.
CDD/DeStefano stated Diamond Bar regulates wireless
telecommunications sites through the existing Planning and
Zoning Code which allows for use by right in some zones and
for use via Conditional Use Permit in other zones. Every zone
requires a discretionary review by the Hearing Officer for
Administrative Development Review or Ly the Planning
Commission. He talked about the review and approval process
with respect to Diamond Bar cellular site installations.
Staff determined through general information provided by the
telecommunications carriers that property owners who provide
cellular site accommodations can expect to receive from $500
to $1200 per month. In addition, many cellular carriers
provide additional amenities to the property owner such as
property improvements and signage.
C/Schad asked if a topographical map indicating line of site
installations would prevent interference by proposed
construction. He suggested light standards be used for
cellular site installations in order to provide income for the
City. He also suggested bouncing signals over and around
structures.
CDD/DeStefano responded that with respect to potential
conflicts between property owners and cellular communications
carriers; carriers need to locate sites they believe will not
be blocked in the future. He stated the City probably would
not allow a cellular site facility to dictate potential land
use decisions.
Chair/Goldenberg recommended tonight's presentation be given
to the City Council with emphasis on the permit approval
process and developer created master plan.
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Goldenberg called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. at the
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by C/Schad.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Goldenberg, Vice Chairman Ruzicka,
and Commissioners, McManus and Schad
Absent: Commissioner Fong
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano, Senior Planner Catherine Johnson,
and Assistant Planner Ann Lungu.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
CONSENT CI.LENDA R:
1. Minutes of January 14, 1997.
VC/Ruzicka made a motion, seconded by C/Schad, to approve the
minutes of January 14, 1997 as presented. Without objections,
the motion was so ordered.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
Responding to the Planning Commission's request, CDD/DeStefano
presented a report regarding wireless telecommunications
facilities. With the cooperative effort of neighboring cities
staffs and telecommunications carriers LA Cellular, Cox
California and the Keith Companies, staff compiled the report.
CDD/DeStefano explained the three currently utilized wireless
telecommunications facilities known as the Cellular Systems,
the Personal Communications Services (PCS) digital systems,
and Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) analog digital
systems. Transmission signals replicate and amplify voice
messages carried from transmitting antennas to receiving
antennas. He pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of
the systems. Presently, five providers serve the Southern
California area: AirTouch, LA Cellular, NexTel, PacBel Mobile
Services, and Cox Communications. There are seventeen
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 25, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. at
the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East
Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by C/McManus.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Vice Chairman Ruzicka, and Commissioners,
Fong, McManus and Schad.
Chairman Goldenberg arrived at 7:17 p.m.
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano, Senior Planner Catherine Johnson,
and Assistant Planner Ann Lungu.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of February 11, 1997.
C/Schad made a motion, seconded by C/McManus, to approve the
minutes of January 28, 1997 as presented. Without objection,
the motion was so ordered.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and Development ltcview 96-9, a
request for the co -location of unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities by two service
providers consisting of antennas to be located on a proposed
barn, and equipment cabinets to be located within the barn and
also next to the barn behind a fenced enclosure. This
proposal also includes an amendment to Tract map 42584
removing an easement from said Map restricting vehicle ingress
and egress to Armitos Place.
Project Address: 24401 Darrin Drive (northwest .corner
Darrin Drive and Armitos Place)
Applicants: Cox California PCS, Inc., 18200 Von
Karman Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, CA
92612, and Pacific Bell Mobile Services,
5959 W. Century Boulevard, Los Angeles,
CA 90015
JANUARY 28, 1997 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and Development Review 96-9
(pursuant to Code Section 22.20.100) is a request for an
unmanned, wireless telecommunications transmission facilities
for two service providers consisting of antennas to be located
on a proposed 1,152 square foot barn with equipment cabinets
located within and adjacent to the barn. This proposal
includes an amendment to Tract Map 42584, removing an easement
from said Map restricting vehicle ingress and egress to
Armitos Place.
Project Address: 24401 Darrin Drive (northwest corner
Darrin Drive and Armitos Place)
Applicant: Cox California PCS, Inc., 18200 Von
Karman Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, CA
92612
Owner• Eric and Robin Stone, 24401 Darrin Drive,
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report. He indicated that
in order to provide adequate advertising of this Public
Hearing item, staff recommends that the Planning Commission
take no action on this item tonight and direct staff to
readvertise Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10 and Development
Review No. 96-9 when appropriate.
VC/Ruzicka moved, C/Schad seconded, to continue Conditional
Use Permit No. 96-10 and Development Review No. 96-9.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Development Code - Inzormational Update.
D/DeStefano presente a status update on t Development
C e project. He refer ed the Commissioners t the Windmill
De lopment Code survey sults summary enclosure The City's
Gen ral Plan is the basi for the Development C e document
whic may account for the ow percentage of pc ii response.
The irst Town Hall Meet g is tentatively sch uled for
Satur y, March 8, 1997.
VC/Ruzi a asked if colleg students could as\st.. in
soliciti community response.
C/McManus quested copies of the urvey and survey rees.
C/Schad reit rated his concerns r arding implementatioof
the Developme Code and more partic arly, the Tree Ordin ce
FEBRUARY 25, 1997 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
signatures of five neighbors residing adjacent to the project.
She indicated her neighbors are concerned that their views
will be obstructed by the barn structure. In addition, the
residents are concerned about the long term health impacts
from constant low level radiation exposure and about the
reduction of property values. She asked the Commission not to
set a precedent by allowing residents to place antennas in
their back yards. She indicated that neighboring city
officials told her antennas would not be allowed on
residential properties in their communities. She asked the
Commission to follow a policy of "prudent avoidance" such as
the one practiced by San Diego which states that "wireless
communications facilities, due to perceived concerns about
health impacts, should not be located in areas where people
would be exposed to them for prolonged periods of time". She
suggested the antennas be placed on City property in order for
the City to benefit from the lease payments. She asked the
Commission to deny the project.
Marie Nguyen, 367 Armitos Place, expressed concerns about her
children's health. She is also concerned about property
values. She pleaded with the Commission not to allow the
antennas to be placed on residential property. She suggested
the antennas be placed on City owned property instead.
Joe Serrano, 365 Carpio Drive, stated he agrees with previous
speakers.
James Golondzinier, 24339 Northview Place, stated he has no
problem with the owner placing a barn on his property. He
voiced his concerns that the 19 foot high antennas may need to
be higher in the future as technology advances. He asked if
the approval will state the maximum number of antennas and the
maximum height, width and diameter that will be allowed. He
said that his employer (Los Angeles County Fire Department) is
concerned about health and safety isoues related to EMF's. If
any EMF's will be emitted from the proposed site, the project
should not be placed in a residential area.
C/Schad asked Mr. Golondzinier if there is a possibility of
frequency, impediment with respect to the adjacent fire
station's communications equipment.
Mr. Golondzinier stated he does not know the specifics and is
not before the Planning Commission as a representative of the
Los Angeles Fire Department. He suggested C/Schad contact his
employer's communication department.
Bruj Sharma, 24356 Darrin Dri.a, spoke against the project.
He stated he believes the party who selected the project site
has no regard for the residents. Studies regarding EMF
radiation safety concerns are inconclusive. He asked if the
applicant can guarantee that residents will not be adversely
FEBRUARY 25, 1997 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
Property Owners: Eric and Robin Stone, 24401 Darrin Drive,
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report. Pursuant to
applicant's request to continue the item to March 11, 1997,
staff recommends that Conditional Use permit No. 96-10 and
Development Review No. 96-9 be continued to March 25, 1997.
Chair/Goldenberg arrived and assumed the Chair.
James Bartley, 411 Carpio Drive, stated that he feels the
previously proposed barn structure is unsightly. He does not
understand why antennas have to be placed in a residential
area.
Horacio Briz, 420 Carpio Drive, asked the height of the
antenna 'whether the City has conducted studies related to then
impact othe neighborhood, and if night lighting is proposed.
He stated that the project will impact the neighborhood and
the residents do not want the type of building that has been
proposed to be located in the neighborhood. The residents
will fight against the project.
Mel Davis, 419 Carpio Drive, stated he is against the project
which conflicts with the General Plan zoning. He indicated
that he purchased his property 20 years ago primarily for the
view of the hills and mountains, not a view of any antennas
which may or may not have blinking red lights due to excessive
height. He asked if the City has imposed a height and size
limit for antennas, and if not, why not? He said he does not
understand why the City would want to place antennas above
ground less than one mile from a City beautification project
that involves undergrounding utilities. He further stated he
is concerned about the City proposing to remove and
ingress/egress map restriction to Armitos Place. He suggested
the City consider a Golden Springs Road ingress/egress or a
westerly access road which would parallel the SR60 freeway to
the Diamond Ranch High School. If the applicai,ts feel this
facility is necessary they should consider placing it on the
Diamond Ranch High School property in order to financially
benefit the community. He said he understands the property
contains a deed restriction which requires the property owner
to secure written approval from a percentage of neighborhood
property owners prior to development of the property. He
asked if such an approval had been submitted to the City. He
urged the Commission to deny the project.
Pat H., 540 Macenta Lane, asked if the proposed project will
create additional interference with her television
transmission.
Mary and Doug Yuen, 379 Armitos Place, stated they are opposed
to the project. She presented a petition containing
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. at the
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by C/Goldenberg.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Schad, and
Commissioners, Fong, Goldenberg, and McManus.
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano, Senior Planner Catherine Johnson,
and Assistant Planner Ann Lungu.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of March 11, 1997.
VC/Schad made a motion, seconded by C/Fong, to approve the
minutes of February 25, 1997 as presented. Without objection,
the motion was approved 5-0.
OLD BUSINESS - None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Conditional Use Permit 96=10 and Development Review 96-9
(pursuant to Code Section 22.20.100) is a request for
unmanned, wireless telecommunications transmission
facility for two providers consisting of antennas to be
located on a proposed 1,152 square foot barn with
equipment cabinets located within and adjacent to, the
barn. This proposal includes an amendment to Tract Map
42584, removing an easement from said Map restricting
vehicle ingress and egress to Armitos Place. Continued
from February 25, 1997.
Project Address: 24401 Darrin Drive (northwest corner
Darrin Drive and Armitos Place)
Applicants: Cox California PCS, Inc., 18200 Von
Karman Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, CA
92612, and Pacific Bell Mobile
Services, 5959 W. Century Boulevard,
Los Angeles, CA 90015
FEBRUARY 25, 1997 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
impacted. He concurs with other neighborhood residents who
feel property will be devalued in the area and that the
antennas could be raised to a significantly greater height in
the future. He said he believes it is inhumane for the
property owner to consider placing antennas in a residential
neighborhood for personal financial gain.
Edward Le Van, 24365 Darrin Drive, stated he would like to
have cellular servicein the area.
f fear.HeHeelieves sa d hepeople are
feels the
objecting to the project out
project should go forward.
Helen Britt, 24313 vista Buena Drive, stated that as a nurse
practitioner, she believes it is unconscionable that the City
is considering this project. Research indicates that this
type of radiation effects children and causes cancer. The
incidents of cancer in children is much greater than that of
adults. This item should not be continued- because it is
totally wrong.
Chair/ Goldenberg explained that a project is approved with
certain conditions. An applicant must apply to the City if
he/she wishes to make changes to the project after the fact.
C/Schad stated some of the citizen's concerns are valid. The
type of antennas proposed are very high frequency line -of -site
installations that do not pose a significant emission risk.
He suggested that in addition to southerly and westerly
exposure, this location could accommodate northerly
transmission. He said that in his opinion, this form of
communication would not be detrimental to individual he
alth
and safety. He asked to know the frequency and paler
transmission. He suggested the existing light towers be
considered as facilities for housing communication antennas.
If the antenna structures were placed closer her,
power conditions could be reduced by about 75 percent.
C/Fong encouraged the applicant to locate an alternate project
site.
VC/Ruzicka moved, CJSchad seconded,
to continue Public Hearing
6-9 to
Conditional Use Permit
hout Oand Development Review objections, the motion 9was so
March 25, 1997.
ordered.
2. Develo went Review No. 7-1, a request (Pu suant to Code
Sectio 22.72.010 and 2 72.020(4) to conve an existing
Unocal ervice station t an unattended retai gas station
with the existing service ays rcmaining aper tional. The
fueling f ction of the fac lity will be operat completely
without a tendant partici ation similar to commercial
"cardlock" pe facilities. he site will be mon tored by.a
"host site" ich is available o assist customers a dibly via
MARCH 25, 1997 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
Property Owners: Eric and Robin Stone, 24401 Darrin
Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report. He indicated
the applicant has requested this item be continued to
April 22, 1997. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission continue Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10 and
Development Review No. 96-9 to April 22, 1997, and
renotice the public hearing.
Marie Nguyen, 367 Armitos Place, stated she has acquired
125 signatures from area residents who oppose this
project as presented. She indicated the signators stated
that in several instances, they did not receive the
public hearing notice. She asked that the April 22, 1997
public hearing be renoticed.
CDD/DeStefano responded to Chair/Ruzicka that public
hearing notices were mailed to all property owners within
500 feet of the applicant's property at 24401 Darrin
Drive. In addition, because the property owner is
requesting a modification to the original tract map,
notices went to all residents within the boundary of the
subdivision. Approximately 300 residents were sent
notices.
C/Goldenberg asked Mrs. Nguyen what, in her opinion, is
the major objection of the neighboring residents to this
project.
Mrs. Nguyen responded to C/Goldenberg that the project
property is zoned residential and there is concerned that
it is being rezoned. The residents are concerned about
the increased traffic, potential safety concerns for
children, and a reduction of property values.
Armando Gonzales, 24380 Vista Buena Drive, said he
received notice of the February 25, 1997 public hearing.
However, he did not receive a notice with respect to
tonight's meeting. He concurred that it would be more
appropriate to discuss this item when the revised plans
are available for review. He indicated he is concerned
about the proposed project's visual impact on the
surrounding properties, how the property values will be
effected, and whether the health of people living in the
area will be adversely effected. He said he is not
opposed to the project. He believes the towers should be
located in another area.
CDD/Dc�tefano responded to C/Goldenberg that if the
Planning Commission approved a six foot high antenna
structure and the applicant wished to exceed the six foot
MARCH 25, 1997 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
limit, they would have to reapply for the change and
proceed through the public hearing process for approval.
C/Goldenberg stated the fire station has been located
next to the proposed project location for approximately
10 years and carries a wider range band limit than is
proposed for the cellular site. With respect to the
resident's safety concerns, several cell sites are
located at the Diamond Bar High School. He agreed that
the City should be concerned about real and not perceived
safety issues with respect to EMF's. He stressed the
need for the Planning Commission to make an informed
decision based upon the facts of the situation.
C/McManus moved, C/Goldenberg seconded, to continue
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10 and Development Review
No. 96-9 to April 22, 1997 and direct staff to renotice
the public hearing. The motion was approved 5-0.
BUSINESS:
1. Transmittal of the Draft Redevelopment Plan, Pre 'urinary
Report, and Dft Environmental I1pact Report r the
Diamond Bar Ec omic Revitalization Area.
CDD/DeStefano resented the staf report. aff
recommends that he Planning Commissi n receive and le
the report.
CDD/DeStefano re onded to VC/Schad hat staff woul
welcome a list of questions in advanc of the April 8,
1997 Planning Co ission meeting in! order for the
environmental and development consult4pts and staff to
prepare responses.
CDD/DeStefano expla`oinec
redevelopment plan cover
consists of projects 6a
\necsity
me of the redee
e, he cited the
litation Project
the lifetime of
ing such projects
of future plan
rrently being recation.
PLANNING COMMISSlVN ITEMS:
L to C/Goldenbkrg that the
s a term of 45 yrs. The lisp.
t could be completed within the
lopment project area. As an
current Diamond Bar Boulevard
ichwill again be reconstructed
e redevelopment pNoject area.
t this time wily negate the
m ifications.Thep oject list
Vi ed by staff fob possible
C/Fong commented Nat the informationshared at the Pl _-!r's
Institute Seminar was valuable. He state the Commissioner's were
able to spend quality time together whic allowed them to become
better acquainted.
APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
restriction from said map prohibiting vehicular ingress
and egress to Armitos Place. Continued from March 25,
1997.
Project Address: 24401 Darrin Drive (northwest corner
Darrin Drive and Armitos Place)
Applicants: Cox California PCS, Inc. 18200 Von
Karman Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, CA
92612 and Pacific Bell Mobile
Services, 5959 W. Century Boulevard,
Los Angeles, CA 90045
•Property Owners: Eric and Robin Stone, 24401 Darrin
Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
SP/Johnson presented the staff report. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use
Permit No. 96-10 and Development Review No. 96-9,
Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the
resolution.
SP/Johnson responded to Chair/Ruzicka that requests for
antenna(s) in excess of the three proposed antenna would
be subject to the public hearing process. A condition of
approval proposes the top of the antennas will be six
feet below the top of the hill.
Jeff McKay, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, explained why
the carriers chose the proposed site to co -locate their
antennas. He presented slides showing antenna placement
below grade and indicating the lack of visual impact to
neighboring residences. He asked that the Planning
Commission approve the project and delete the condition
requiring construction of a berm. He indicated the
carriers held a public meeting to address citizen"s
concerns.
Mr. McKay responded to C/McManus that the closest
resident to the proposed facility is the applicant who is
approximately 150 feet from the facility.
Responding to C/McManus, Jim Marquez, Cox Communications,
stated the antennas are not visible to residences.
Therefore, the additional landscaping will mitigate any
opportunity for visual impact. A berm will have no
additional mitigating effect.
C/Fong asked if the antenna will create visual impact for
the residences east of the proposed site.
Mr. Marquez responded to C/Fong that the nearest
residence is 150 feet from the proposed installation.
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 22, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ruzicka 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 Pledge of Allegiance was led by C/McManus.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Schad, and
Commissioners, Fong, Goldenberg and McManus.
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano, Senior Planner Catherine Johnson,
and Assistant Planner Ann Lungu.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Craig Clute stated his concerns regarding the Heritage Tract
Neighborhood Traffic Study's definition of "through traffic" and
elimination of the red curbing on the west side of Fountain Springs
Road between Diamond Bar Boulevard and the Country Hills Towne
Center driveway.
C/McManus asked Mr. Clute for the two definitions of cut -through
traffic.
Mr. Clute responded to C/McManus that the traffic study indicates
that all country Hills Towne Center traffic is "expected" traffic
in the neighborhood.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of April 8, 1997.
VC/Schad made a motion, seconded by C/McManus, to approve the
minutes of April 8, 1997 as presented. The motion was
approved 5-0.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and Development Review 96-9
(pursuant to Code Section 22.20.100) is a request for the
co -location of a telecommunications facility by two
service providers on a residential property and a request
for an amendment to Tract Map 42584, removing a
APRIL 22t 1997 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
staff's conditions, he feels a four foot high berm may
distract from the aesthetic qualities.
Responding to C/McManus, Mr. Zirbes indicated he believes
the additional landscaping would be warranted without the
berm.
Mel Davis stated that he spoke against the project at the
February Planning Commission meeting. With the current
revisions, he is still opposed to the project. He
indicated he is concerned about a potential proliferation
of antennas at the site. He asked who will provide the
ongoing landscape maintenance for the site and if the
neighborhood residents will be expected to pay for the
maintenance. He urged the Planning Commission to reject
the proposed facility.
Armando Gonzales stated he feels the revised proposal
addresses the visual impact concerns of the neighboring
residents. He said he has some concerns about the future
use of the site and the controlled growth of
communication devices. He indicated he hopes the City
will be more active with respect to the overall subject
of communication device installations.
Frank Schabarum, JM Consulting Group, asked that the
Planning Commission approve the project as presented. He
indicated that the planting and ongoing maintenance of
the project site landscaping is provided by the property
owner, Pacific Bell Mobile Services and Cox
Communications.
Dr. Jerrold Bushberg representing Pacific Bell Mobile
Services, concurred with Chair/Ruzicka's statement
regarding EMF's. The current FCC standard which will
become effective September 1, 1997, applies to all
existing as well as, new facilities, and provides a 50
fold safety margin. The proposed facility utilizes
approximately one microwatt which is about 1000 times
less than the standard.
Dr. Bushberg responded to VC/Schad that the effective
radiated power of the systems proposed for PBMS is about
300 watts. Collectively, the radiated system power is
about 900 watts. The system must provide a minimum
signal to insure minimum quality strength of the
signature at the fringe of the curvature. Currently,
there are no antennas that allow multiplexing.
Dan Noland told the Planning Commission about a public
safety incident that occurred in the area of the proposed
site. He favors the proposed communication facility.
APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
Landscaping will camouflage the site thereby eliminating
any visual impact.
Mr. McKay responded to C/Fong that the proposed antennas
are 6 inches wide.
Responding to VC/Schad, Mr. McKay reiterated that the
demonstration pole indicates the maximum antenna height.
He stated his understanding of the restriction removal
precludes the applicant from conducting activities in
addition to those allowed under the CUP and existing
zoning. The owner is providing split rail fencing around
the entire property. The applicant will provide security
fencing around the facility.
VC/Schad indicated he would like for the applicant to
ground the security fence.
Mr. McKay explained to VC/Schad that some of the native
walnut trees may have to be thinned to provide line -of -
site transmission. A condition of approval indicates the
applicants will provide ongoing maintenance for the site.
The applicants intend to provide drought tolerant
landscaping such as holly oak. A 200 AMP panel with a
one 20 AMP breaker will be provided at the site. Water
will be provided to the site for vegetation maintenance
only.
Anthony Greer, Cox Communications, responded to VC/Schad
that each carrier uses approximately 300 watts of power.
Chair/Ruzicka reopened the public hearing.
Craig Clute asked the applicant to explain how the
landscaping will be irrigated until it takes hold and to
what extent the trees will be thinned, cut or removed.
He warned the residents to be concerned about visual
impact. He asked if the site property could be sold,
divided or improved at any time. He stated his concerns
regarding EMF health risks. He asked what kind of backup
system will be provided for the facility.
Chair/Ruzicka stated that because he is also concerned
about safety risks with respect to EMF's, he contacted
The Environmental Protection Agency, The National
Institute of Health, The National Institute of
Environmental Health Services, Federal Communications
Commission, and The Motorola Consortium. He further
stated that all EMF studies indicate there is no
information available that EMF's are dangerous to humans.
Robert Zirbes stated he reviewed the project plans. He
indicated that although he agrees with the majority of
APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
a berm and that the antennas do not have to be lowered
any further than six feet below the top of the hill.
Mr. Marquez responded to C/Fong that Pacific Bell Mobile
Services and Cox Communication would not be opposed to
co -locating other company's antennas at the site. Future
applicants would need to prove that they would not
interfere with the current installation and present their
project to the City for public hearing.
Responding to VC/Schad, Mr. Marquez indicated 24 volt
closed cell batteries will provide the backup system.
C/Goldenberg asked what provisions are made to the City
upon expiration of the applicant's two year landscape
maintenance bond. He indicated to Mrs. Ewen that many
commercial ventures are located in the City's residences.
He requested an explanation of the citizen's petition
against the project.
CDD/DeStefano responded to C/McManus that if the Planning
Commission approves this project and a future applicant
wishes to place antennas at the site, the resolution
provides an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit is
subject to the Planning Commission public hearing
process.
CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Fong that the CUP resolution
does not require the applicants to cooperate with other
cellular service providers.
Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing.
C/Goldenberg moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10 and development Review
No. 96-9, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed
within the resolution subject to the following
corrections and amendments: Page 4, Finding J, sentence
one to read as follows: "The proposed removal of the map
restriction is not of significant benefit to the City."
Modify Condition K on Pages 6 and 7 to eliminate the
berm, retain the landscaping conditions language. Add
the following to Condition B, Page 5: "the permanent
maintenance of the landscaping by the applicant."
C/Fong proposed the motion be amended to provide a
binding agreement in the resolution that the applicants
cooperate with future cellular providers to co -locate
their facilities at the site.
Mr. Marquez stated the tri -lateral lease provides non -
exclusivity. Other similar types of business are not
restricted from enjoying the property aspects. He
APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE S PLANNING COMMISSION
Mary Ewen stated she is concerned that the project
installation will cause a negative precedent. She asked
that the Planning Commission consider a moratorium
against antenna installations while the City considers
the matter. She does not believe the installation will
benefit the City. She asked the transmission direction
of the antennas.
Tom Jackson stated he believes the project presents no
adverse visual impact to the surrounding residences and
that the best possible technology should be made
available to the citizens.
Bill Rafferty approves of the project and feels that
Diamond Bar should have improved technology available to
accommodate public needs.
Robin Stone stated she and her husband believe the
proposed project will benefit the Diamond Bar area and
present no safety risks to her children or to the
families that live in her community. The low impact
project design as revised will present no adverse,
aesthetic impact to the surrounding residents and
visitors to the area. The location of the site will
provide critical cellular phone needs.
Helen Arlene Britt said she feels the City and the
applicants have worked to accommodate the resident's
needs. She believes the revised plans are an improvement
over the previous plans which incorporated a barn
structure. She stated that EMF studies have not been
completed and she is concerned that a proliferation of
antennas may present a public safety concern. She asked
that the City provide for the installation of allergy
free plants.
Mrs. Britt responded to C/Goldenberg that she has
reservations and concerns. However, she can accept the
revised project because the applicant has made an effort
to do the right thing.
Mr. Greer indicated the antennae are pointed up and down
the 60 Freeway and away from homes.
Mr. Marquez stated cellular installations are no more
considered a commercial than cable television or
telephone installations. The proposed installation will
benefit subscribers and emergency services. He asked
that the Planning Commission approve the project with
conditions listed by staff with the exception that the
only condition relating to visual impact will be the
added vegetation with no importing of additional soil for
APRIL 22, 1997 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
CDD/DeStefano restated the motion as follows: To approve
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10 and Development Review
No. 96-9, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed
within the resolution subject to the following
amendments: Amend Page 4, Finding J, regarding the map
restriction; amendment to Condition 5. (b) on Page 5
adding the "permanent maintenance of the property and
landscaping"; amendment to Condition K, Page 6 and 7,
eliminating the two sentences that discuss berming;
elimination of Condition L, Page 7; and re -alphabetize
the conditions accordingly.
C/Goldenberg responded to C/Fong that in his opinion,
appropriate landscaping will provide a much improved
aesthetic view over the proposed four foot high berm.
CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Fong that the applicant has
indicated that earth removed from the equipment pad would
be utilized to create a small berm on the flat pad at the
top of the hill.
C/Goldenberg agreed to amend his motion to amend
Condition K to provide that the earth removed from the
equipment pad will be used to create a small berm on the
flat pad at the top of the hill.
C/Fong stated that the condition pertaining to tree
thinning should specifically stipulate that the shape of
the trees will not be significantly altered. Referring
to plan drawing A-1, he asked why certain trees are
slated for removal.
Mr. Marquez stated the tree thinning is at the discretion
of the City's Director of Planning. No trees are slated
to be removed.
The motion was approved with the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As presented in the meeting agenda.
Goldenberg, McManus,
Fong, Chair/Ruzicka
VC/Schad
None
APRIL 22, 1997
PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
offered to provide evidence to the City's Planning
Division and suggested that the condition be subject to
the review of the Director of the City's Planning
Division, that the applicant can provide evidence that
they are receptive to co -location.
C/Goldenberg stated he wishes to let the motion stand as
stated since the applicants have provided for co -location
within their lease. He favors incorporating a city-wide
cellular site plan rather than encouraging additional
installations at this time.
C/Goldenberg responded to C/Fong that it is in the best
interests of the applicants to encourage other vendors to
co -locate their facilities. With respect to additional
sites, the City should consider a cell site plan within
the City.
Mr. Marquez asked if Condition K, Pages 6 and 7, is
sufficiently amended to provide for the elimination of
Condition L on Page 7.
Mr. Marquez responded to VC/Schad that the applicant's
engineers have indicated that the top of the antennas
should be placed no lower than flat pad level and that
lower installations would not be effective.
CDD/DeStefano restated the motion.
Mr. Marquez reiterated to Chair/Ruzicka that the
equipment will not operate at a point six feet below the
flat pad without significant reduction of transmission
levels.
Responding to VC/Schad, Mr. Marquez indicated the
applicant will accept lowering the top of the antennas to
flat pad level.
C/McManus stated his understanding that the applicant's
proposed antenna would not be below six feet below grade
and that the poles depicted in the photographs were
placed at grade level. The poles placed at the height of
grade level were not visible at grade level and the
landscaping is proposed to mitigate any potential visual
impact.
C/McManus proposed that the motion under consideration be
amended to include the elimination of Condition. L, Page
7.
C/Goldenberg agreed to amend his motion to include the
elimination of Condition L, Page 7.
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
To: Time: 16:05:14
From: Clair W. Hamwny Date: 04/29/97
Subject: Microsoft Word - Document2
Pages (including cover): 2
Please review and take appropriate actions.
Clair
W
i
r
r
rn
frcm tine C Ice Cf
Clair W. harmeny
City Councilman, kamond Ecip, CA
4.%29.!97
City of Diamond Bar
Attn: Terry Belanger,
City Manager
21660 E. Copley Drive
Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
RE: Conditional User Permit %-10 and Development Review %09
Dear Mr. Belanger:
Under City Council procedure, per City Attorney Michael Jenkins opinion, I formerly
request that the above referenced Planning Commission action be placed on next
Tuesday's May 6, 1997, City Council Agenda for Council determination as to whether
it is willing to reconsider the Commission action. (Jenkins can give you the proper
terminology.)
Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and Development Review 96-9 (pursuant to Code
Section 22.20.100) is a request for the co -location of a telecommunications facility by
two service providers on a residential property and a request for an amendment to Tract
Map 42594, removing a restriction from said map prohibiting vehicular ingress and
egress to Armitos Place.
A substantial contingency of Home Owner Association members for the affected
development have convinced me that the issue of placement of antenna facilities in
residential neighborhoods needs to be examined, in all deference to the Planning
Commission's fine efforts, from a policy perspective by the City Council for both
public health & welfare reasons, commercial/residential mixed uses, and open space
issues.
Councilwoman Ansari has joined me in requesting this item be placed on next
Tuesday's Agenda. I have discussed our request with Mayor Huff, who you work with
in planning agendas.
Signed,
Clair W. Harmony
G.O.E— 4153, D-4 Ea., CA 91765 000 1,909) 860-3463, FAX. (909) 961-8881
IN.1 NJ F— a o416 E.,.—]
1�
i•�
IN
J:
kd' � a H
�_izznobr • ,���abaa
�i1n • S�Ib3S
4-`
• =a
taga o
�a
I�c
L L �
CP
_Ile
ro
c �w�'
to C U 'C H •t7 t0 "C
9
C. o a
C
' � o
rn 't7
r...0 L
U to .0 C O 'U -� C
c; c
En
00
C y •'Q o` 3 U t7 - C? .'
Z�
a c o rn v �o. y 0 o 0 o c °
C)
C o U u = a
0
1�
i•�
IN
J:
kd' � a H
�_izznobr • ,���abaa
�i1n • S�Ib3S
4-`
• =a
taga o
�a
0
I�c
L L �
CP
_Ile
ro
c �w�'
to C U 'C H •t7 t0 "C
9
C. o a
C
' � o
rn 't7
r...0 L
U to .0 C O 'U -� C
O E.
L O C p+N C 'U
En
00
0
I�c
.O >00
CP
_Ile
ro
c �w�'
to C U 'C H •t7 t0 "C
9
.c�Ro. c
-.^- O R
r0.
rn 't7
r...0 L
U to .0 C O 'U -� C
O E.
L O C p+N C 'U
En
C ti
C y •'Q o` 3 U t7 - C? .'
~ -C: •wenn � m w cUi .y c I � •`= s 'U
a c o rn v �o. y 0 o 0 o c °
C)
C o U u = a
.c a v E Q a.0 a H.� �•p'�
z p R -I-L� o
,O�
ccamEo� nro�roNya>3a
c. cu° $hwCJ C)r)s
O rn m y U 'L Q O U
•y . '' "' to N -L': C
O ..o v .c Q Xt C"
C t0 v: C. C
.r..
,�
'II 7 O O
O ti -= U C
y•C w.O m.C�
tn; 3
000 03= cc
0
I�c
in •G C
CP
_Ile
ro
c.5
C-
O v:
cf omoE
rn 't7
�•
ci
o O R
ccc=,�
3c
;a Ey
4J •C ' `-
=
Ti' �, 41 > C C
'^ 3 r0
y O ru
u
rn rLJ to o Tr
s- > S 'S c.
� 3 0 �
c o a nU
� �; a`
m ti c ai
� c �
c �.. _
� •c
a :- 3� �
3 c
c3?°cmc
T
m
o�
e z c z.�
p.c�
��� m,�.0
c; �No
z r_ cg
�� c' c4 0 .�
scr�wC) Jg°-c
V �- cam°
�, c-
.eE
uT'`ca`
ac^°^=roa
3�ccYRu>�co'C?0
c��2
v=�°�
O o C x y UO .-,7 • �"O�
C U
O 'y
U C v QJ O H S >' C
U = ti
p 7J O -
H. cO
rn Ti ti H ` z C C U • -
.0 _ �.
'C% O
�
�' U% •7 ."" C
_C
O q. T. GJ
" me h o 3�
_.� O >..� rC
C R"i C C C = U cu -' ^- U
c c amQ c o �ti� y ro•c m c
,. y
ca
L
c c c p c
m: p,��
� L 3p�
3rn�a.
I
a, �•nom
❑ -
a ti rc 3
EccoL
h ��,y
I�c
C n C
o> c
2 a C
3 c 3 c^
ro
c.5
C-
p
>h� uc3r
= ti 0
cf omoE
co��_
Ln—
N c O CJ
o C CU rL
r0
,C U
U >: O C
[
c C
,� j •C U
C `C
U p O C v C
'C
.0 Ci U C �; •C7
rr
W rC •.� .0
' ^
to C C' y
..7 � . _�` Ll, C
�+ .O
o R � 'C tC '- "
Q 'C (:.
t . � � O .r v: H
rC `�. C.
T
m
p)10
cp,o
ti0`
„ _r Gl
ca•cWca�
CJ O -. .
cccpc�
�ro'c
u°�a
o�c)
u `' u V� c
��
c 3
c 3 3t 0
ti L o u
Qc U.0
c c U c• c c
° ma c
N
r.. C o
�- c
!C v O N tC '�' U
> � ,I >
(v N O
m
L
,. y
ca
L
c c c p c
^�
--I n c
c s c
EccoL
April 15, 1997
'97 APR 15 ",?� :56
To the City of Diamond Bar:
Attached are copies of the signed petitions that we have gathered from some of our
neighbors that are opposed to the proposed project, Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
Also attached is a copy of the minutes of a recent Planning Commission meeting
(meeting of March 24, 1997) from the city of Thousand Oaks regarding the unmanned
wireless telecommunications facility.
We, the Citizen Committee, would like to have them forwarded to the Planning
Commission and the City Council for their review.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Mr. Jim Bartley
Mrs. Jo Bartley
Ms. Helen Arlene Britt
Mr. H M Briz
Mr. Mel Davis
Mr. Armando Gonzalez
Mrs. Marie Levan -Nguyen
Mr. Brij Sharma
Mr. Doug Yuen
Mrs. Mary Yuen
04-09-199? 09:06AM FRnM LAW OFFICES OF E J ACOSTA TO -•r-
Services and Case B - DP 96-726/Pacific Bell Mobile Services
7. Letter dated 3/19/97 from Da -,id W. of Bell (Pro)
re:ile ase es DP 96-727/AT&T Wireless
Services and Case B DP 96-
8. Postcard reed from W P 6 imme fice Services
(con)
co re: Case DP 96-727/AT&T Wireless
Services and Case B D 9
9. Mote dated 3/18/97 from Till Barker (pro) re: Case A - DP 96-727/AT&T Wireless Services
and Case B - DP 96-726/Pacific Bell Mobile Services
10. Letter dated 3/24/97 from Dr6�a c Bell Mobil Services P 96-727/AT&T Wireless
Services and Cast B - DP 9
PUB LICISCII SS ION:
.O.; unhappy with references
Do 1 , Pres. of Greater Shadow Oaks HOA, 338 E. Sidlee St., T
made at the 3/10/97 meeting that HOA was not an active and viable organization; requested apology
from Commission and was extended by Chair Powers.
tCa by Koch, 571 Westminster St., T.O., wanted to make comments regarding paint colors at The
Promenade (PCR 182); Chair Powers requested that she delay her comments until the Commission
had an opportunity to review the report which was inadvertently absent from the packet; copy of
report given to Ms. Koch.
Nick Ouidwai, N.P., encouraged support for the Animal Crackers running for Grand Marshal; paint
colors at The Promenade appears to be well received by the community; felt Council should have
approved the Commission's attendance of APA conference in San Diego on April 3-9.
PUBLIC BEARINGS:
DP 96-727 - A T & T WIRELESS SERVICESM? 96-726 - PACIFIC BELL MOBILE
SERVICES (LY)
Speaker cards: D Lane T Ic repres. AT&T, 2927 de la Vina, Santa Barbara, pro; Jeff McHaddad
repres. Pacific Bell, 5959 W. Century Blvd., L.A, pro; StevtnIsbell, radio freq. cons.; 5959 Century
Blvd_, 9200, L.A-, pro; David B c repres. AT&T, 1109 Bath, SB., pro; Fred D. Burkhardt repres.
Chamber of Commerce, 625 W. Hillcrest Dr., T.O., pro; Janes T. Aidukas, 1395 Oakridge Ct., T.O.,
coq Cam 3421 Indian Mesa Dr., T.O., pro.; Robert Phipps, 1489 Wilder St., T.O., con; Dave
Carpenter• 1743 La Granada Dr., T.O., con; Roger Barker, 1394 Oakridge Ct., T.O., con; NM
AidujoL 1395 Oakridge Ct., T.O., con; Paul Ukovic, 1629 Shadow Oaks, T.O., con; Debby
Carloni, 1859 Sapra St., T.O., con; Ken Bl 1625 Shadow Oaks Pl., T.O., con, Marshail
Peppermaa 1748 Country Oaks, T.O., con; Dana Kreger, 1784 Country Oaks Ln., T.O., con; Mark
Sandstrom 3421 Indian Mesa, T.O., pro; Bruce McCunnev, 1912 V i\4onte Dr., T.O., con.
PCD:110 42/as04ia3-2"I 2
1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETIN�r OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS
MEETING OF MARCH 24,1997
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:02 p.tn. by Chair Powers
in the Council Charnbers, 2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Thousand Oaks, California with
Commissioners Anderson, Carpenter, Frields, and Polanski present.
Also present were Staff Members:
Assistant City Attorney Schreiner
Deputy Director Sangster
Principal Engineer Reithmayr
Associate Planner Burgess
Associate Planner Young
Consultant Jonathan Kramer, M.K. Wyatt & Assoc.
VCFD Larry Williams
CRPD Representative Gilmore
TOPD Sergeant Matson
Sr. `Administrative Secretary Sepe
WRITTEN COMMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/CONTINUANC'E
1. Letter dated 3/18/97 from Susan & Robin Perrenoud (con) re: Case A - DP 96-727/AT&T
Wireless Services and Case B - DP 96-726/Pacific Bell Mobile Services
2. Letter dated 3/18/97 from Richard & Margot Ball (pro) re: Case A - DP 96-727/AT&T
Wireless Services and Case B - DP 96-726/Pacific Bell Mobile Services
3. Letter dated 3/20/97 from Jon E. Morris, Real Estate Mgr for AT&T re: Case A - DP 96-
727/AT&T Wireless Services
4. Letter dated 3/18/97 from Jacqueline Ruchman (can) re: Case A - DP 96-727/AT&T Wireless
Services and Case B - DP 96-726/Pacific Bell Mobile Services
S. Letter dated 3/17/97 from James G., Roxanne C. & Yvian A. Horning (con) re: Case A - DP
96-727/AT&T Wireless Services and Case B - DP 96-726/Pacific Bell Mobile Services
6. Letter received 3/24/97 from Vito Covino (pro) re: Case A - DP 96-727/AT&T Wireless
PCD.440-421ua/Mu1.3-2497 1
04-09-1997 09:08AM FPnM LAW OFFICES OF E J ACOSTA 70 131OE144523 P.05
DP 96-727 AT&T'Wirelcss Service'
Res. 12-97
726.
sss
mss. n recommends that the following revisions to conditions be
Should an appeal be filed, the Cornr
incorporated:
Condition No. 19 (AT&T) and No. 54 (Pacific Bell) revised:
Condition No. 35 (AT&T) and No. 70 (Pacific Bell) revised:
Condition No. 14 (AT&T) and No. 49 (Pacific Bell) revised:
• 11 •�i '1 1hA • 1•�vlt ^'17 (Y i•1• •w • • tl 1 • .•. 1 • •
Condition No. 30 and No. 65 revised:
Any expansion or modification of the facility shall require the filing of a WE modification
application to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
Add new condition under DES N section for both AT&T and Pacific Bell:
PCD:A"IIln•lblin3.l4. 97 4
Statement cards: J. Nfichael & Pamela B. Sipple, 1875 Sapra St., T.O., con; Jim & Mdburg Burke,
1790 Country Oaks Lane, T.O., con; Karen Phipps, 1489 Wilder St., T.O., con; Ron & Lyn Koller,
1868 Sapra St., T.O., con; Frances Clohessy, 1492 Valley High Ave., T.O., con; Richard & Judy
Masters, 1867 Sapra St., T.O., con; Jim Masters, 1678 Shadow Oak, T.O., con; Chong W. Lee, 1687
Shadow Oaks Pl., T.O., con; Josh Leach, 47 Ocean View, #10, S.B., pro; Maureen Faulkner, 1629
Shadow Oaks Pl., T.O., con; Susan Perrenoud, 1657 Shadow Oaks Pl., T.O., con; Bradley Hess,
1810 Chapala St., #8, S.B., pro; Kurt Sauter, 1516 El Dorado Dr., T.O., con; Ingrid Orr, 1860 Sapra
St,, T.O., con; Bob Perrenoud, 1657 Shadow Oaks Pl., T.O., con; J. T. Huang, 1378 Oakridge Ct.,
T.O., con; Ron Middler, 1605 Shadow Oaks PI., T.O., con; Joseph Raboy, 1648 Shadow Oaks PI.,
T.O., con; Paul Laroche, 1892 Shaw Ct., T.O., con.
Motion by Commissioner Carpenter vassed (3-2. rields and Powers opposed) to deny the Mitigated
Negative Declaration: subject to the following findings: Aesthetics - inadequacy of mitigation from
roadways and park site; cumulative impacts.
DP 96-726 - Pacific Bell
Res. 11-97
Motion by issioner Ca[Renter passed 3-2 Frields and Powers opposed) to deny a reouest to
g-,onstruct an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility locatedaappro)dmately 800 feet north
of Shadow Oaks Place and 300 feet east of Church Road: subiect to the following findings.
The granting of this request would be detrimental to the public welfare and enjoyment of
private property by the residents immediately adjacent to the proposed site.
The granting of the permit is not consistent or in compliance with all provisions of the Scenic
Highways Element and the intent and purpose of the Protected Ridgeline Policies.
3. Approval of this request would set a precedent for attracting additional wireless
telecommunication facilities in this location.
4. There are alternative sites available that could provide necessary coverage with less
environmental impact.
5. There will be a negative visual impact from this development as viewed from the adjacent Old
Meadows Park and the proposed picnic pavilion on the plateau below the site.
6. There will be a negative impact on the proposed lookout site for recreational users.
7. There will be a negative impact on the property values of adjacent residences due to the
perceived potential health effects of this facility.
There will be a negative impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood due to visual
intrusion on the protected ridgeline within their immediate view corridors.
rcU44"Z/U5Mib3-24-97
no= 1�q +c, I n.rc
04-09-1997 09:09AM FRnM LAW OFFICES OF E J ACOSTA TO A�=`•'_•����� -•��
AD,10U��NT: at 11:25 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday, AprH 7, 1997, for a special meeting.
.powers, Chair
planning Comrnission
4 - 7 — 4"1
Date Approved
PCD:MO-42hr,&W;"'L7A-'n 6
TOTAL P.O7
LD 669/RPD 96-506 -FRANK McDONAL 0 TRUST R
single-fa^'�X.detacn
feet s utl f oa .
SUP 95-902 (Niacor) Modification No 4 LAKESHORE LEARNING STORE (RRA
Speaker cards: Joseph Blanco, repres. App., 2695 E. Dominquez St., Carson, pro; Jack Roy, repres.
App., 2695 E. Dominguez St., Carson, pro.
The Commission unani ou l e agreed to continue to Agri 77 1997• a reQuestl to allow an inct apse
in logo sign area that exceeds sign_ordin_ nye re9uirements for an exi in ter�attt in an apnro�
shot*ine center; located on the southeast comer of Thousand Oaks and Westlake Bou, yard 405
EE4st Thousand )aksBpuleyr
SCEL ANEOUS ITEMS CORRESPO EN E AND REFERRAL -S: (Continued to
Meeting of 4/7/97)
A- Arroyo Conejo Bikeway/Greenbelt Project (HA)
B. On -building Sign Design Guidelines for Commercial Development (PJA
C. PCR 140 - Moorpark Village (Caruso Holdings) Building Sign Design (BR)
D. PCR 182 - Paint Colors at The Promenade (BR)
PLANNING DME Olt REPORTS AND REFERRALS:
None.
MINIJ'TES:
Minutes of March 10, 1997, approved (5-0) as amended.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
None.
PC>4eo.eT--I u;n zaa.97 5
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / PropertyOwner Name (Printed)
Signature
1
v\ .
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
6 � l L6.
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
'97 09-th ARB DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
G1�i� C To t4ri4q
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Al,
--v-- I
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Zb.
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California , do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street) s
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 0
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
ro z le 2 --
Resident
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
O
Si atur
373 4,e1,;,7 /-
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
dS )P
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
�PC,4n
S i nature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
Ou l I CSG1 L6.
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
7a ItJ Z
Resident fProperty Owner Name (Printed)
Ul
CD
Sian�re: CD
373
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVMPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
NII)R-!F �, tE V An; - N C- U-JC(J
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signat e
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California , do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
{ \1 �� \11' N C-1 01-n t'i
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California , do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed) 2-
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / P��ty Owner Nam (Printed)
-- -
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident /,Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signa
33� 7n, (z r"Y1 � -ICX -0(--
Residence
0(--
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resp ent / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
- &:G
o _
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT k&1EW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
�-E* S- PA
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
- la M-� tt( COT �L-4--c
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, ivireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
JA -c-06
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
v i
Signature
/A (L
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-1-07AND`DLOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities / antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
I
-
Sianature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
•97
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
ke -M- e- t
VResid nt /Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signatur
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
•91 �'QR 15
n,l ( 2
`P�TITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PER
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
W -� 1 4 -
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
3 e I A (i ToS ? L fi-c ,6�
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
GAINST CONDITIONAL USE PE:
JD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96 -
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature'
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
7.
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96L-9 SPR 15 :C2
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
7�i5 ra., ,,,ZZ)x/
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
4(J l - At' A,'; 1-0 �
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST "CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 ANDRKXELOGJ?AIENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
�''/1' e'// ,4 Z -/W
kesident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
' _nature
Z/ &Z 4'e�/ r4, s P/ -
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
1
TITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96 9 I,PR 15 -C2
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 425 84
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
77/ 15 nom,""q Z4 x/
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-f9.,,RR 15
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident l property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Sianiture
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
1� G
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT;.;"
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
Vt APR 15 91 i :02
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential nein hborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
7"�A�✓ Ufi--�U AV -6 u
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
[TION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9 .97 02
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
L A5
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT'-
96-10
ERMIT.-
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96 9 r,rq -,i i :02
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVI`R'W 96=
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, tii4i-eless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
( lq12ti I /'IZ-11 �L
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONALVU, SETERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW% -9 ,{ ..03
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
V i %, 'H it A -D �j e�- U N
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
FL (/ I o 117 6
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST _CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEVY 96-9
mr. 15
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
AY RIb&-T� /— X/V(1l0
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Sianatur
4-� 6 �-� M I iOs �/� () F 0. B, (-�
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW996-4, 115 °11 '03
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
T -L
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
S i anature
ZI
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE . PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIWA6.9 °�i :03
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW.6-9R 15 .03
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California , do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
f_ C1 U 1 �� 0 r
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
4ag ture
-fix 0)�
Residence Address ( Number, treet)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
JL f
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT',
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 9699 APR >>
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, vvireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
1
nature
12?": �1 s
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW i96=9 *03
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
L1
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE•.PERIVIIt
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW,1961,79 71 '03
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities / antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
To
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Si anature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
TI
N AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -
96 -10 AND D
W %6.9?R 15 -�.J :03
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Residenti-Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
r
_ I
lResidence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE YExMII :03
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 6-
The subject discussed is the co-location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
I
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9 15- .03
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities / antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 9!;9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, tivireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
71
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
S i mature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
�,.I .03
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
'C -�c
�/ Property 9�vr ame (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW %-g.?R 15
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PE
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96`9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities / antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
V /�. ID4 ll/ S
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
It
Signature
-V/� D'er
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
-111. 1, '03
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PE -I
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
t / Property Own Dame (Printed)
Sisnat e
6
Residence Addre s ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL
96-10 AND DE
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California , do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resi ent I Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT' '
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9 •97 EF]R 1 "; :03
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
/5 9
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signa re
42,,!�n� Carl -5111'11 Dr
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature U
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
0
n
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
�
� L
Jotiv �� . A' opo oG�l
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
all- It
i nat# e
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 -
L -
G
A
PETITION M
iT CONDIZ
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
�S� f. �(� okov6f�
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
7 3 u Com►'
Residence Address ( umber, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
u i
Reside t -/,Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
F
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
/7
Residence Address ( Number, Street) -
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 -
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
AL,��, ��� A
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
o.
��x" �� w
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
Ul
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
.J/ xz=/ (')
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
IS i gnature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
�n -
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California , do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
I-
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address-/( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
i
r i n L; L
Resident / Property Owner a (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
�bfAl
Sii�/nature !
Residence Address ( ber, Stream`
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PE
N AGAINST CO
)ITIONAL USE PE
Z f V
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
•v
Sisnature
L
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
� _ r
Resident / Property Owner Mame (Printed)
i
SiLnature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 `'`
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
ICi
Signature
r
Residence Address ( Number, Street) -
1
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 y� -
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
-(j-T746; R/ AJC- -5- L 7-0 ",/
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
'/CZ
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
Ch
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
D C/'
Resident / Property Owner ame (Printed)
1
Sithature
Residence Addred( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PE
)N AGAINST CONDITR
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Ow4r Name (Printed) a
'_S' _nature
V
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
I-
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature =J
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
1,
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed) es
vu�A' D - (
Signature -
Residence Address ( Number, Stree
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
ry Az
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California , do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Sianature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
0
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Lt'i" '�r
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature -
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 �J
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address (Number, Str et)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
USE
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 - -
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
t7��
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
Ch
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
' '
Resident!/ Property Owngr Name (Printed)
72
` J
Signature � --
�':
Residence Address ( Number, Street) « _
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property ; wn Na e (Printed)
J
Signature J
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDI
IONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
'D
�J
vi
N
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
I-
to another use.
JI
Resident / Prope Owner N me (Printed)
�J
Signat�re
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Li
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
U
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
�j14
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Siornature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
z /
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning, Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature f
,� I :J
Y
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be chanced
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature -
ZIAJ
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California , do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident % Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
.34-12
Residence Address ( Number, Street) =
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST COND
)NAL USE PE
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Re ident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
S'ianature
Residence Ad ress ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
-2 Ui y)o�f
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
S i Qnature
Residence ddress ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
Ji
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regardin; Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
1 / r
Resident / Prop rty Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street) _ =,
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
`Z o
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature _
Lu
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
a4�3 � QAC -P t� C R . . o; n 'tic 4ur 9 A * q 17c S�
Residence Address ( Dumber, Street) -
s �
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 1
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California , do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
f! _
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
M
' J�r'I� y ! l
Resident / Property wner Name (Printed)
Signature
C � D7) 4414,Y9 LW, u
Residence Address ( Number, Street) =-
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
ori66���
/f 3//71,7,
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PE
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
"Sint / Property Owner Na z (Printed) .
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel_ should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / roperty Owner Name (Printed)
Signa ure
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
C�
Signature
yJ3t'c" JCA f5ijeal i'
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
14. &ON? fq L Z- 2
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
MAT
Resident / Property Owife?Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
- J
)N AGAINST CONDITIONAL US
DEVEO
E
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 an
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
wcz
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street) _
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Olt --S7-
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature _
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
L,
Signature
c7VI V,9
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
JZAJ�VA -- X /� L. V A
Resident I Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
v1�qg//)/A
Z� - ' `'If�L
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regardine, Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature -
0
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
S- re
�z/
Residence Address ( Number, Street) '.
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature W
Pit -
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
IT �4P .moi L;cw
Resident / Prop wner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Propert Owner ame ( rinted)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Gam')
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
SiQ ature
D? .
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
,1
Resident/a'�
yOwner Name (Printed)
-Jliv� ";'
ignature
1
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
X
AGAINST_ CONDITIONAL
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
-� L '� ["ri 1,\ti, 5"� � Y -
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
J --
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California , do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident /
I
X -�' P, 8, � '--
wner Name (Printed)
Signatgre' A
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
Petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
escti II n V
Residence Address ( Number, Street) w
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
T`� � � �i %�� s / lLi�� //✓ice �-.l , �(�'l �/_5
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
t7���
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 -,,
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
1�INF-A 7- d-AIhi
Resident / Property Owner Name Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Prop rty wrier Name (Printed)
Signature J
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
i
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, a 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owr(er Name (Printed)
Signatures'
Residence Add ess ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Addre 's ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 = =_
L
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 = -
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
- 0.8 ROL- --J-- L -f)- k) (-,-
v
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
(a 2 �% C
Signature
31r o,2 Pro Po cc
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
A
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
qm- CAT
roc i-
Residence Xddress ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 �„
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
-- CtLrIVLc.L I-- A-�-14t'Ei-SC---�
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed) y
( ignature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities /antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident / Property Owner Name (Printed)
7,nature
O
0
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, u4reless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resident/ Property Owner Name (Printed)
1 �
Sisnature
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
The subject discussed is the co -location of an unmanned, wireless
telecommunications transmission facilities/ antennas in our
residential neighborhood.
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within Tract 42584 and owners
within a 500 foot radius of exterior boundaries of Tract 42584
within the city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by
signing this petition request the Planning Commission of the city
of Diamond Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of
Diamond Bar zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10
and Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
Resi ent / Property Owner Name Brinted)
Signature
U
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
PETITION AGAINST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
96-10 AND DEVEOPMENT REVIEW 96-9
We, the undersigned resident / property owner within the 500 foot
radius of the subject property within tract 42584 and owners within
a 500 foot radius of exterior boundary of tract 42584 within the
city limit of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby by signing this
petition request the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond
Bar to reject the provision of state law and the city of Diamond Bar
zoning code regarding Conditional Use Permit 96-10 and
Development Review 96-9.
The main reason for the opposition is that the subject property is
located in a residential zone which we feel should not be changed
to another use.
edAlw � �rn � '�0�) ► r�-
Res' d nt / r op Owner Name (Printed)
Signature
A4 -4 LDLffuL/
Residence Address ( Number, Street)
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
I AM OPPOSSED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATION TRANSMISSION FACILITIES AT 24401
DARRIN DRIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
V EW
REDUCED VI
APPEARANCE OF NEIGHBORHOOD
POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARD
1 REDUCTION OF PROPERTY VALUES
V REVISED CONSTRUCTION PLANS (Original Plan Was To
Have Antennas Placed Down In The Gully Where They
Would Not Be Seen From Armitos Place. The New Plan
Places The Antennas In A Two Story Building On Armitos
Place At Street Level).
OTHER (Please Specify)
Print Name I yea
Signature
C�
U
Address
D���n010
I AM OPPOSSED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATION TRANSMISSION FACILITIES AT :24401
DARRIN DRIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
C mvav to px�,
oy-
REDUCED VIEW f�
APPEARANCE OF NEIGHBORHOOD
POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARD
s� REDUCTION OF PROPERTY VALUES
REVISED CONSTRUCTION PLANS (Original Plan Was To
Have Antennas Placed Down In The Gully Where They
Would Not Be Seen From Armltos Place. The New Plan
Places The Antennas In A Two Story Building On Armitos
Place At Street Level).
OTHER (Please SPecify)
Print Name AS 0
A ),O�try
Signature
Address '58,5 � , "�
I AM OPPOSSED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATION TRANSMISSION FACILITIES AT 24401
DARRIN DRIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
/ REDUCED VIEW
-3z APPEARANCE OF NEIGHBORHOOD
POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARD
V REDUCTION OF PROPERTY VALUES
REVISED CONSTRUCTION PLANS (Original Plan Was To
Have Antennas Placed Down In The Gully Where They
Would Not Be Seen From Armitos Place. The New Plan
Places The Antennas In A Two Story Building On Armitos
Place At Street Level).
OTHER (Please Specify)
Print Name Of) at 1 L fl� H%� � GU�t �j
Signature
Address 3 "� i�RMii-T0 ao
I AM OPPOSSED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATION TRANSMISSION FACILITIES AT 24401
DARRIN DRIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
REDUCED VIEW
APPEARANCE OF NEIGHBORHOOD
POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARD
REDUCTION OF PROPERTY VALUES
REVISED CONSTRUCTION PLANS (Original Plan Was To
Have Antennas Placed Down In The Gully Where They
Would Not Be Seen From Armitos Place. The New Pian
Places The Antennas In A Two Story Building On Armitos
Place At Street Level).
OTHER (Please Specify)
Print Name z
r z
Signature
LCq 19
Address
17 ()
I AM OPPOSSED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATION TRANSMISSION FACILITIES AT 24401
DARRIN DRIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
./ REDUCED VIEW
--,,,:---APPEARANCE OF NEIGHBORHOOD
POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARD
REDUCTION OF PROPERTY VALUES
REVISED CONSTRUCTION PLANS (Original Plan Was To
Have Antennas Placed Down In The Gully Where They
Would Not Be Seen From Armitos Place. The New Plan
Places The Antennas In A Two Story Building On Armitos
Place At Street Level).
OTHER (Please Specify)
Print Name
Signature
3-671
/,, S- K�
Address 9 C/ /� 9c4 ( � S PL
D (4 17 (9 S-
I0 -T- ai
C. Section 2.07 of the Original Declaration sets forth certain
restrictions on antennae and rooftop appliances. The undersigned Owners, by execution
of this First Amendment, desire to amend Section2.07 of the Original Declaration in
certain respects with regard to Lot 51 only, subject to certain conditions as set forth
below.
D. Capitalized terms set forth in these recitals and the operative
provisions set forth below shall have the same meaning as such terms set forth and defined
in the Original Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned Owners of seventy-five percent
(75%) or greater of the Lots within Tract 42584 do hereby amend the Original
Declaration in the following respects only:
follows:
1. Section 2.07 of the Original Declaration is amended to read as
"Section 2.07 Antennae: Rooftop Appliances. With the
exception of one (1) television antenna installed in a manner
designed to mitigate the obstruction of views and avoid
unnecessary aesthetic impact, no radio antenna, aerial, C.B.
antenna, television antenna or other facilities for the reception or
transmission of radio or television signals or other means of
communication shall be erected, installed or maintained on any Lot,
except totally within a Dwelling Unit with no exterior evidence
thereof or in underground conduits. A master antenna or
Cablevision antenna may be provided for the use of all Owners, and
Grantor may grant easements for such purposes. In addition, no
improvements, appliances or other installation shall be permitted on
the roofs of Dwelling Units, unless installed in a manner so as not
to be visible from other Lots or streets, and approved in writing by
the Committee. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this
Section 2.07 and Section 2. 10, installation of commercial wireless
telecommunication facilities may be permitted on Lot 51.
2. In all other respects, all other Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions contained in the Original Declaration shall remain in full force and effect.
3. This First Amendment may be executed in counterparts with
appropriate notarial jurat affixed thereto.
(SIGNATURES AND NOTARIES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES)
-2-
Recording Req}tested by:
When Recorded Mail To:
2 y \k
iD r� fy% e. ( 3� C g�76�
(Space Above this Line for Recorder's Use)
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
AND RESERVATION OF EASEMENTS FOR
SOUTH COUNTRY
TRACT 42584
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF COVENANTS,
CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATION OF EASMENTS FOR
SOUTH COUNTRY TRACT NO. 42584 ("First Amendment") is made by the
undersigned Owners of seventy-five percent (75%) or greater of lots 1 through 65,
inclusive, of tract No. 42584, as shown on a Subdivision Map recorded on October 27,
1983 in book 1024, pages 6 to 14, Inclusive of Maps, in the Office of the Los Angeles
County Recorder ("Tract 42584"). This first Amendment is made with respect to the
following facts:
PREAMBLE
A. On February 24,1984, South Country Corp., a California
corporation, caused to be recorded a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions and Reservation of Easements for South Country Tract 42584 as Instrument
No. 84-233763 in the Official Records of the Recorder's Office, Los Angeles County,
California ("Original Declaration") for lots 1 through 65 of Tract 42584.
B. Pursuant to Section 6.01 of the Original Declaration, the covenants,
conditions and restrictions contained in the Original Declaration run with the project, as
defined in the Original Declaration, and are binding and enforceable by all Lot Owners of
Tract 42584 for a period of fifty (50) years after the recordation of the Original
Declaration and shall be automatically extended for a successive ten (10) year periods
unless, by a written instrument signed by the Owners of seventy-five percent (75%) of the
Lots and at any time thereafter Recorded, the Owners determine to change the Original
Declaration in whole or in part.
Dat
� 2L 71ia
Dat
Slgn a Owner ofLot/-�—
t
Signature
Date Signature
Date Signature
Owner of Lot
Owner of Lot 7
Owner of Lot
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
} ss.
COUNTY OF ,g r.r r_ t �)
On before me, a Notary
Public, personally appeared '�'— /e
re/1
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) ia/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that /they executed the same in te;Fwtheir authorized capacity(ies), and behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
[Seall,
Signature of Notary \
U Bobbi D. Haynes
Comm. 01069638
• NOTAMY PUBLIC CAUFORN1AQ
LOI ANOEL48 COUNry l]
Comm. fixp. June G. 2000 r
A-147 LA
Date
Date
.i. m
Owner of Lot 2- 6
Owner of Lot 2 i
Dat Signature Owner of Loth
'Datd Signature Owner of Lot D
LI/
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF
On A C — G- Q G, before me,
Public, personally appeared (= c:1- ,—AC
h . 5^o
Notary
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) Ware subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that I a4k/they executed the same in his4ter/their authorized capacity(ies), and behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
• Bobbi D. Haynes Signature of Notary
[S Comm. 111099938
NOTARY PUBLIC CAUFORNIAA'
LOS ANOELES COUWV
11
Comm. Exp. June 6. 2000
Date Signature Owner of Lot
,4�CL 1
Dat Signature Owner of Lot J
Date
Date
Signature
Signature
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF
Owner of Lot
Owner of Lot
On G - - R G before me, _ ,--c a Notary
Public, personally appeared �"�: t�c� } _a n �-Aj V -'-Q -c—
personally
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) Ware subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he>Me/they executed the same in hi@Aver/their authorized capacity(ies), and behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
��
Signature of Notary
[Se Bobbi D. Haynes
• Comm. M�O��e
NOTARY PUBLIC CAWFORNI X
LOC ANOBLBB COUNTY %I
Comm. too. Juno B. 2000 �
Date
Date
Date
Signature
Owner of Lot
Signature Owner of Lot / )
Signature Owner of Lot
Date Signature Owner of Lot
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ` o S C,�� )
On 16 - - " before me,ra�j_a Notary
Public, personally appeared 4 o✓t S �� _t/, ��,y�.� P- p,Q
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) iWare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that h&WWthey executed the same in h64w/their authorized capacity(ies), and behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
[Seal
* -•,,:.
Bobbi D. Haynes
V
Comm. *1099939
11y;
NC LCt
ANOC GO COUWY 1+
Comm. rsxp Juno 6, 4000
�`
Signature of Notary
�1
Date ,,Aignatak Owner of Lot 4
Date
Date
Date
Signature
Signature
Signature
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF c, ;:�j )
Owner of Lot
Owner of Lot
Owner of Lot
On Tc!, -a C � G a before me, ') �— a Notary
Public, personally appeared a r
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(e) whose name(*) to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that lt�Zshe/hey- executed the same in his/herAheir authorized capacity(iee), and behalf
of which the person(sj acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Bobbi D. Haynes Signature of Notary
[Seal] Q Comm. 01060038 RV P
•
NOTA CAUFORNIA,.
L0� ANQ11M COUNTV t!
Comn+. Bxp. June $. 2000 a
Jf o12 , b Owner of Lot 3 3
Date Signature
L(-
, b
Date
Date
Date
V ( ,ny
ignature Owner of Lot 3�
Signature
Signature
Owner of Lot
Owner of Lot
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF s -=S )
On - - 9r before me, a Notary
Public, personally appeared ,r! -±✓ c ec^icz i,\
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) flare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that ha4ekhey executed the same in 1i�their authorized capacity(ies), and behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary
[Seal] T Bobbi D. Haynes
�1. Comm. 01099936
• NOTARY PUSUC r.ALiFORNIA�
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 11,,
Comm. 1%0. Juno S. 2000j
lCLzI-q�-
Date Signature Owner of LoO q
4
Date Sign ture Owner of Lots
Date
Signature Owner of Lot
Date Signature Owner of Lot
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF yes ra t,\ c, C-7\ S= -S )
On �-c before me, - r�,\j -N �=Cla Notary
Public, personahy app ared ac) Lp\ \� V) )\A Q S
persdnally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) Ware subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he4ke/they executed the same in 1/their authorized capacity(ies), and behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
ta L 1:: � ca"'t)y
Signature of Notary
[Seal]
Bobbi D. Haynes
Q Comm, M10oo�8 n
e NOTAl1Y MUOl10
Ni
i X06 ANOiL18 COUNTY `]
Comm orp: Juni 6. Joao
Date Signature Owner of Lot
Date Signature
Date Signature
Date Signature
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF \_C s P
On 1 C ---i c - gS�be ore me, _
Public, personally appeared 1.1
E
Owner of Lot
Owner of Lot
Owner of Lot
C ,a Notary
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
persons whose name( is/are-subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he/sho4hey-executed the same in hi&%a*heir- authorized capacity(4es), and behalf
of which the person f s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary
[Se Bobbi D. Haynes
0kComm. *1099938
' NOTARY PUGUC CAUFORN p
LOS ANGELES COUNTY l I
Comm. Exp. June 6, 2000
ZZ,4 y
Date Signature Owner of Lot
Date J Signature Owner of Lot 7- 3
Date Signature Owner of Lot
Date Signature Owner of Lot
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF t Cc R N c' � )
On 1 C) - Q-Q� - q G before me, �jc> it`d 1 t> _ 1 1 A`� L)SSS: Notary
Public, personally appeared E�•u -�- rio . k �2 j_i a•�
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s)isiare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he4he/they executed the same in hisker/their authorized capacity(ies), and behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Bobbi D. Haynes
:r Signature of Notary
�I Comm. #1099938 Q
NOTAAY PUBLIC CAUFOANIM
• Los ANGELES COUNTY �!
;, Comm. Exp. June B, 2000
Date
c 6 ilq to
Date
� JlJ
Si ature Owner of Lot 3�5(
Signature
Owner of Lot -:3 0
Date Signature Owner of Lot
Date Signature Owner of Lot
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF Los A N G rt )
On O - Z - before me, a Notary
Public, personally appeared q l=am eT
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) 6/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that 4eAWthey executed the same in F/their authorized capacity(ies), and behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
0-90'rbi 6 Haynes ; Signature of Notary
Comm, $1000038
NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORN Q
LOE ANGELS& COUNTY ll
COMIM, EYP. June !, 2M
r ,
f o4L �,LG'w� .� �
Date I Signature ' Owner of Lot
(v 117 L T
Date Signature Owner of Lot
Date Signature Owner of Lot
Date Signature Owner of Lot
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss.
COUNTY OF t4GE1� )
On 1 Q - : G - q�before me, � Notary
Public, personally appeared L-A aoGa\ gra
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person( whose name(*) is/wea subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he/sheithe3+ executed the same in his4wn*h& authorized capacity(ios), and behalf
of which the persons}acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Bobbi D. Haynes Signature of Notary
[Seal]
U Comm, #IWIN8
NOTAAY'USLNO CAu'011Nt
LOS ANCCLIS COUNTY IIJJ
. , OOTm Irv. JYM S, 9000
lv /yLt.�•�. /
Date Signature Owner of Lot L11 -
Date Signature Owner of Lot 4L
Date Owner of Lot I Z --
Y, Y,
S�
Date Signature Owner of Lot
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF �� A�.<<1�j RES)
On 1 -mac, 1q c before me,
Public, personally appeared Z—.e V
Notary
personally known to me of proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) Ware subscribed'to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me thatA*4k/they executed the same m bi~their authorized capacity(ies), and behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
1�
Signature of Notary
[Se ;F;" Bobbi D. Haynes p
Comm, 01098938 (f1�
w NOTARv PUBLIC CAUFORNllO±
`7LOS ANGELIS COUNV ll!!
Comm. Exp. June b. 2009-12
I Ito ia
Date Signature Owner of Lot
Date Signature Owner of Lot
Datd _ 'gnature Owner of Lot
a/ --y
'l. GII
Date Signature Owner of Lot 47
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF
On } (� - zg� -q C- before me, L'wc)i p\y K) K�S:;,a Notary
Public, personally appeared �%7,r4.),
personally known to me or proved to me oi(the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) i -dare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that -h f they executed the same in-l+@ef/their authorized capacity(ies), and behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
`"' ' 'L�� f'� �� ff"
Bobbi D. Haynes Signature of Notary
[Seal]c..' comm, 010991111
NOTAAY'UIIIC CAW 81 Q
LCA ANOij1 COUNTY
0omm INA. of e, 1000 i
sa- -AleDate 11Signature Owner of Lot 2-1-
4�
Date Signature Owner of Lot
Date Signature Owner of Lot
Date Signature Owner of Lot
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF r,� A �u'- �1
On before me,- = a Notary
Public, personally appeared 'S'a„II j '',E wa, ,- -A
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) mare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that ha4AwJthey executed the same in his%er�their authorized capacity(ies), and behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary
[S�' .mow wBobbi D. Haynes
.�.. �3 Comm. 81099938 rj
�Q NOTARY PUBLIC CAUFOANI
�i% LOS ANGELES COUNTY t1
t. ., Comm. Exp. dune 0.2000
I�;1V�-�
D to / ignature Owner of Lot !
L
C t, �r /
ate 1' Signature Owner of Lot
�L42CLLiLate signature Owner of Lot
Date
Signature
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF l C3S l4
Owner of Lot
On � \ - :Z,- - 1� G before me, a Notary
Public, personalV appeared �a✓ _.'- -t-,� E f i �n c �%
�JS'4 ✓� 2. rr'Q f`�2
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) flare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that 1e/they executed the same in iris/heF/their authorized capacity(ies), and behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Bobbi D. Haynes Signature of Notary
[S Comm. 01099M
NOTARv pusucCALWORNII;;
Los ANaiL[s COUNTY
Comm. Up. June 6, 20 �
Date Signa re Owner of Lot
O Z(C6
Date
tol-�2�
Date
4-h �
Date
Owner of Lot -39
Owner of Lot 7
Signature Owner of Lot
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF
On 1 O - a (:�, — `1 G before e, l 1 Notary
Public, personally appeared
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) isfare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that ha4he/they executed the same in4 is %w/their authorized capacity(ies), and behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
LC2f1f—='M:2 �� h�
-;� Bobbi D. Haynes Signature of Notary
199938
[Seal] U .•n.. NOTAPO PUYUCOCAUPORNI Q
Q r LOS ANOLIii COUNTv "
;; . Comm. Exp. JUn4 A, Q000
1 1
I
Da Signature Owner of Lot
/q,
Date' Silature Owner of LotPx, d""// _e��
J
Datel Signature Owner of Lot
&�-7
�l
e Signature7 Owner of Lot'
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF
On before d� a 9tary
lic, ersonally appeared� N'1ln
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that 4ef9he, hey executed the same in4i&%erltheir authorized capacity(ies), and behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
. _= �� Bobbi D. Haynes
U Signature of Notary
COMM. 0038
NOTA14Y PURL C 1 OCALIFO 1N1 Q
LC8 ANOGLis COUNTY
COMM Am June !. II000 r
to
l
Date
Date
Date
Signature
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF
Owner of Lot 45�q
Owner of Lot
Owner of Lot �
Owner of Lot
On fore mjj — a Notary
Public f personally appeared i/1 � C
rlC Mprella
personally known to me or pr ved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) Ware subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that 44heithey executed the same in /their authorized capacity(ies), and behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Bobbi D. Haynes Signature of Notary
Comm, 01099938
[Se NOTARY PUBLIC"8 cou"rY"'' I
Comm. ago. Juno !, 2000
I1
D, to
D to
Date
Date
Signature Owner of Lot Z -S
Signature Owner of Lot
Zj-
Signature
Signature
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF
Owner of Lot
Owner of Lot
On i 1- a- R G before me, — q� a Notary
Public, personally appeared r�
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(&) whose name(*) isMm-subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that heJshekhey executed the same in his/ authorized capacity(ies), and behalf
of which the person(.} acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
N C-1�en7�' L
Signature of Notary
[Se
.• Bobbi D. Haynes
Comm- x1099938
NO ARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 0
C Comm Exp. ,lune 6.2000 -6
ll2 Iq� 2,
D to Signature Owner of Lot
Date Signature Owner of Lot 5-(,Z:3
Z� C
Date Owner of Lot 5
IJ4(n ow"k
Dae Si re Owner of Lot
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF LOS A r.1C_ t
On \ 1 —� b ore me,�
Public, personally appeared/( r;Qr-1IL
�tw44ryp L 1AY0 N. 60AIZA LE Z
Notary
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) Ware subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that heAeke/they executed the same in liskekheir authorized capacity(ies), and behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Bobbi D. HaYnss Signature of Notary
[Seal] Q Comm. N1099000
• NOTAmy'UY61 OAtr1/QRN
O apo ANOCLJYMO�Nwpp
aemn►. a"
k k �. L'."
Date Signature
9•/M:"F
Dae Signature
Owner of Lot �-
Owner of Lot C
Da Signature weer of Lot
s.
Da e
SUBSCRIBING WITNE
ignature Owner of Lot
SS: _
Eric
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss_
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
On \ a —I \ -9 (o , before me, Bobbi D. Haynes, a Notary Public for the State,
personally appeared Eric Stone, personally known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument, as witness th reto,Wt,
being b dj�ly sworn,doses and says that he was present and sawC=i24—f ��2CC�'
the same persons described in and whose names are subscribed to the within and annexed
instrument as a party thereto execute the same, and at sai ant su�scn 4 name to
the within instrument as witness at the request of_ i PQCC(;
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Bobbi D. Haynes
Bobbi D. Haynes '
Comm, #1099938 3
NOTARY PUBLIC CALWORNI
LOSANO21.900OUNTY
Comm. Exp. Juno 6, 2000 ,
e
1c l\ Co.
Date
Date
i
Date
SUBSCRIBING WITNE�
c
Signature Owner of Lot
Si ature Owner of Lot
�6 Signature
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
Owner of Lot
Owner of Lot U.
On 1<;�- - 1 \ —R (;� before me, Bobbi D. Haynes, a Notary Public for the State,
personally appeared Eric Stone, personally known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument, as witness thereto, who, beigg by me duly sworn,
deposes and says that he was present and saw M*4e *iyi
the same persons described in and whose names are subscn ed the within and annexed
instrument as a party thereto execute the same, and that said affiant subscribed his name to
t t�iin instrume t as witne/s�s t the requestof
��a1 ��
J
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Bobbi D. Haynes
Comm. #1099038
NOTARY PUBLIC CAUFOANI X
Bobbi D. Haynes LOG ANCIRM COUNTY �Ci
ComT. exp:.luno JAI
Date Signature
Date
I!
Date
taff
Date
Signature
SUBSCRIBING WITNE .
e
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Owner of Lot 3
L,
Owner of Lot
Owner of Lot
Owner of Lot -��/
On -\a- 1 1 -9 C , before me, Bobbi D. Haynes, a Notary Public for the State,
personally appeared Eric Stone, personally known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument, as witnessreto, who, being by me duly sworn,
deposes and says that he was presgnt and saw
the same persons described in and whose names are subscribed to the within and annexed
instrument as a party thereto execute the same, an t said affiant subscribed his name to
t� thin " strument as witness it the request of i C)
WITNESS my hand and official seal
D. Haynes
Bobbi D. Haynes
Comm. 01099938
MARY PUBLIC CALIFORNI
LOS ANGELES COUtM
Comm. Exp. June 6. 2000
i ►f s -
Date
Dite
Dat
Date
SUBSCRIBING W
STATE OF CALIF
Ci
Signature
Owner of Lot J633
Signature Owner of Lot
Signature Owner of Lot
ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Owner of Lot 32
On 1 Z— 1 \ - °t C , before me, Bobbi D. Haynes, a Notary Public for the State,
personally appeared Eric Stone, personally known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument, as witness thereto, who, being by me duly sworn,
says that lye was present and saw
the same persons described in and whose names are subscribed to the within and annexed
instrument as a party thereto execute the same, and hat said affiant subscribed his name to
the within instrument as witness at the reauest of � Lo 0
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Bobbi D. Haynes
Bobbi D. Haynes
Comm. 01099988
VARY ALIFOAN
LOS ANGELES u WC CCOUNTY
Comm. Exp. June S, 200(
31.
W
("
1-X- 9 9
Date
q(,
at
Owner of Lot 43
Owner of Lot q-3
Date Sign�re Owner of Lot Z
-Z °I
/5 (-,
at
SUBSCRIBING
v /
ignature Owner of Lot
WITNE
Eric S
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
On j 2, - 1 1 - ci G , before me, Bobbi D. Haynes, a Notary Public for the State,
personally appeared Eric Stone, personally known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument, as witness theret , who, being by me d y sworn,
deAoses and spys that he was present and saw Rf -/-
the same persons described in and whose names see subscribed to the within and annexed
instrument as a party thereto execute the same, and that id affiant subscr�bo his name to
thewithin irymment_as witness at the request of -1 4.3 -4- JCS 0 "-OLP
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Bobbi D. Haynes K
Comm. #1099938
OTARV PUSUC CAUFOAN1A4
`OS ANGELES COUNTY 0
comm. Exp• J 6, 2000 ,
D. Haynes
� C-C�►�IL�
Signature
2 I0) it
Dat
0,Q
at
SUBSCRIBING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
Owner of Lot L
Owner of Lot7
Owner of Lot
Owner of Lot
On _iZL - 1 1 -c1 G , before me, Bobbi D. Haynes, a Notary Public for the State,
personally appeared Eric Stone, personally known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument, as witness eto, who, being bype duly sworn,
dand says t he was present and saw —A— UA^
M7
the same personer$escribed in and whose names are subscribed to the within and annexed
instrument as a party thereto execute the same, an at said affiant subscri his name to
the within instrument as witness at the request of
isv\er---
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Bobbi D. HaynesComm. #1099938
3
NOTARY PUPLIC CAUFORN Q
Bobbi D. Haynes CoMIMI F„�� e 0 2000
bate ••
Dat6 Signaturc�
Date d
Iti
C� , 6
Dkt
SUBSCRIBING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
Owner of Lot -�Z
Owner of Lot 0 L
Owner of Lot 1-r3
Owner of Lot SIJ
On - 1 \ —9 Q , before me, Bobbi D. Haynes, a Notary Public for the State,
personally appeared Eric Stone, personally known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument, as witness theret , who, beintL
M17CO3 rn,
MSe� ao� Sys t�t he was present and saw, o 'yon LA -e-
thesame persoiiTescribed in and whose names are subscribed to the within and annexed
instrument as a party thereto execute the same, anat d �t bsc his name to
t wi nt as witness at the request f r TQ os
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Bobbi D. Hayne";
w Comm, #1080038 A
C •:��
NOTARY
COURNTTYY W
Bobbi D. Haynes ` Ccmm. E%D. Juno 8, 2000 ;
�Date Sign re Owner of Lot 2
Date Sigiature Owner of Lot / c7
la /lo q(.,
Date Signature Owner of Lot 50
n -
Da
SUBSCRIB
STATE OF
J 9
DaiS, ture Owner of Lot 32
ING WITNESS -
E ,Sto
CALIF )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
On 1 Z - \ 1 - f� Q; before me, Bobbi D. Haynes, a Notary Public for the State,
personally appeared Eric Stone, personally known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument, as witness tkerpto, who by me duly sworn,
dee�oses ys that he was present and saw c Qr-ra 11"q
(', Li lam_. C-)-� )`(\ n_ 1 t^ - c /'I-
the
'I-
the same persons described in and whose names are subscribed to the within and annexed
instrument as a party thereto execute the same, anthat said ubscribed his name to
th within . ent as witness at the reeqqu_est of
�v Q1vU: �SUv,a 1 "O -f-%
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
i D. Haynes
Comm. Mt099938
�'•,�~ : � NOTARY pyiUC CA�iFORN
LOS ANGHLQO COUNTY
at ignature
2 t 4&
Dat Signature
Owner of Lot
Owner of Lot 5'0
Z- b
,,;o
ate Signature Owner of Lot
STATE OF
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
Owner of Lot % %
On before me, Bobbi D. Haynes, a Notary Public for the State,
personally appeared Eric Stone, personally imown to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument, as witness veto, who, bein by me duly sworn,
d fposes fnd says that, he was present and saw _73706 '7 . 1 Ii
J
the same persons described in and whose names are subscnbed to the within and annexed
instrument as a party thereto execute the same, and that said affiant sub "bed his name to
t e witbiq �mstnUnen as witness at the requ f�t� c�
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
t. Bobbi D. Haynes
Comm. 01090038
Bob�Hayvnnes NOTARYPUOUC CAUFOANILOi AWL" COUNTY A6/
Comm. Exp. dun* 0.2000
Date Si re Owner of Lot
k () 9 L PA- L 4e ---
Dat Signatu a Owner of Lot
4l S(-,
ate-�--
/
1 I A
Dat
SUBSCRIBING
/ is / L-47
Owner
Signature Owner of Lot
"SS: �,
c S ne
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
On I a - \ \ - C� G , before me, Bobbi D. Haynes, a Notary Public for the State,
personally appeared Eric Stone, personally known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument, as witness thereto, who, beia#y me duly sworn,
d%,ojesA says teat he \wps present and saw
the same persons described in and whose names are subscribed to the within and annexed
instrument as a party thereto execute the same and -that d affianbscribed his name to
the t ' as ess at the request �ov�
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Bobbi D. Haynes ;
Comm. #I OM38
k -D NOTARY PUBLIC GWFORNL45
LOS ANGELES COUNTY tJ
comm. EXP. June 6. 2000
Bobbi D. Haynes
Date Si ture V Owner of Lot
Z,/[ f. 9
Date
Date
Date
SUBSCRIBING
L E-�D
Si8dfture Owner of Lot
Signature Owner of Lot
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
Owner of Lot
On l'a. - l -1—C[ r., , before me, Bobbi D. Haynes, a Notary Public for the State,
personally appeared Eric Stone, personally known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument, as witness eto, who being bym duly sworn,
deposes and says that he =�J saw,wv
the same persons described in and whose names are subscribed to the within and annexed
instrument as a party thereto execute the same, and that said affiant subscribed his name to
within instrument as witness at the request of T �, 7e
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Bobbi D. Haynes
Bobbi D. H-- ay�e�
Comm. 01099M
bTARY PUBLIC CAUFCRN O
Comm�Ex2000
Con , Inc.
June 2, 4 a?
Mr. Bob Huff, Mayor and Councilmembers
Citv of Diamond Bar
21660 East Coply Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
SJ QQ0 E -If CobJX DLrn6` a -ii. l00
CC; Ifa O{ I�I57xJ0 jq RL
,ity of Diamond Bar
21660 East Coply Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Re: Call for Council Review CUP 96-10 and DR 96-9
Telecommunication Facility
24401 Darrin Drive
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
This is a request of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar to uphold
Planning Commission Resolution Number 97-6 approving Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) No. 96-10 and Development Review (DR) No. 96-9 for a
wireless telecommunication facility at the property at 24410 Darrin Drive,
Diamond Bar, CA in an R-1 zone.
As a conditionally approved use in the R-1 zone, the applicants have taken
care in designing the facility to "blend" into the hillside on the north facing
slope aligning the south side of the Pomona (I 60 Freeway) and Armitos Place.
We have considered the following issues and actions.
1. To ensure that the antenna would not be visible from the
neighborhood, Cox and PBMS have placed their antennae at a height
below the flattened pad along Armitos Place and have incorporated
landscaping around the equipment and antenna.
7. T�
Page 2
Council Review
CUP 96-10 and DR 96-9
COMMENTS:
It is our belief that a tastefully
community and the applicant
inharmonious relationship wit
humans.
hdesigned facility will provide benefit to the
if it does not block views, create an
the hillside, or cause unhealthly affects on
The suggestion of the City Council to provide a "mock" facility was taken
wholeheartedly and enthusiastically. The placement of the "mock" antenna
disclosed that our antenna will not be visible from the street, sidewalk or
residents across from the site on Armitos Place. The camouflage paint
disclosed that the antenna are hardly visible from the Pomona Freeway. The
placement of landscaping around the antenna facility at the edge of the
flattened pad and the placement of the antenna within the existing walnut
tree along the north facing slope of the site showed an enhanced beauty and
computability in relation to the neighboring properties.
At the on-site community meeting held on June 2, 1997, a demonstration was
conducted showing the amount of electromagnetic emissions that would
emanate from the antenna. To undertake this experiment all parties worked
closely to have their respective equipment brought to the site, mounted to the
poles and powered up their transmission equipment to send signals at the
power ranges and frequency that would be in effect when their systems are
full operation. Dr. Bushberg performed a series of electromagnetic readings.
He found that the antenna emissions have readings at levels between .1% to
.2% of the safety standards for radio frequency electromagnetic fields,
rendering an extremely safe relationship for the site and neighborhood.
It is respectfully requested that the City Council adopt a resolution upholding
CUP 96-10 and DP 96-9 subject to the following:
1. All conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution
Number 96-7; and,
2. The height of the antenna be placed at an elevation of two (2) feet
below the flattened pad off Armitos Place.
3. That landscaping be provided in a range substantially in compliance
with the landscape drawing submitted to the City Council on June 3,
Page 2
Council Review
CUP 96-10 and DR 96-9
1997, subject to the approval of the planning department.
4. That the applicants install an earthen berm having a height of four to
five feet at the northerly edge of the flattened pad off Armitos place.
The applicant and client will be in attendance at the public hearing to answer
questions and provide information on the modified design.
Sincerely,
m M14*uez, Senior Planner
cc: J. McHaddad, Caraway for PBMS
R. Lingle, Cox/Sprint
Action Items Undertaken Since the May 6,1997
Meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council
1. The antenna and pole supports were installed and painted a
"camouflage green" in a "Mock Facility Design".
2. A two (2) foot high earthen berm was placed on the top edge of the
flattened pad between Armitos Place and the location of the antennas.
3. A wood rail and post fence was placed along the entire street frontage
separating the site from the street.
4. The antenna's were lowered an additional two (2) feet below the level
of the flattened pad. This is a lower height than the height approved by
the planning commission per CUP 96-10 and DR 96-9.
5. Notification of a community meting was mailed to every property
owner within 500 feet of Tract 42584 and a demonstration of the degree
of emissions that would be experienced when both facilities are in full
power.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA N0.
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997 REPORT DATE: May 29,1997
FROM: Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
TITLE: RESOLUTION NO. 97-32A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 32 (RELATING TO THE VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE
CEILING FOR CITY ELECTIONS).
SUMMARY: On May 6,1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 97-32 establishing the number
of residents of the City for the purpose of determining the voluntary expenditure ceilings for City elections.
Contained within the Resolution under Section 2.B., the voluntary expenditure ceiling was "established at an
amount equal to one dollar ($1.00) per resident of the City for each election for Member of the City Council,"
However, on May 20,1997, the City Council approved first reading of Ordinance No. 2 (1997) establishing the
voluntary expenditure ceiling for City elections at fifty cents ($.50) per resident of the City. Therefore, the
Resolution must be amended to reflect the same ceiling amount.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 97-32A amending
Resolution No. 97-32 establishing the number of residents of the City for the purpose of determining the
voluntary expenditure ceiling for City elections.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: —Staff Report
X Resolution(s)
_ Ordinance(s)
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
Public Hearing Notification
Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's
office)
Other:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been
X Yes
_ No
reviewed by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority vote?
X Yes
_ No
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A
_ Yes
— No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? NIA
_ Yes
_ No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
_ Yes
X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVI WED BY:
r r
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Terrence L. Belanger/' Frank M. Usher ' ' Lynda Burgess
City Manager �l Assistant City Manager City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 97-32
(RELATING TO THE VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE
CEILING FOR CITY ELECTIONS)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FINDS, ORDERS AND
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Resolution No. 97-32, entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS OF THE CITY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DETERMINING THE VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE CEILING FOR CITY
ELECTIONS" was adopted by the City Council on May 6, 1997.
Section 2. Paragraph B of Section 1 of Resolution No.
97-32 is amended to read:
"B. Pursuant to Diamond Bar City Code Section 2.06.10
the voluntary expenditure ceiling was established at an amount
equal to ene dellar ($3. AA;- {fifty cents ($.50) } per resident of
the City for each election for Member of the City Council."
Section 3. Except as amended hereby, the provisions of
Resolution No. 97-32 remain in full force and effect.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1997.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
970522 10572-00001 1r 1201785.1 Ili
I, TOMMYE A. NICE, Deputy City Clerk of the City of
Diamond Bar, California do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, at its regular
meeting held on the day of
1997, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Deputy City Clerk,
City of Diamond Bar
rye ,
RESOLUTION NO.
•l�� t1yw; i. TION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
�L •�, __ _ /(`f LSD BAR AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 97-32
G TO THE VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE
FOR CITY ELECTIONS)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FINDS, ORDERS AND
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Resolution No. 97-32, entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS OF THE CITY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DETERMINING THE VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE CEILING FOR CITY
ELECTIONS" was adopted by the City Council on May 6,• 1997.
Section 2. Paragraph B of Section 1 of Resolution No.
97-32 is amended to read:
"B. Pursuant to Diamond Bar City Code Section 2.06.10
the voluntary expenditure ceiling was established at an amount
equal to one dolI&L- 41-994- {fifty cents ($.50)) per resident of
the City for each election for Member of the City Council."
Section 3. Except as amended hereby, the provisions of
_ Resolution No. 97-32 remain in full force and effect.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1997.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
970522 10572-00001 1r 1201785.1 (1)
I, TOMMYE A. NICE, Deputy City Clerk of the City of
Diamond Bar, California do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, at its regular
meeting held on the day of
1997, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Deputy City Clerk,
City of Diamond Bar
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
GLENN R. WATSON
KEVIN G. ENNIS
ROBERT G. BEVERLY
ROBIN D. HARRIS
HARRY L. GERSHON
MICHAEL ESTRADA
DOUGLAS W. ARGUE
LAUREN CES. WIENER
MARK L. LAM KEN
STEVEN R. ORR
ERWIN E. ADLER
MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO
DAROLD D. PIEPER
B. TILDEN KIM
ALLEN E. RENNETT
C. EDWARD DILKES
STEVEN L. DORSEY
PETER M. THORSON
WILLIAM L. STRAUSZ
BRENDA L DIEDERICHS
ANTHONYS. DREWRY
DEBORAH R. HAKMAN
MITCHELL E. ABBOTT
RUBIN D. WEINER
TIMOTHY L. NEUFELD
SASKIA T. ASAMURA
GREGORY W. STEPANICICH
KAYSER O. SUMS
ROCHELLE BROWNE
SAUL JAFFE
MICHAEL JENKINS
CRAIG A. STEELE
WILLIAM B. RUDELL
T. PETER PIERCE
QUINN M. BARROW
REBECCA MARIE MADRID
CAROL W. LYNCH
DAVID ROBERT DANIELS
JEFFREY A. RABIN
BENJAMIN BARNOUW
GREGORY M. KUNERT
TERENCE R. BOGA
THOMAS M. JIMSO
DANIEL L. PINES
MICHELE BEAL BAGNERIS
LISA BOND
AMANDA F. SUSSKIND
DIANE ARKOW GROSS
ROBERTC. CECCON
ROVA. CLARKS
SAYRE WEAVER
ROXANNE DIAZ MONTGOMERY
STEVEN H. KAUFMANN
ROBERT A. BALBUENA
GARY E. GANS
JOHN L HARRIS
ERIKA M. FLEMING
OLIVIA WAI-WEN SUAN
May 22, 1997
CONFIDENTIAL
THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO
THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND/OR THE
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES.
DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS
HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
Linda Burgess
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive
Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Re: voluntary Spending Limits
Dear Linda:
RICHARD RICHARDS
(1916-1988)
THIRTY-EIGHTH FLOOR
333 SOUTH HOPE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9007 1-1 46 9
(213) 626-8484
FACSIMILE (213) 826-0078
OF COUNSEL
WILLIAM K KRAMER
0962416
OUR FILE NUMBER
10572-00001
I enclose the revised ordinance (for second reading)
and the resolution amending Resolution -No. 97-32, both for
inclusion on the June 3, 1997 Council meeting agenda. Please let
me know if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Amanda F. Susskind
AFS: afs
Enclosures
0962416
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 97-32
(RELATING TO THE VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE
CEILING FOR CITY ELECTIONS)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FINDS, ORDERS AND
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Resolution No. 97-32, entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS OF THE CITY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DETERMINING THE VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE CEILING FOR CITY
ELECTIONS" was adopted by the City Council on May 6, 1997.
Section 2. Paragraph B of Section 1 of Resolution No.
97-32 is amended to read:
"B. Pursuant to Diamond Bar City Code Section 2.06.10
the voluntary expenditure ceiling was established at an amount
equal to ene dell-aL-'— -oQT (fifty cents ($.50)) per resident of
the City for each election for Member of the City Council."
Section 3. Except as amended hereby, the provisions of
Resolution No. 97-32 remain in full force and effect.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1997.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
970522 10572-00001 Ir 1201785.1 (1)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR ENACTING A VOLUNTARY
EXPENDITURE CEILING FOR CITY ELECTIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: "The California Political Reform Act of 1996"
passed by the voters as Proposition 208 on November 5, 1996,
permits cities to establish voluntary expenditure ceilings for
candidates for elective office and the controlled committees of
such candidates. Pursuant to California Government Code Section
85400(c), effective January 1, 1997, such a local voluntary
expenditure ceiling may be established in any amount not to
exceed one dollar ($1) per resident of the jurisdiction.
Section 2: Chapter 2.06 is hereby added to Title 2 of the
Diamond Bar City Code, to read as follows:
"Chapter 2.06. City Council Election Campaigns.
Sec. 2.06.10. Voluntary Expenditure Ceiling.
(a) Pursuant to Government Code Section 85400(c), a
voluntary expenditure ceiling is hereby established for each
election for Member of the City Council in an amount equal to
fifty cents ($.50) per resident of the City.
(b) The City Council shall determine the number of
residents in the City for the purposes of this Section by
resolution adopted not less than seven (7) months prior to each
regular City election. The time frame specified in this sub-
section (b) shall not apply to the November 4, 1997 general
municipal election.
(c) Prior to accepting any contributions after the
effective date of this Ordinance, each candidate for City Council
shall file with the City Clerk a statement of acceptance or
rejection of the voluntary expenditure ceiling established
herein.
(d) No candidate for Member of the City Council who accepts
the voluntary expenditure ceiling established herein and no
controlled campaign committee of such a candidate shall make
campaign expenditures cumulatively in excess of the voluntary
expenditure ceiling established herein.
(e) Each candidate for Member of the City Council who
rejects the voluntary expenditure ceiling established herein
shall be subject to the contribution limit set forth in
Government Code Section 85301, as the same may be amended from
time to time.
970502 10572-00001 1r 1201784 (1)
together with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of
Ordinances of the Council of this City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1997.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
970502 10572-00001 1r 1201784 (1) 3
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997 REPORT DATE: May 29, 1997
FROM: Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
TITLE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 2(1997): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ENACTING A VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE CEILING FOR CITY
ELECTIONS.
SUMMARY: On May 20, 1997, the City Council approved first reading by title only of Ordinance
No. 2(1997) establishing Voluntary Expenditure Ceiling limits for candidates for City elections at a rate of fifty
cents ($.50) per resident of the City of Diamond Bar. On May 6, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
97-32 establishing the number of residents of the City for purposes of the November 4, 1997 General Municipal
Election at 56,659 residents, Therefore, adoption of Ordinance No. 2(1997) will establish the voluntary
expenditure ceiling limits for candidates in the November 4, 1997 election in the amount of $28,330.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council hold second reading by title only and adopt
Ordinance No. 2(1997) establishing voluntary ceiling limits and direct that the Ordinance take effect
immediately upon adoption pursuant to Government Code Section 36937.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: _ Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's
office)
X Ordinance(s) _ Other:
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been
X Yes
_ No
reviewed by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority vote?
X Yes
_ No
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? NIA
_ Yes
_ No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? NIA
_ Yes
_ No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
_ Yes
X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
City Manager
. ,-.-
Assistant City Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR ENACTING A VOLUNTARY
EXPENDITURE CEILING FOR CITY ELECTIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: "The California Political Reform Act of 1996"
passed by the voters as Proposition 208 on November 5, 1996,
permits cities to establish voluntary expenditure ceilings for
candidates for elective office and the controlled committees of
such candidates. Pursuant to California Government Code Section
85400(c), effective January 1, 1997, such a local voluntary
expenditure ceiling may be established in any amount not to
exceed one dollar ($1) per resident of the jurisdiction.
Section 2: Chapter 2.06 is hereby added to Title 2 of the
Diamond Bar City Code, to read as follows:
"Chapter 2.06. City Council Election Campaigns.
Sec. 2.06.10. Voluntary Expenditure Ceiling.
(a) Pursuant to Government Code Section 85400(c), a
voluntary expenditure ceiling is hereby established for each
election for Member of the City Council in an amount equal to
fifty cents ($.50) per resident of the City.
(b) The City Council shall determine the number of
residents in the City for the purposes of this Section by
resolution adopted not less than seven (7) months prior to each
regular City election. The time frame specified in this sub-
section (b) shall not apply to the November 4, 1997 general
municipal election.
(c) Prior to accepting any contributions after the
effective date of this Ordinance, each candidate for City Council
shall file with the City Clerk a statement of acceptance or
rejection of the voluntary expenditure ceiling established
herein.
(d) No candidate for Member of the City Council who accepts
the voluntary expenditure ceiling established herein and no
controlled campaign committee of such a candidate shall make
campaign expenditures cumulatively in excess of the voluntary
expenditure ceiling established herein.
(e) Each candidate for Member of the City Council who
rejects the voluntary expenditure ceiling established herein
shall be subject to the contribution limit set forth in
Government Code Section 85301, as the same may be amended from
time to time.
970502 10572-00001 lr 1201784 (1)
(f) Each candidate for Member of the City Council who
accepts the voluntary expenditure ceiling established herein
shall be subject to the contribution limit set forth in
Government Code Section 85402, and not the contribution limit set
forth in Government Code Section 85301, as either section may be
amended from time to time. In addition, as to each such
candidate the City Clerk shall:
1. Cause to be printed in the City sample ballot
materials, at the option of the candidate, a
candidate's statement at no charge to the candidate,
including one translation thereof, if requested or
required by law.
2. Provide notification to voters that the candidate
has accepted the voluntary expenditure ceiling
established herein, as required by Government Code
Section 85602 and any applicable regulations.
(g) Except as provided herein, the provisions of the
California Political Reform Acts of 1974 and 1996, Government
Code Sections 81000, et sect. (collectively, "the Acts"), and
applicable regulations adopted pursuant thereto, as the same may
be amended from time to time, shall govern the interpretation and
application of this Section.
(h) The penalties and remedies for violations of this
Section shall be those set forth in the Acts.
Section 3. The City Council finds that this Ordinance
relates to an election and shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption pursuant to Government Code Section 36937. Proposition
208, "The California Political Reform Act of 1996," was approved
by the voters on November 5, 1996 and took effect on January 1,
1997. Proposition 208 establishes a system of contribution
limits that took effect January 1, 1997, the level of which will
be affected by the adoption of this Ordinance. Further,
Proposition 208 established a campaign fundraising period which
began on May 4, 1997. Such limits, and this Ordinance, will
apply to City elections to be held on November 4, 1997.
Significant administrative and criminal penalties may be imposed
for violations of such limits. It is necessary that this
Ordinance take effect immediately to prevent confusion and
ambiguity in the enforcement and application of this Ordinance
and Proposition 208, and to allow the will of the voters to be
fully implemented at the November 4, 1997 City election.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance
to be published at least once in a newspaper of general
circulation published and circulated in the City within fifteen
(15) days after its passage, in accordance with Section 36933 of
the Government Code, shall certify to the adoption of this
viuiaiaaii"E,
6"2 Sha.22 caus_- t;�_zs^� �.� :l?nr o an(� loar LPI r�-�1�r3t1On,,
970502 10572-00001 1r 1201784 (1) - 2
together with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of
Ordinances of the Council of this City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1997.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
970502 10572-00001 Ir 1201784 (1) 3
I, TOMMYE A. NICE, Deputy City Clerk of the City of
Diamond Bar, certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced
at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond
Bar held on the day of 1997, and was
finally adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar held on the day of
1997, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
Deputy City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR ENACTING A VOLUNTARY
EXPENDITURE CEILING FOR CITY ELECTIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: "The California Political Reform Act of 1996"
passed by the voters as Proposition 208 on November 5, 1996,
permits cities to establish voluntary expenditure ceilings for
candidates for elective office and the controlled committees of
such candidates. Pursuant to California Government Code Section
85400(c), effective January 1, 1997, such a local voluntary
expenditure ceiling may be established in any amount not to
exceed one dollar ($1) per resident of the jurisdiction.
Section 2: Chapter 2.06 is hereby added to Title 2 of the
Diamond Bar City Code, to read as follows:
"Chapter 2.06. City Council Election Campaigns.
Sec. 2.06.10. voluntary Expenditure.Ceiling.
(a) Pursuant to Government Code Section 85400(c), a
voluntary expenditure ceiling is hereby established for each
election for Member of the City Council in an amount equal to
fifty cents ($.50) per resident of the City.
(b) The City Council shall determine the number of
residents in the City for the purposes of this Section by
resolution adopted not less than seven (7) months prior to each
regular City election. The time frame specified in this sub-
section (b) shall not apply to the November 4, 1997 general
municipal election.
(c) Prior to accepting any contributions after the
effective date of this Ordinance, each candidate for City Council
shall file with the City Clerk a statement of acceptance or
rejection of the voluntary expenditure ceiling established
herein.
(d) No candidate for Member of the City Council who accepts
the voluntary expenditure ceiling established herein and no
controlled campaign committee of such a candidate shall, make
campaign expenditures cumulatively in excess of the voluntary
expenditure ceiling established herein.
(e) Each candidate for Member of the
rejects the voluntary expenditure ceiling
-- shall be subject to the contribution limit
Government Code Section 85301, as the same
time to time.
970502 10572-00001 1r 1201784 (1)
City Council who
established herein
set forth in
may be amended from
(f) Each candidate for Member of the City Council who
accepts the voluntary expenditure ceiling established herein
shall be subject to the contribution limit set forth in
Government Code Section 85402, and not the contribution limit set
forth in Government Code Section 85301, as either section may be
amended from time to time. In addition, as to -each such
candidate the City Clerk shall:
1. Cause to be printed in the City sample ballot
materials, at the option of the candidate, a
candidate's statement at no charge to the candidate,
including one translation thereof, if requested or
required by law.
2. Provide notification to voters that the candidate
has accepted the voluntary expenditure ceiling
established herein, as required by Government Code
Section 85602 and any applicable regulations.
(g) Except as provided herein, the provisions of the
California Political Reform Acts of 1974 and 1996, Government
Code Sections 81000, et seQ. (collectively, "the Acts"), and
applicable regulations adopted pursuant thereto, as the same may
be amended from time to time, shall govern the interpretation and
application of this Section.
(h) The penalties and remedies for violations of this
Section shall be those set forth in the Acts.
Section 3. The City Council finds that this Ordinance
relates to an election and shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption pursuant to Government Code Section 36937. Proposition
208, "The California Political Reform Act of 1996," was approved
by the voters on November 5, 1996 and took effect on January 1,
1997. Proposition 208 establishes a system of contribution
limits that took effect January 1, 1997, the level of which will
be affected by the adoption of this Ordinance. Further,
Proposition 208 established a campaign fundraising period which
began on May 4, 1997. Such limits, and this Ordinance, will
apply to City elections to be held on November 4, 1997.
Significant administrative and criminal penalties may be imposed
for violations of such limits. It is necessary that this
Ordinance take effect immediately to prevent confusion and
ambiguity in the enforcement and application of this Ordinance
and Proposition 208, and to allow the will of the voters to be
fully implemented at the November 4, 1997 City election.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance
to be published at least once in a newspaper of general
circulation published and circulated in the City within fifteen
(15) days after its passage, in accordance with Section 36933 of
the Government Code, shall certify to the adoption of this
ordinance, and shall cause this ordinance and her certification,
970502 10572-00001 lr 1201784 (1) 2
I, TOMMYE A. NICE, Deputy City Clerk of the City of
Diamond Bar, certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced
at a regular meeting of the City Council of the Cityof Diamond
Bar held on the day of 1 1997,
d was
finally adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar held on the day of
1997, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
Deputy City Clerk
together with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of
Ordinances of the Council of this City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1997.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
970502 10572-00001 Ir :201784 (1) 3
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. , _
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997 REPORT DATE: May 30, 1997
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director
TITLE: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON LAND
USE ENTITLEMENTS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES.
SUMMARY: On May 6, 1997 the City Council directed the preparation of a draft urgency ordinance
establishing a moratorium on the issuance of permits for wireless telecommunication facilities.
On May 20, 1997 the City Council received public testimony, discussed the proposal and
continued the matter to June 3, 1997. The issue before the City Council is whether or not to
enact the proposed ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider the urgencyordinance and direct
staff as appropriate.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
X Ordinances(s)
_ Agreement(s) X Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Map
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? 4/5
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? X Yes No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
IL
T ence L. Be ger Frank M. Us r 11mes DeStefano
City Manager Assistant City Manager CommunityDevelo ent Director
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
VIA: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Dire
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM
ON LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION
FACILITIES (continued from May 20, 1997)
DATE: June 3, 1997
BACKGROUND:
On May 6, 1997 the City Council directed the preparation of a
draft urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium on the issuance
of permits for wireless telecommunication facilities. On May 20,
1997 the City Council received public testimony, discussed the
proposal, and continued the matter to June 3, 1997. The issue
before the City Council is whether or not to enact the proposed
ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
There are presently seventeen wireless communication facilities
constructed or approved within the City. Two applications are
pending to upgrade or expand facilities at existing sites. In
addition, development applications are in process for proposed
facilities at two new locations.
Inquires and applications continue regarding the siting of
wireless telecommunications facilities within the City of Diamond
Bar. The City does not presently have coordinated or detailed
requirements responding to issues related to the placement,
location, and design of such facilities. Project applications
are reviewed on a case by case basis. All applications for
wireless telecommunication facilities require Development Review
approval and most require Conditional Use Permit approval,
however, there are no standards or guidelines responding to this
rapidly growing land use. The City is currently in the process
of preparing a comprehensive Development Code, scheduled for
adoption in December 1997, which will include regulations
addressing the placement of these facilities. The proposed
interim ordinance would guide the development of wireless
telecommunication facilities for the City until such time as
amendments to the existing Zoning Ordinance are adopted and
effective.
Memorandus to Mayor and City Council
June 3, 1997
page 2
The proposed interim ordinance, as crafted, would prohibit
consideration of all four pending aplications and any new
proposal for wireless facilities until such time as a new
ordinance is adopted and effective. The City Council may wish to
examine the effect the proposed ordinance will have upon the
pending projects (see map exhibit for listing and location).
Exemptions include the construction of facilities for which
approval was received, and made effective, prior to the
establishment of the proposed ordinance.
In accordance with Section 65858 of the Government Code the
urgency ordinance requires approval by a four-fifths vote of the
City Council. The interim ordinance shall be of no further force
and effect forty-five (45) days from its date of adoption. Upon
conclusion of a noticed public hearing the Council -may, by a
four-fifths vote, extend the interim ordinance.
The City Attorney and staff have prepared the attached draft
urgency ordinance as a result of comments and direction received
at the City Council meeting of May 6, 1997. The Council may
consider and modify the proposed urgency ordinance as deemed
appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of
the urgency ordinance and direct staff as appropriate.
Attachments - Proposed Urgency Ordinance
- Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Map
TB/JDS:dbm
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM
ON LAND USE ENTITLEKENTS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND a" DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
A• Wireless telecommunications is a rapidly growing
and developing technology that has led to a significant demand
for wireless communication towers, antennas, related equipment
and facilities within the City of Diamond Bar. There are
presently seventeen wireless telecommunication facilities
constructed or approved within the city of Diamond Bar, including
both monopole facilities and roof -mounted facilities;
B. The City presently requires development review
approval for every proposed wireless telecommunication facility.
In addition conditional use permit approval is required for all
wireless communication
agriculturalfacility applications proposed within
, Residential, and certain Commercial and Industrial -
zones. Wireless telecommunication facilities and towers are
permitted by right within the Restricted Heavy Manufacturing
zone. The City does not have any detailed standards to properly
regulate and control the location, placement, and design of such
facilities;
DUO
to
regulations.in he wireless ommunicationsand
i industry, o federal
for new and modified wireless communication facilitieswillcontinue to occur and proliferate within the near future;
D. Evolvinq technology and transmitting needs have
resulted in continuinq changes and adaptations in the design and
appearance of wireless communication facilities, and these
circumstances have created a need to study the type of wireless
communication facilities that are anticipated to be proposed and
their impacts on the community, and to further determine how
these facilities may best be regulated and controlled to protect
the public health, safety, and welfare within the limits of
current State and Federal laws and regulations;
E- One of the stated goals of the Diamond Bar General
Plan is to assure an appropriate balance of land uses with
respect
the adoption hoflthis iordinance swill ity aservnd veeatotadvof de
ncevelopment;
l : \VOL 1 N WIMMT
the achievement of this goal as well as other goals of the
General plan;
F. Based on the statements cited above, the City
Council believes that the current zoning regulations do not
Provide sufficient standards to properly regulate and control
wireless communication facilities; and that a need therefore
exists to develop a new comprehensive ordinance to ensure that
wireless communication facilities are properly located, designed,
and screened, and that proper conditions are placed on the
construction and operation of such facilities;
G. Consideration of further applications for new or
modified wireless communication facilities
Of such an ordinance could result. in negativeiimpor actsthatomigh.t
otherwise be avoided or be more effectively mitigated, and
therefore consideration of further applications should be
discontinued until such time as a new ordinance is adopted;
H. Based on the statements cited above, the City
Council finds that the current absence of controls on the design
and construction of wireless communication facilities poses an
immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, and
that the establishment of new and modified wireless communication
facilities would result in that threat to the public health,
safety, and welfare;
I. It is the intent of the City Council to establish
a moratorium on new and modified wireless communication
facilities by means of adopting this ordinance as an interim
urgency ordinance pursuant to the provisions of Government Code
Section 63as8. It is intended that this moratorium remain in
effect only until such time as other permanent zoning measures
may be studied, considered,and adopted.
provided ietion z. Except as otherwise
n Section t hereof, the City of�Diamond Bar hereby
declares a moratorium on the issuance of buildinq,permits,
grading permits, conditional use permits, variances, zone
changes, and any other development permits and entitlements for
the use, development or modification of wireless communication
facilities within the City.
faction 3. Naratorii defined.Except as otherwise
provided in Section 4 hereof, notwithstanding any other ordinance
or Code of the City of Diamond Bar, no application for a building
permit, grading permit, demolition permit, conditional use
Permit, variance, Sone change, development permit or other permit
or entitlesant-for establishment, development, use or
modification of wireless communication facilities Shall be
accepted, processed or issued; no environmental assessment,
environmental impact report, negative declaration or categorical
exemption shall be prepared in connection with any such
L:\wLIvu\o MAT -2-
application, permit or entitlement; and no building, structure,
or facility shall be constructed, reconstructed, established,
erected or placed during the term of the moratorium declared in
Section Z hereof. For purposes of this Ordinance, a "wireless
communication facility" is defined as a structure that supports
commercial antennae, microwave dishes and/or other related
equipment that sends and/or receives radio frequency signals,
whether mounted on the ground or on any portion of a structure or
building.
Section a. E_enntions. The moratorium or limitation
provided for in Sections 2 and 3 hereof shall not be applicable
to any of the following:
(a) Repairs or maintenance of existing structures
or facilities within the original footprint of the
existing facilities and which do not increase the
facility size or height;
(b) Establishment or construction of facilities
for which final approval was received by the Planning
Commission or the Community Development Director and
effective prior to the effective date of this
ordinance;
(e) Minor modifications to an existing structure
or facility required by law to be constructed in order
for the structure or facility to comply with applicable
fire, building or other safety requirements.
Nothing contained in this section shall exempt or
except any exempt construction or use from any requirement or
regulation of the Building Code, Zoning ordinance, or other
ordinance of the city of Diamond Bar. In the event that work is
permitted to proceed under the terms of this ordinance, all
required permits shall be posted on site.
Sact�ion 5,. Saverabi itv. If any part or provision.of
this Ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstance,
is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or
circumstances, shall not be effected and shall continue in full
force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this ordinance
are severable.
section 6. penalty. violation of any provision of
this ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be
punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment in
County jail for not to exceed six (6) months, or by both such
fine and imprisonment. Each and every day such a violation
exists shall constitute a separate and distinct violation of this
Ordinance. In addition to the foregoing, any violation of this
-3-
L:WOItV ADWINAT
Ordinance shall constitute a public nuisance and shall be subject
to abatement as provided by all applicable provisions of law.
Section 7. Statement a and Urg"gy Findings.
As set forth in the findings contained in Section 1 above, the
City of Diamond Bar intends to conduct studies forthwith as to
appropriate standards and regulations governing wireless
communication facilities, and, if appropriate, to prepare and
adopt amendments to the zoning ordinance regarding same. Pending
such studies, and the preparation and adoption of the amended
zoning regulations, it is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare that
no new or expanded wireless communication facilities be
constructed or developed and that this ordinance take effect
immediately.
If this ordinance does not take effect immediately,
wireless communication facilities will be undertaken which may be
in conflict with the zoning regulations which are to be studied
and adopted as above mentioned, incompatible with proposed uses
of adjacent property, and detrimental to the proper planning of
the community.
Due to the foregoing circumstances, there is a current
and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
The approval of additional land use permits, variances, building,
grading or demolition permits, or any other applicable
entitlement for construction or modification of wireless
communication facilities would result'in a threat to the public
health, safety, and welfare. Therefore, it is necessary for the
preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare that
this ordinance take effect immediately. This ordinance is an
interim ordinance and shall expire forty-five (43) days after the
adoption thereof unless extended pursuant to the provisions of
Section 65858 of the Government Code.
This is an interim measure, adopted pursuant to the
authorization of State law in order to maintain the status quo
pending the completion of the studies and adoption of amended
zoning regulations, or sooner. It is not i final disposition as
to development of any particular parcel of property within the
City.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1997.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
-4-
l:%V0L1%AJ T
MAYOR
TOTAL P. C35
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
WMLESS TELECOMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES MAP
D
Z-9
23555 Golden Springs Dr.
Air Touch
5-12
21400 E. Pathfinder
Cox
4-6
21400 Pathfinder Rd.
Air Touch
4-7
21400 Pathfinder Rd.
LA Cellular
4-15
21725 Gateway Center Dr.
LA Cellular
5-3
21450 Golden Springs Dr.
Air Touch
16-4
21308 Pathfinder Rd.
Pac Bell
)6-19
259 Gentle Spring Lane
Pac Bell
96-14
1200 S. Diamond Bar Blvd.
Pac Bell
96-13
3333 Brea Canyon Road
Pac Bell
96-14
21144 Golden Springs Dr.
Pac Bell
95-25
1200 S. Diamond Bar Blvd.
Air Touch
96-15
21450 Golden Springs Dr.
Cox
96-26
21725 Gateway Center Dr.
Nextel
92-11
21400 Pathfinder Rd.
SMR
96-11
275 S. Prospectors Rd.
Cox
90-109
275 S. Prospectors Rd.
LA Cellular
IM
8 21725 E. Gateway Drive Pacenet
9(1) 23555 Golden Springs UP GRADE Air Touch
Peterson Park LA Cellular
10 24401 Darrin Drive Pac Bell/Cox
"-CO—B.LR
PcaRSE
CR R'.v'sO0 TRi�/
%0
OR CT GO
c< < V.Ji
3 a
F yIYCOuiNG T suNwoo ' GOLOE�
L�uAur sT 1 sT _
EIEY �0�'.I+tE ��OCn�'ME ' 1 AL9ARIU
R I
u,
m z
72
�CH
°A�
�AWeeu -
W ' t '�f z T'R f C Li .SS ua I _. N4L__ -
� P `
SAEA1A OR \ C LCRSEER
�' NRG7 e
NIGH �.
e". Cwe a
CA4YON
PARK
LOSTRD
�. PO
*vE CWrt A
SUMMIT
_EEL_U SSCH AJ°_
3—_ `-• t 1 Suawt
i
CARLTCN
PETERSON
Q.
-
cL9
I
F j
I
�
I a
� 9t
•� r
1�
P
1. BFOKEN CAEEKLNI
7. CJNTC15PRwG IR
c
7, CEEB SPRNG LN
/. CU-ETCPEEKLN
i SLYER SPP.W. LN
{
Q iWA SPRN LN
'
I C
r :� i "�
'I a J
SU. -IT
R.XE ,t'T4�
R PA; `�,fE` '%b4
IVF PNl( q
�_ zp
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
RE: FY 1997-98 Municipal Budget: General Fund, Special Funds And Capital
Improvement Program
DATE: May 30, 1997
General Fund Overview:
The City of Diamond Bar is about to begin its ninth fiscal year (FY 1997-98). As has been
reported to the Council over the past several fiscal years, the City will lose its incorporation
population (74,115), which is currently used by the State of California to subvent (on a per capita
basis) motor -in -lieu, gas tax and other revenues. By law (Rev.& Tax. Code,_ Sec. 11005.3 ),
commencing with FY 1997-98, State subventions by the State to the City will be based upon
actual population, which is estimated to be 56,659. The estimated loss in General Fund revenue
could be as much as $600,000 and the loss in Gas Tax revenues could be as much as $315,000.
The revenue reduction is permanent. The future impacts of this revenue reduction must be
mitigated through revenue expansion and/or service delivery changes. Redevelopment is another
tool for mitigating the impacts of the revenue reduction. The effective form of revenue expansion
is sales tax. Increases in sales tax will come through the attraction of businesses into existing
commercial centers and retention of businesses in those same commercial centers. While
programs to retain, attract and'assist businesses in existing commercial areas are beneficial, full
occupancy in those commercial areas is not going to significantly expand revenue, as compared to
the projected revenue "shortfall". Revenue expansion, in the form of new retail commercial
development, should be seriously considered and decisions made to implement such revenue
expansion activities. If the revenue "shortfall" is to be primarily dealt with through revenue
expansion policies, a very proactive approach to revenue expansion activities is essential.
The second aspect of a program for dealing with the impending revenue reduction is the reduction
of annual expenditures. In the proposed FY 1997-98 Budget, staff has made several
recommendations to the Council regarding reorganization, service delivery and service reduction.
The overall goal is to implement the revenue enhancement activities and expenditure reduction
decisions that will mitigate the impact of the "shortfall", beginning with FY 1997-98.
-I-
BUDGET: FY 1997-98
MAY 30, 1997
PAGE TWO
General Fund Revenue:
The FY 1997-98 General Fund Budget projects overall resources to be $10,078,900. There is a
$250,000 transfer into the General Fund from the Reserve Fund related to expenditures for an
architect to begin the needs assessment, space planning and design services for a civic center
($100,000), Sycamore Canyon Park slope repairs ($50,000) and the transfer of monies to the
self-insurance fund ($100,000). Also, $250,000 in revenue is projected through the sale of
Proposition A Transit reserves ($385,000). This revenue is to be allocated to. a Diamond Bar
Branch Library building renovation project, with the County of Los Angeles ($50,000) and to
Pantera Park where additional monies are needed to fund the total project costs ($200,000).
The FY 1997-98 General Fund Budget proposes $9,700,765 in appropriations. There is
projected fund balance (June 30, 1998) of $378,135. The estimated fund balance on June 30,
1997 is $618,136. The projected fund balances will be allocated to the General Fund Reserve
Fund.
The City's three major revenue sources are motor -in -lieu, sales tax and property tax. The FY
1997-98 budget estimates that two of these revenue sources (sales tax and property tax) will not
vary significantly from FY 1996-97. As noted above, motor -in -lieu revenues will decrease
significantly (up to $600,000). Other changes in revenues come primarily from estimated
increases in interest income and building permit processing fees.
FY 1997-98 General Fund Budget Summary:
The City of Diamond Bar will conclude FY 1996-97 in a strong financial position. The City
ended FY 94-95 with a General Fund balance of $8,178,372. At the end of FY 95-96, the
General Fund Reserve Fund is projected to increase by 21.14%, to 9,907,000 (June 30, 1996). It
is projected that the General Fund balance will increase by 4.1% to $10,335,140, as of June 30,
1997. The FY 1997-98 operating budget is based upon existing levels of service. Twenty-five
(25) full-time staff positions are proposed. Fifteen (15) part-time positions are also proposed.
Public Safety
The FY 97-98 appropriations for law enforcement services total $3,704,500, due to cost
reductions of service items. $7,550 has been allocated for Community Volunteer Patrol. Itis
recommended that $5,000 be allocated for CSTI training for deputies. Animal Control services
are proposed to be $65,000. Emergency Preparedness Services is proposed to be $37,100, which
includes the cost of a part time coordinator ($12,000). The total cost for Public Safety services is
$3,812,680, which approximately 39.5% of the proposed FY97-98 operating budget. COPS will
fund capital outlay items.
BUDGET: FY 1997-98
MAY 30, 1997
PAGE THREE
Public Works
The proposed Public Works budget is $1,356,875 which is a 2% decrease as compared to FY97
($1,384,114). The projected decrease is due, primarily, to reductions in tree maintenance
($25,000), traffic engineering ($18,000), and personnel cost allocations ($12,500).
Community Development
The proposed FY 97-98 allocation is $718,100, which is a 8.6% decrease over the FY97
allocation ($779,650). The decrease is due largely to the winding down of the development code
preparation process. There is an increase in Building and Safety ($50,000), due to an increase in
construction and renovation activities. It is proposed that the Assistant Planner position be
reclassified to an Associate Planner position ($9,625).
Community Services
The Community Services budget ($1,294,255) proposes a decrease of 12.9% (FY97 was
$1,461,755). The budget reflects decreases in the recreation contract classes room rentals
($48,000) and the winding down of the parks and facilities master plan preparation process
($107,000). The 7th Concerts in the Park series will feature ten (10) weekly concerts.
Legislative and Governmental Services
This combination of services includes: City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, Finance,
Community Relations, Economic Development and General Government. The proposed
allocation for these services is $1,842,355, which is 11.6% less than the FY97 allocation
($2,056,151).
Personnel Recommendation(s)
Although the proposed budget does not reflect the cost impact, it is recommended that the
employees receive a cost of living increase in salary. It is proposed that a merit pay pool be
created ($25,000) so that exceptional performers can be rewarded. It is also recommended that
the cafeteria benefit amount be increased by $50 per month. Also, it is proposed that the City
Council consider the adoption of a reorganization proposal (also, not in the proposed budget),
which would eliminate the position of Assistant City Manager and create two Deputy City
Manager position, who would head the newly created departments of Development Services and
Administrative Services (all City services would incorporated into one of these two departments).
It is also proposed that non -fee City Engineering services be eliminated. Instead, it is proposed
that City Engineering and related fee-based engineering services be contracted to a single
-III-
BUDGET FY 97-98
MAY 30, 1997
PAGE FOUR
Personnel Recommendations (cont):
engineering firm. This change will save over $100,000 in direct costs and "free -up" 30 to 40 % of
the Assistant Civil Engineers time. There are several recommended classification changes and
related compensation changes, which haven't been reflected in the proposed budget. These revised
classifications and compensation (see attached memorandum), reflect the organizational needs
of the City and the marketplace costs of attracting and retaining of employees.
FY 1997-98 Special Funds
Gas Tax
Estimated Gas Tax resources available in FY 97-98 are $3,084,565. It is proposed that the Gas
Tax Fund allocate $606,750 to the General Fund to fund street cleaning, parkway maintenance,
curbs, gutters and sidewalk repair, inspections and staff services.
The FY 97-98 Budget allocates $2,387,500 to Capital Improvements to fund the following
proposed projects:
-Pathfinder Road rehab (Shaded Wood to DB Blvd)
-Diamond Bar BI rehab (Palomino to Temple) (Two year project)
-Golden Springs (Brea Cyn to west City limit) (Two year project)
-Golden Springs (Grand to Torito) (Two year project)
-Brea Cyn rehab (Golden Springs to Pathfinder) (design)
-Brea Cyn rehab (Pathfinder to south City limit) (design)
-Lemon rehab (Golden Springs to north City limits (design)-
-Sunset Crossing streetscape (west of SR57) (design)
-Brea Cyn streetscape (Cool Springs to Fountain Springs)
-Phase I - Slurry Seal/Sidewalk Program
-Meadowglen rehab and seepage mitigation
-Ambushers seepage mitigation
-Chinook/San Leandro seepage study
-Rule 20A Utilities Undergrounding - Pedestals
-Sidewalk improvements
The Gas Tax Fund would have a year end unappropriated reserve of approximately
$75,315.
-IV-
BUDGET FY 97-98
MAY 20, 1997
PAGE FIVE
Air Quality Fund
The FY 97-98 Budget allocates $5,000 to implement the City's the Air Quality Element
Implementation Plan. $7,000 has been allocated to partially fund annual membership dues for the
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments. $5,500 is allocated for City On -Line system
improvements: BBS upgrade and system server upgrade. 25% of the Assistant to City Manager's
time is allocated to this fund and 25% of the MIS Technician is allocated to this fund. The total
fund budget for FY 97-98 is $54,600. The unappropriated reserve would be approximately
$83,330.
Park Fees Fund (Quimby Act)
The proposed Budget estimates resources available to be $614,702. Projects recommended
Peterson Park drainage retrofit, Pantera Park development (partial funding), Lorbeer Middle
School athletic field lights, The estimated year-end Fund balance would be $184,702.
Traffic Safety Fund
The FY 97-98 Budget revenues of $101,000 will be reflected as revenue to the General Fund.
Proposition C Fund
The FY 97-98 Budget estimates available resources to be $2,121,637. The estimated Prop. C
annual revenues are estimated to be $526,600. The Prop C Fund is proposed to fund the first year
of three two year rehab projects ($900,000): DB Blvd (Palomino to Temple); Golden Springs
(Brea Cyn to west City limit: Golden Springs (Grand to Torito). $630,000 is proposed to fund
four traffic signals: DB Blvd/Montefino and Quail Summit; DB Blvd/Palomino/Gentle Springs;
Golden Springs/Calboume; and, Golden Springs/Racquet Club. The estimated year-end Fund
balance would be $591,637.
Proposition A Fund - Transit
The Proposition A Fund is being proposed to fund the following: Dial -a -cab ($240,000),
Excursions ($32,000) and Transit subsidy ($330,000) programs. $7,500 is allocated for
membership dues to the San Gabriel Valley COG. Finally, it is recommended that monies be
allocated for concrete bus pads on Diamond Bar Blvd ($30,000) and park and ride expansion, at
SR60/SR57 ($70,000). The estimated Prop A resources, in FY 97-98 are $2,760,039. Proposed
expenditures for FY 97-98 are $796,420. The estimated Fund reserve balance is $1,963,619.
However, it is recommended that $385,000 of the unappropriated reserves be sold to fund library
renovations ($50,000) and Pantera Park construction costs ($200,000).
-V-
BUDGET FY 97-98
MAY 30, 1997
PAGE SIX
Community Development Block Grant Fund
The proposed revenue for FY 97-98 is $555,950. Proposed allocations for FY 97-98 are
$555,950. CDBG funds several community service programs, which include YMCA child care,
senior programs, Project Sister training program, and others; and, several CIP projects, which
include handicap access ramps, sidewalk improvements/installations and City park ADA retrofits.
Integrated Waste Management Fund
This fund provides for the administration of the City's solid waste management activities and the
implementation of programs recommended in the City's SRRE (Source Reduction and Recycling
Element). Recently, the Public Works Department has been assigned the responsibility to manage
the consultants and staff as they continue the implementation of residential sector programs:
multi -family recycling, on-site composting, public education/information and monitoring.
Commercial sector programs being implemented include: at -source recovery/recycling,
representative waste audit, education/information and monitoring programs.
The costs associated with these programs are already a part of the FY 97-98 Integrated Waste
Management Fund. Estimated resources are $204,755. Proposed allocated expenditures are
estimated to be $90,520. The estimated year-end Fund balance reserve is $114,235.
Proposition A - Safe Parks Act Fund
This fund will provide resources to build Pantera Park. A total of $2,200,500 has been committed
from Prop A 1992 & 1996, with the remaining $2,056,000 allocated for FY 97-98. The total
estimated cost of Pantera Park is $2,792,392, other funds will provide necessary monies beyond
those allocated from Prop A, which include park fees ($320,000), developer fees ($72,636) and
Prop A Transit reserves sale $200,000.
Capital Improvement Fund (CIP)
The FY 1997-98 CIP Budget proposes an expenditure program in the amount of $7,364,250.
The CA' proposes $2;996,000 for street improvements, $630,000 for traffic control
improvements, $3,120,000 for park and recreation improvements; and, $608,250 for
miscellaneous capital improvements. You are referred to budget document for more detail, on the
various projects.
_VI -
BUDGET FY 1997-98
MAY 30, 1997
PAGE SEVEN
ISTEA Fund
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Fund provides resources for
improving major transportation roadways. No monies are available in FY 97-98.
COPS Fund
It is anticipated that the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department will provide a list of specific capital
outlay items that the LASO would like to have acquired, in FY 97-98.
Narcotics Asset Seizure Fund
There is a fund balance of $294,000 in this fund. The monies in the Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Fund can only be used for narcotics enforcement, substance abuse
education/training, and law enforcement activities.
Park and Facilities Development Fund
There is expected to be a balance of $1,300,000, in FY 97-98. There are FY 97-98 allocations
recommended, at this time.
Redevelopment Agency Fund
To be determined. However, if the Economic Revitalization Area Plan is adopted, related staff
costs would be allocated to the DBRDA ($115,000). There would also be other operational
expenditures budgeted. There would be several capital improvement projects funded by the
DBRDA, e.g., Diamond Bar Branch Library renovation, street rehabilitation projects, traffic
signal projects and others.
-VII-
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: I HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERRENCE L. BELANGER, CITY MANAGER
RE: REORGANIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CHANGES
DATE: MAY 29, 1997
ISSUE:
Creating a more cost effective, more responsive and more productive organization is
imperative, in view of the financial reality (several hundred thousands of dollars)
confronting the City, on July 1, 1997.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Diamond Bar will experience a significant revenue "shortfall", on July 1, 1997.
The "shortfall" is the result of a State statutory provision, which requires the use of actual
population, rather than population at the time of incorporation, as the basis for State
revenue subventions. This statutory provision becomes effective in the fiscal year
following the eighth full fiscal year of a newly incorporated city's existence. For Diamond
Bar, the effective year is fiscal year 1997-1998.
The estimate of revenue loss is up to $600,000 per annum, in the General Fund. The
estimated revenue loss in the Gas Tax Fund is $315,000 per annum. The annual loss of
revenue in the Gas Tax Fund will be mitigated by extending the time frame within which
projects are funded, e.g., a project that is scheduled to be completed in FY97-98 would be
pushed back to FY98-99. No such flexibility exists as regards the General Fund. As a
general rule, the General Fund expenditures are funded with annual revenues, not General
Fund reserves (savings). Using General Fund reserves to fund annual maintenance and
operations is to engage in deficit spending.
The mitigation of the anticipated General Fund "shortfall" will be accomplished by either
increasing revenues, reducing expenditures or both. The following proposal is a plan that
is intended, in part, to reduce expenditures through reorganizing the existing organization
staffing structure and allocating personnel costs to funds other than the General Fund.
-VIII-
SHORTFALL MITIGATION
MAY 29, 1997
PAGE TWO
REORGANIZATION:
The existing City organization consists of an Assistant City Manager and five (5)
departments (Community Development, Community Services, Management Services,
Public Safety and Public Works). The total all funds cost for employees is $2,000,288.
The total cost for General Fund allocated personnel expenditures is $1,840,613.
The proposed reorganization eliminates the positions of Assistant City Manager
($108,723), Community Development Director ($102,776) and the City Engineer/Public
Works Director (contract/$125,000 (non -fee related). The reorganization also proposes
to reduce the number of operating departments from five to two: Development Services
and Administrative Services. The two departments would be managed by a Deputy City
Manager/Development Services and Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services
($217,446 total comp). A City Engineer would be retained strictly for plan checking and
other such development fee based services. On-call plan checking contracts would be
eliminated. Public Works activities would be managed by Development Services
Department employees. The above changes would result in an estimated savings of
$119,000,
The proposed Development Services Department would include Building&Safety,
Planning, Engineering, Public Works and Parks Divisions. The proposed Administrative
Services Department would include City Clerk, Community Services, Public Safety,
Finance, Community Relations, Personnel and Management Information Systems
Divisions. The Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency would be managed by the City
Manager/Executive Director. Salaries related to the management of the DBDRA would
be allocated, which would result in an estimated minimum General Fund reduction of
$115,000.
The following classification and/or compensation changes are proposed: Accounting
Manager to Assistant Finance Director ($55,680 to $63,300 ($7,620); Community
Services Director ($62,952 to $63,300 ($348); Assistant Public Works Director ($64,296
to $70,188 ($5,892); City Clerk ($60,528 to $63,300 ($2,772); Assistant to City Manager
($44,628 to $51,792 ($7,164); Community Relations Officer to Community Relations
Manager ($41,472 to $51,792 ($10,320); Secretary to City Manager to Secretary to City
Manager/Office Manager ($44,616 to $51,592 ($7,176).
The total General Fund savings realized through reorganization and additional allocations
is $234,000. The additional compensation costs are $52,970. Total net General Fund
savings would be $181,206.
-IX-
City Of Diamond Bar
Personnel Summary
Fiscal Year 1997-98
FULL TIME
PART TIME
POSITION
1996-97 1997-98
POSITION
Approved
Actual Proposed Approved
-City Manager
1
1
-Assistant City Manager
1
1
-Community Develop.Dir
1
1
-Dir.Of Community Services
1
1
-City Clerk
1
1
-Accounting Manager
1
1
-Deputy Public Works Director
1
1
-Assistant to City Manager
1
1
-Associate Planner
0
0
-Senior Planner
1
1
-Senior Engineer
0
0
-Senior Accountant
1
1
-Supt of Parks & Maint
1
1
-Secretary to City Manager
1
1
-Administrative Assistant
2
2
-Community Relations Officer
1
1
-Deputy City Clerk
1
1
-Administrative Secretary
3
3
-Secretary
0
0
-Assistant Planner
1
1
-Assistant Civil Engineer
1
1
-Code Enforcement Officer
1
1
-Maintenance Worker II
1
1
-Community Services Coordinator
0
1
-Clerk Typist
1
1
Totals
24
25 0 0
PART TIME
POSITION
1996-97
1997-98
Approved
Actual Proposed Approved
-Account Clerk
1
1
-Clerk Typist
1
1
-MIS Assistant
1
1
-Planning Technician
1
1
-Comm. Serv.Coordntr.
2
1
-Comm. Serv. Leader II
2
2
-Comm. Serv. Leader 1
1
1
-Parks Maint.Helper
5
5
.-Engineering Intern
1
1
-Planning Intern
0
0
-Adminstrative Intern
1
1
Totals
16
15 0 0
-x-
00
00
O
OD
CA
N
CD
CD7
O
7
N
O
W
CJt
O
OD
Cb
O
O
O
p
O
O
O
N
W
R
o
.
O
�
C
o
O
CD
CD
O
O...
CD
O
7
O
X
`<
CD
DO
(n
N
CD
CJt
W
CJS
O
�1
O
j
p
CD
O
3
CD
O...
, .,
CCD
O
((DD
CD
'
CD
O
CD
0
(7
<
90
CD
0X
�
(D
cCD
CD
rA
�
(D
N —XI—
N
CJ1
O
O
O
O
NO
N
0
CD
CDCD
TI
C
O
O.
co
N
N
cAD
m
z
M
Xi
n
r�
m
C,
4 Z
�v
C.
m
CO0
c
X
0
m
X
(D
CL
fD
co
69
CO
v
0
O
v
O
LTJ
00 w
N
O
co
O
W
Cfl
A
0
C
Q
C1
m
(�D
`G
o
(J1
O
0
v
m
zi
m
,
o
000
o
N
minUl
c
o
CO z
G)
3
y
4
CD
3
M
:3
CD
�
rt
o
�
mv
N
z
v�
o
�
c
r
CD
X
(10m N
CD_
0
0`
CD
3
0
CD
�
r.
—XII—
O
O
v
(J1
O
0
m
zi
m
n
N
minUl
c
CO z
y
4
M
(0
CA)
mv
N
z
v�
o
�
c
r
CD
X
(10m N
m
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
GENERAL FUND BUDGET
F.Y. 1997-98
ESTIMATED RESOURCES
Property Taxes
Other Taxes
State Subventions
Fines & Forfeitures
From Other Agencies
Current Svc Charge
Use of Money & Prop.
Transfer -in Other Funds
Reserved Fund Balance
Total EsL Resources
APPROPRIATIONS
City Council
City Attorney
City Manager
City Clerk
Finance
General Government
Com Svcs Center
Community Relations
Economic Development
Planning
Building and Safety
Community Services
Law Enforcement
Volunteer Patrol
Fire
Animal Control
Emergency Prepardness
Public Wks/Engineering
Transfer -out Other Funds
Total Appropriations
2,040,000
2,035,000
3,180,000
3,180,000
2,487,500
1,881,700
465,825
241,000
5,000
250,000
890,560
993,450
544,500
626,000
738,230
621,750
190,000
250,000
10,541,615 10,078,900 0
122,750
115,800
150,000
150,000
442,480
452,760
246,251
254,685
247,420
237,050
541,600
417,150
39,300
28,550
141,340
123,850
125,010
62,510
579,650
468,100
200,000
250,000
1,461,755
1,294,255
3,806,750
3,704,500
8,805
7,550
7,530
7,530
65,850
65,000
30,350
37,100
1,384,114
1,356,875
322,525
667,500
9,923,480
9,700,765 0
NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE 618,135 378,135 0
-1-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
GENERAL FUND ESTIMATED RESOURCES
1997-98
Property Taxes:
001-3001
Current Secured
001-3002
Current Unsecured
001-3005
Supplemental Roll
001-3020
Misc. Property Taxes
Other Taxes:
001-3135
001-3101
Sales Tax
001-3120
Transient Occupancy
001-3121
Franchise
001-3130
Property Transfer
Subventions - State:
001-3135
Motor Veh-in Lieu
001-3136
Mobile Home In -Lieu
001-3145
Homeowners Exemption
001-3180
Off Highway Tax
Fines & Forfeitures:
001-3215
Traffic Fines
001-3220
General Fines
001-3223
Parking Fines
001-3225
Vehicle Impound Fees
001-3227
False Alarm Fees
001-3230
Narcotics Seizure Revenue
001-3235
Graffiti Restitution
From Other Agencies:
001-3355 Intergovt Revenue -Other Cities
001-3360 Economic Development Grants
Current Svc. Charges:
Building Fees:
001-3411
Bldg Permits
001-3412
Plumbing Permits
001-3413
Electrical Permits
001-3414
Mechanical Permits
001-3416
Industrial Waste Fee
001-3420
Permit Issuance Fee
001-3425
Inspection Fees
001-3430
Plan Check Fee
001-3435
SMIP Fee
1,800,000
1,800,000
120,000
120,000
110,000
110,000
10,000
5,000
2,040,000
2,035,000
2,200,000 2,200,000
210,000
210,000
650,000
650,000
120,000
120,000
3,180,000
3,180,000 0
2,450,000
1,850,000
1,000
0
30,000
30,000
1,500
1,700
2,482,500
1,881,700 0
100,000
15,000
5,000
85,000
70,000
15,000
15,000
50,000
50,000
300,325
500
500
500
465,825
241,000 0
250,000
5,000
5,000
250,000 0
120,000
165,000
12,000
15,000
19,000
23,700
8,000
10,000
10,000
11,000
25,000
31,250
7,500
7,500
100,000
140,000
2,500
2,500
-2-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
GENERAL FUND ESTIMATED RESOURCES
1997-98
Planning Fees:
001-3441
Environmental Fees
001-3442
Adv. Planning Fees
001-3443
Current Planning Fees
001-3450
Miscellaneous Permits
Engineering Fees:
001-3461
Engr. Plan Check Fees
001-3462
Engr. Permit Issuance Fees
001-3463
Engr. Encroachment Fees
001-3464
Engr. Inspection Fees
001-3465
Engr. Soils Review Fees
Recreation Fees:
001-3472
Community Activities
001-3473
Senior Activities
001-3474
Athletics
001-3476
Fee Programs
001-3478
Contract Classes
001-3479
Special Event Fees
Use of Money and Property:
001-3610
Interest Earnings
001-3615
Returned Check Charges
001-3620
Rents & Concessions
001-3635
Sale/Printed Material
001-3636
Sale/Printed Material-Engr
001-3690
Miscellaneous Revenue
Interfund Transfers
Fund Balance Reserve
GENERAL FUND TOTAL
10,000
10,000
500
0
40,000
25,000
500
500
70,000
80,000
5,000
4,000
4,000
3,000
75,000
100,000
26,000
26,000
8,000
8,000
82,560
56,000
65,000
65,000
130,000
140,000
70,000
70,000
890,560
993,450 0
500,000
600,000
1,000
500
25,000
15,000
6,500
5,000
1,000
500
11,000
5,000
544,500
626,000 0
-3-
738,230 621,750
190,000 250,000
10536 615 10 078 900 0
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT: Legislative
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES DIVISION: Summary i
1997-98 NT #: 4010-4040
PERSONNEL SERVICES
0010
Salaries
0020
Overtime
0030
Wages - Part time
0070
City Paid Benefits
0080
Retirement
0083
Worker's Comp Exp.
0085
Medicare
0090
Cafeteria Benefits
2320
TOTAL PERSONNEL SVCS
SUPPLIES
1200 Operating Supplies
1300 Small Tools & Equip
TOTAL SUPPLIES
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2110
Printing
2115
Advertising
2120
Postage
2125
Telephone
2130
Rental/Lease-Equip.
2200
Equipment Maint.
2310
Fuel
2315
Membership & Dues
2320
Publications
2325
Meetings
2330
Travel-Conf & Mtge
2335
Mileage & Auto Allow
2340
Education & Training
2390
Elections
0
TOTAL OPERATING EXP.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
444,250
470,450
0
7,000
2,000
0
25,250
10,950
0.-
8,780
9,150
0
67,550
70,700
0
7,520
7,730
0
8,250
7,700
0
95,200
99,300
0
$663,800
$677,980
$0
4,500
3,600
0
1,000
- 200
0
$5,500
$3,800
$0
1,000
500
0
4,200
2,100
0
100
0
0
2,500
2,400
0
200
0
0
1,150
1,100
0
1,000
1,000
0
1,750
1,700
0
1,100
790
0
7,650
6,125
0
29,500
23,200
0
1,250
950
0
2,000
1,000
0
18,681
35,000
0
$72,081
$75,865
$0
4000
Professional Svcs
40,100
40,600 0
4020
Legal Services
75,000
75,000
4021
Special Legal Svcs
75,000
75,000
4030
Prof Svcs-DataProcessing
30,000
25,000
TOTAL PROF SVCS
$220,100
$215,600 $0
DEPARTMENT TOTAL $961,481 $973,245 $0
-4-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ;DEPARTMENT: Legislative
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Printing
[DIVISION:
City Council
1997-98
Membership & Dues
JACCOUNT #:
4010
2320
Publications
400
1996-97
CIty Manager
City Council
5,000
Adjusted Budget
Recommended
Approved
PERSONNEL SERVICES
12,500
2340
Education & Training
0010 Salaries
30,000
30,000
TOTAL OPERATING EXP.
0070 City Paid Benefits
3,400
3,400
SERVICES
0080 Retirement
4,200
4,200
Professional Svcs
0083 Workers Comp. Exp.
300
300
TOTAL PROF. SERVICES
0085 Medicare
450
450
0090 Cafeteria Benefits
34,200
. 34,200
TOTAL PERSONNEL SVCS
$72,550
$72,550
$0
SUPPLIES
1200 Operating Supplies
1,500
1,000
TOTAL SUPPLIES
$1,500
$1,000
$0
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2110
Printing
500
250
2315
Membership & Dues
100
100
2320
Publications
400
200
2325
Meetings
5,000
4,000
2330
Travel-Conf & Mtgs
17,000
12,500
2340
Education & Training
500
0
TOTAL OPERATING EXP.
$23,500
$17,050 $0
PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
4000
Professional Svcs
25,200
25,200
TOTAL PROF. SERVICES
$25,200
$25,200
DIVISION TOTAL $122,750 $115,800 $0
—5—
CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR
DEPARTMENT:
Legislative
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
DIVISION:
City Attomey
1997-98
ACCOUNT #:
4Q20
1996-97
City Manager
City Council
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Adjusted Budget
Recommended
Approved
4020 Legal Services
75,000
75,000
4021 Special Legal Svcs
75,000
75,000
TOTAL PROF. SVCS.
150,000
150,000
0
DIVISION TOTAL
$150,000
$150,000
$0
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
1997-98
DEPARTMENT:
DIVISION:
ACCOUNT #
Legislative
City Manager
4030
1996-97
City Manager
City Council
Adjusted Budget
Recommended
Approved
PERSONNEL SERVICES
0010 Salaries
288,250
314,450
0020 Overtime
5,000
0030 Wages - Part time
25,250
10,950
0070 City Paid Benefits
3,330
3,700
0080 Retirement
45,700
48,850
0083 Worker's Comp Exp
5,950
6,160
0085 Medicare /Social Security
5,950
5,400
0090 Cafeteria Benefits
40,100
44,200
TOTAL PERSONNEL SVCS
$419,530
$433,710
$0
SUPPLIES
1200 Operating Supplies
11000
750
1300 Small Tools & Equip
500
100
TOTAL SUPPLIES
$1,500
$850
$0
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
'
2110 Printing
500
250
2115 Advertising
200
100
2120 Postage
100
0
2125 Telephone
2,000
2,000
2130 Equipment Rent
200
0
2200 Equipment Maint.
1,000
1,000
2310 Fuel
1,000
1,000'
2315 Membership & Dues
1,200
1,200
2320 Publications
600
500
2325 Meetings
2,500
2,000
2330 Travel -Cont $ Mtgs
9,000
- 7,500
2335 Mileage & Auto Allow
750
750
2340 Education &Training
1,000
500
TOTAL OPERATING EXP.
$20,050
$16,800
$0
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4000 Professional Svcs
1,400
1,400
TOTAL PROF. SVCS.
$1,400
$1,400
DIVISION TOTAL $442,480 $452,760 $0
-7-
CITY OF DIAMOND
ESTEWATED EXPENDITURES
1997-98
BAR
:DEPARTMENT:
DIVISION:
ACCOUNT X:
Legislative
City Clerk
4040
1998-97
City Manager
City Council
Adjusted Budget
Recommended
Approved
PERSONNEL SERVICES
0010 Salaries
126,000
126,000
0020 Overtime
2,000
2,000
0070 City Paid Benefits
2,050
2,050
0080 Retirement
17,650
17,650
0083 Worker's Comp. Exp.
1,270
1,270
0085 Medicare/Social Security
1,850
1,850
0090 Cafeteria Benefits
20,900
20,900
TOTAL PERSONNEL SVCS
$171,720
$171,720
$0
SUPPLIES
1200 Operating Supplies
2,000
1,850
1300 Small Tools & Equip
500
100
TOTAL SUPPLIES
$2,500
$1,950
$0
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2115 Advertising
4,000
2,000
2125 Telephone
500
400
2200 Equipment Maint.
150
100
2315 Membership & Dues
450
400
2320 Publications
100
90
2325 Meetings
150
125
2330 Travel-Conf & Mtgs
3,500
3,200
2335 Mileage & Auto Allow
500
200
2340 Education & Training
500
500
2390 Elections
18,681
35,000
TOTAL OPERATING EXP
$28,531
$42,015
$0
PROFESSIONAL SVC
4000 Professional Services
13,500
14,000
4030 Prof Svcs - Data Processing
30,000
25,000
TOTAL PROF. SVCS
$43,500
$39,000
$0
DIVISION TOTAL
$246,251
$254,685
$0
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
�A '' �.iYYI.r
7,500
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
0
Vv:����1•
a
a 4 :txtary
Printing
1997-98
43,500
0
2111
Pre -Press Printing
1996-97
City Manager City Council
0
2112
Adjusted Budget
Recommended Approved
1,200
PERSONNEL SERVICES
2113
Engraving Services
2,450
0010 Salaries
175,050
177,200
0
0020 Overtime
3,000
3,000
0
0070 City Paid Benefits
2,760
2,760
0
0080 Retirement
24,900
26,300
0
0083 Worker's Comp Exp.
1,920
1,850
0
0085 Medicare
2,650
2,700
0
0090 Cafeteria Benefits
28,490
28,500
0
0093 Benefits Administration
1,200
1,200
0
TOTAL PERSONNEL SVCS
$239,970
$243,510
$0
SUPPLIES
2140
Rent/Lease-Real Prop
190,300
1200 Operating Supplies
24,050
20,050
0
1300 Small Tools & Equip
1,200
450
0
TOTAL SUPPLIES
$25,250
$20,500
$0
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2100
Photocopy
7,500
5,000
0
2110
Printing
57,800
43,500
0
2111
Pre -Press Printing
12,000
13,500
0
2112
Photography
1,500
1,200
0
2113
Engraving Services
2,450
2,500
0
2115
Advertising
9,000
8,900
0
2120
Postage
30,000
28,500
0
2121
Mailing Services
2,000
1,500
0
2125
Telephone
28,200
25,200
0
2126
Utilities
3,000
2,750
0
2128
Banking Charges
1,700
1,700
0
2130
Rental/Lease-Equip.-
14,000
11,000
0
2140
Rent/Lease-Real Prop
190,300
177,100
0
2141
Rental/Show Space
3,000
3,000
0
2200
Equipment Maint.
10,200
9,500
0
2205
Computer Maint
9,000
7,500
0
2210
Maint-Grounds & Bldg
46,000
25,000
0
2310
Fuel
1,500
1,500
0
2315
Membership & Dues
29,150
29,300
0
2320
Publications
2,100
1,800
0
2325
Meetings
13,150
12,650
0
2330
Travel-Conf & Mtgs
19,300
14,800
0
2335
Mileage & Auto Allow
150
150
0
2340
Education & Training
2,000
1,800
0
2345
Employment Physicals
2,000
1,500
0
2352
Promotional Items
15,000
11,000
0
2353
Anniversary
10,000
10,000
0
2355
Contr-Community Grps
5,000
3,000
0
2360
Graffiti Reward Program
2,500
1,000
0
2395
Misc. Expenditures
750
450
0
TOTAL OPERATING EXP.
$530,250
$456,300
$0
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
1997-98
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4000 Professional Svcs
4010 Auditing Services
4030 Data Processing Svcs
TOTAL PROF SVCS
t3i+�ENT. deneraf Govt.
��i�nmarjr
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
89,000
78,000 0
48,500
49,300 0
12,550
13,000 0
$150,050
$140,300 $0
CONTRACT SERVICES
5090 Contract Svcs -Econ Development
50,000
0
0
TOTAL CONTRACT SVCS.
$50,000
$0
$0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6200 Office Equipment
3,050
3,500
0
6220 Office Furniture
5,000
6230 Computer Equipment - Hardware
28,200
5,000
0
6235 Computer Equipment - Software
56,500
6250 Misc Equipment
5,000
0
0
6310 Building Improvements
1,400
0
0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
$99,150
$8,500
$0
DEPARTMENT TOTAL $1,094,670 $869,110 $0
—10—
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ESTIMATED EXPENDIT`LTIZ.ES
tDEPARTMEl�T:
General Govt,
1997-98
EDIVIStON:
ACCOUNT" #:
Finance
4050
1996-97
City Manager
City Council
PERSONNEL SERVICES
Ad)usted Budget
Recommended
Approved
0010 Salaries
_
0020 Overtime
133,500
135,650
0070 City Paid Benefits
3,000
3,000
0080 Retirement
2,050
2,050
0083 WWS Comp,
18,050
19,450
0085 Medicare
1,470
1,400
0090 Cafeteria Benefits
2,000
2,050
TOTAL PERSONNEL SVCS21,250
21,250
$181,320
4i184,850
$0
SUPPLIES
1200 Operating Supplies
1300 Small Tools & Equipment
1,450
1,300
TOTAL SUPPLIES
200
200
$1,650
$1,500
$0
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2110 Printing
2315 Membership & Dues
4,800
4,000
2320 Publications
650
700
2325 Meetings
400
300
2330 Travel-Conf & Mtgs
150
150
2335 Mileage & Auto Allow
2,000
1,800
2340 Education & Training
150
150
TOTAL OPERATING EXP.1'000
800
$9,150
$7,900
$0
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4000 Professional Services
4010 Auditing Services
13,000
2,040
4030 Data Processing Svcs.
23,500
24,300
TOTAL PROF SVCS
12,550
13,000
$49,050
$39,300
$0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6200 Office Equipment
6230 Computer Equipment
3,050
$3,500
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
3,200
$6,250
DIVISION TOTAL
$247,420
$237,050
$0
Office Equipment proposed; Burster to burster to separate
checks, purchase orders & timecrds
-11-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
1997-98
E
PERSONNEL SERVICES
0080 Retirement
0093 Benefits Administration
TOTAL PERSONNEL SVCS
SUPPLIES
1200 Operating Supplies
1300 Small Tools & Equip
TOTAL SUPPLIES
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
1,000 1,000
1,200 1,200
$2,200 $2,200 $0
11,200 10,000
500 250
$11,700 $10,250 $0
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2100
Photocopy
7,500
5,000
2110
Printing
8,500
7,500
2115
Advertising
500
500
2120
Postage
15,000
15,000
2125
Telephone
25,000
24,000
2126
Utilities
1,000
750
2128
Banking Charges
1,700
1,700
2130
Rental/Lease-Equip.
12,000
10,000
2140
Rent/Lease-Real Prop
175,800
160,000
2200
Equipment Maint.
10,200
9,500
2205
Computer Maint
9,000
7,500
2210
Maint-Grounds & Bldg
24,000
15,000
2310
Fuel
1,500
1,500 .
2315
1
Membership & Dues
26,500
26,500
2320
Publications
1,700
1,500
2325
Meetings
8,000
7,500
2330
Travel -Conferences
4,800
3,500
2340
Education & Training
1,000
1,000
2345
Employment Physicals
2,000
1,500
2395
Misc. Expenditures
500
250
$0
TOTAL OPERATING EXP.
$336,200
$299,700
PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
4000
Professional Svcs
75,000
75,000
4010
Prof Svcs -Auditing
25,000
25,000
4030
Prof Svcs -Data Proc
TOTAL PROF SVCS
$100,000
$100,000 $0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6220
Office Furniture
5,000
6230
Computer Equipment -Hardware
25,000
5,000
6235
Computer Equipment -Software
56,500
6250
Misc Equipment
5,000
$0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
$91,500
$5,000
DIVISION TOTAL $541,600 $417,150 $0
-12-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
€DEPARTMENT;
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Govt.
1997-98DlVlSlON:
Com Svcs Ctr
ACCOUNT #t:
4091
SUPPLIES
1996-97
Adjusted Budget
City Manager
RecommendAA
City Council
Approved
1200 Operating Supplies
1300 Small Tools & Equip
200
250
TOTAL SUPPLIES
500
$700
$250
$0
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2125 Telephone
2126 Utilities
700
700
2140 Rent/Lease-Real Prop
2,000
2,000
2210 Maint-Grounds & Buildings
12,500
15,600
TOTAL OPERATING EXP,22,000
10,000
$37,200
$28,300
$0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6310 Building Improvements
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
1,400
$1,400
$0
$0
DIVISION TOTAL
$39,300
$28,550
$0
-13-
CITY OF DIAMOND
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
1997-98
BAR
€DEPARTMENT:
'DIVISION:
ACCOUNT #•
General Govt.
Com. Relations
4095
1996-97
City Manager
City Council
Adjusted Budget
Recommended
Approved
PERSONNEL SERVICES
0010 Salaries
29,050
29,050
0070 City Paid Benefits
500
500
0080 Retirement
4,100
4,100
0083 Worker's Comp Exp.
300
300
0085 Medicare
450
450
0090 Cafeteria Benefits
5,040
5,050
$39,440
$39,450
$0
SUPPLIES
1200 Operating Supplies
8,700
8,000
TOTAL SUPPLIES
$8,700
$8,000
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2110 Printing
32,000
27,000
2111 Pre -Press Printing
12,000
6,000
2112 Photography
1,500
1,200
2113 Engraving Services
2,450
2,500
2115 Advertising
1,000
900
2120 Postage
12,000
12,000
2121 Mailing Services
2,000
1,500
2130 Rental/Lease of Equipment
2,000
1,000
2315 Membership & Dues
500
600
2330 Travel -Conferences
2,500
2,000
2352 Promotional Items
7,500
7,500
2353 Anniversary
10,000
10,000
2355 Contr Community Grps
5,000
3,000
2360 Graffiti Reward Program
2,500
1,000
2395 Misc. Expenditures
250
200
TOTAL OPERATING EXP.
$93,200
$76,400
$0
DIVISION TOTAL $141,340 $123,850 $0
-14-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT: General Govt.
ESTMUTED EXPENDITURES [DIVISION: Economic Dev.
1997-98 ACCOUNT #• 4096
PERSONNEL SERVICES
0010
Salaries
0070
City Paid Benefits
0080
Retirement
0083
Worker's Comp Exp.
0085
Medicare
0090
Cafeteria Benefits
SUPPLIES
1200 Operating Supplies
TOTAL SUPPLIES
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2110
Printing
2111
Pre -Press Printing
2115
Advertising
2120
Postage
2126
Telephone
2140
RentaULease Real Property
2141
Rental/Exihibition Space
2315
Membership/Dues
2325
Meetings
2330
Travel-Conf & Meetings
2352
Promotional Items
TOTAL OPERATING EXP.
PROFESSIONAL SVCS
4000 Professional Services
TOTAL PROF SVCS
CONTRACT SERVICES
5000 Contract Services
5090 Contract Svcs -Econ Development
DIVISION TOTAL
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
12,500
12,500
210
210
1,750
1,750
150
150
200
200
2,200
2,200
$17,010
$17,010
$0
2,500
500
$2,500
$500
12,500
5,000
7,500
7,500
7,500
3,000
1,500
2,500
500
2,000
11500
3,000
3,000
1,500
1,500
5,000
5,000
10,000
7,500
7,500
3,500
$54,500
$44,000
$0
1,000
1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$0
0
50,000
$0
$50,000
$0
$6-
-15-
$125,010 $62,510 $0
OF DIAMOND
ES" 1 V1_XTED EXPENDITURES
1997-)8
BAR
DEPARTMENT:
DIVISION:
;ACCOUNT #:
Community Dev.
Summary
4210-4220
0
1996-97
City Manager
City Council
PERSONNEL SERVICES
Ad)usted Budget
Recommended
Approved
001(i Salaries
284,350
286,750
0
002( Overtime
1,500
1,500
0
003( Wages - Part time
500
500
0
007C City Paid Benefits
4,000
4,050
0
008C Retirement
39,800
40,150
0
0083 Worker's Comp Exp.
3,870
5,100
0
0085 Medicare
4,200
4,200
0
0090 Cafeteria Benefits
41,550
41,950
0
TOTAL PERSONNEL SVCS
$379,770
$384,200
$0
SUPPLIES
5211
Contr Svcs -Code Enforcement
1200 Operating Supplies
3,000
2,500
5213
1300 Small Tools & Equip
5,000
4,000
TOTAL SUPPLIES
$3,000
$2,500
$0
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
CAPITAL OUTLAY
2110 Printing
3,500
3,000
0
2115 Advertising
5,000
4,000
0
2130 Equipment Rent
1,500
1,600
0
2200 Equipment Maint.
2,000
1,800
0
2310 Fuel
1,000
1,000
0
2315 Membership & Dues
1,000
1,000
0
2320 Publications
500
1,000
0
2325 Meetings
300
300
0
2330 Travel-Conf & Mtgs
4,000
4,000
0
2335 Mileage & Auto Allow
1,000
900
0
2340 Education &Training
1,500
1,300
0
TOTAL OPERATING EXP.
$21,300
$19,900
$0
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4000
Professional Svcs
9,000
9,000
0
4100
Commissioner Comp.
7,000
7,000
0
4110
Com. Comp-SEATAC
500
500
0
4210
Planning -Regional
1,500
1,000
0
4220
General Plan
15,000
-15,000
0
4240
Environmental Svcs
31,580
25,000
0
4250
Special Projects-Dev Code
101,000
0
0
TOTAL PROF SVCS
$165,580
$57,500
$0
CONTRACT
SERVICES
5201
Contr Svcs -8 & S
200,000
250,000
5211
Contr Svcs -Code Enforcement
5213
Property Maint Enforcement
5,000
4,000
TOTAL CONTRACT SVCS
$205,000
$254,000
$0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6250
Computer Equipment -Hardware
5,000
0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
$5,000
$0
DEPARTMENT TOTAL
$779,650
$718,100
$0
-16-
CITY OF DIAMOND
ESTMATED EXPENDITURES
1997-98
BAR
DEPARTMENT:
DIVISION:
iACCOUNT #:
Community Dev.
Planning
4210
7,000'
1996-97
City Manager
City Council
500
Adjusted Budget
Recommended
Approved
PERSONNEL SERVICES
15,000
15,000
4240 Environmental
0010 Salaries
284,350
286,750
101,000
0020 Overtime
1,500
1,500
$57,500 $0
0030 Wages - Part time
500
500
5211 Cont Svcs - Code Enf Prosecution
0070 City Paid Benefits
4,000
4,050
5,000
0080 Retirement
39,800
40,150
$4,000 $0
0083 Worker's Comp. Exp.
3,870
5,100
6230 Computer Equipment
0085 Medicare/Social Security
4,200
4,200
5,000
0090 Cafeteria Benefits
41,550
41,950
TOTAL PERSONNEL SVCS
$379,770
$384,200
$0
SUPPLIES
1200 Operating Supplies
3,000
2,500
1300 Small Tools & Equip
TOTAL SUPPLIES
$3.000
$2,500
$0
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2110 Printing
3,500
3,000
2115 Advertising
5,000
4,000
2130 Equipment Rent
1,500
1,600
2200 Equipment Maint.
2,000
1,800
0
2310 Fuel
1,000
1,000
2315 Membership & Dues
1,000
1,000
2320 Publications
500
1,000
2325 Meetings
300
300
2330 Travel-Conf & Mtgs
4,000
4,000
2335 Mileage & Auto Allow
1,000
900
2340 Education & Training
1,500
1,300.
TOTAL OPERATING EXP
$21,300
$19,900
$0
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4000 Professional Svcs
9,000
9,000
4100 Commissioner Comp.
7,000'
7,000
4110 Com. Comp - SEATAC
500
500
4210 Planning
11500
1,000
4220 General Plan
15,000
15,000
4240 Environmental
31,580
25,000
4250 Special Projects-Dev. Code
101,000
0
TOTAL PROF SVCS
$165,580
$57,500 $0
CONTRACT SERVICES
5211 Cont Svcs - Code Enf Prosecution
5213 Property Maint Enforcement
5,000
4,000
$5,000
$4,000 $0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6230 Computer Equipment
5,000
0
5,000
0
DIVISION TOTAL $579,650 $468,100 $0
-17-
CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR
DEPARTMENT:
Community Dev.
ESTLNIATED EXPENDITURES
DIVISION:
Bldg & Safety
1997-98
,ACCOUNT #:
4220
1996-97
City Manager
City Council
Adjusted Budget
Recommended
Approved
CONTRACT SERVICES
200,000
250,000
5201 Bldg & Safety
TOTAL CONTRACT SVCS
$200,000
$250,000
DIVISION TOTAL $200,000 $250,000
-18-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
-------------
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
DEPARTMENT:
Community Svcs
1997-98
� DIVISION:
Summary
iACCOUNT #:
4310-4350
1996-97
City Manager
Clty Council
PERSONNEL SERVICES
Adjusted Budget
Recommended
Approved
0010 Salaries
0020 Overtime
168,700
168,700
0
0030 Wages -Part Time
1500
,
1,000
0
0070 City Paid Benefits
88'210
83,000
0
0080 Retirement
4,510
4,510
0
0083 Worker's Comp. Exp,
30,860
30,900
0
0085 Medicare
8,350
8,000
0
0090 Cafeteria Benefits
7'260
6,860
0
TOTAL PERSONNEL SVC42,450
42,700
0
$351,840
$345,670
$0
SUPPLIES
1200 Operating Supplies
1300 Small Tools 8 Equipment
59,906
55,000
0
TOTAL SUPPLIES
0
0
0
$59,906
$55,000
$0
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2115 Advertising
2125 Telephone
100
90
0
2126 Utilities
6,200
5,120
0
2130 Equipment Rent
129,645
138,375
0
2140 Rent/Lease-Real Prop
1'150
950
0
2200 Equipment Maint.
118,000
70,000
0
2210 Maint-Grounds $ Bldg
2,000
1,800
0
2310 Fuel
64,245
60,250
0
2315 Membership & Dues
2,800
2,500
0
2320 Publications
350
350
0
2325 Meetings
127
100
0
2330 Travel-Conf 6 Meetings
750
450
0
2335 Mileage
5,000
3,500
0
2340 Education 8 Training
500
450
0
TOTAL OPERATING EXP,
400
350
0
$331,267
$284,285
$0
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4000 Professional Services
4100 Commissioner Comp
2,500
2,200
0
4300 Professional Svcs
3,000
3,000
0
TOTAL PROF SVCS
114,400
7,500
0
$119,900
$12,700
$0
-19-
CONTRACT SERVICES
5300
Contract Services
5305
Concerts in the Park
5310
Excursions
5318
Storm Damage - Parks
500
TOTAL CONTRACT SVCS
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6100 Auto Equipment
6230 Computer Equipment
6250 Misc. Equipment
6410 Captial Improvements
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
492,600
503,050
0
13,000
15,300
0
43,200
43,200
0
500
450
$549,300
$562,000
$p
20,000
11000
3,500
0
0
2,367
1,100
0
23,675
32,500.
p
$49,542
$34,600
$0
DEPARTMENT TOTAL $1,461,755 $1,294,255
$0
—20—
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
2115
Advertising
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Equipment Rent
pEPARTrENT:
plVtStON:
Community sic$
1997-98
Malnt-Grounds & Bldg
ACCOUNT #:
Park Admin.
2315
Membership & Dues
2320
4310
2325
Meetings
2330
1996-97
City Manager
City Council
PERSONNEL SERVICES
Adjusted Budget
Recommended
Approved
—
0010 Salaries
97,200
97,200
0020 Overtime
500
0070 City Paid Benefits
1,450
1,450
0080 Retirement
13,650
13,650
0083 Wkr's Comp. Exp.
3,890
3,890
0085 Medicare / Social Security
1,410
1,410
0090 Cafeteria Benefits
14,900
14,900
TOTAL PERSONAL SVCS
$133,000
$132,500
$0
SUPPLIES
1200 Operating Supplies
1300 Small Tools & Equipment
TOTAL SUPPLIES
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2115
Advertising
2130
Equipment Rent
2200
Equipment Maint.
2210
Malnt-Grounds & Bldg
2310
Fuel
2315
Membership & Dues
2320
Publications
2325
Meetings
2330
Travel-Conf & Mtgs
2335
Mileage
2340
Education & Training
TOTAL OPERATING EXP
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4000 Professional Services
4300 Prof Svcs - Special Studies
TOTAL PROF SERVICES
CONTRACT SERVICES
5318 Storm Damage - Parks
TOTAL CONTRACT SERVICES
7,077 7,000
0
i7-',077$7,000 $0
100
90
1,150
950
2,000
1,800
500
450
2,800
2,500
350
350
127
100
250
5,000
3,500
500
450
400
350
$13,177 $10,540 $0
2,500 2,200
106,000 0
$108,500 $2,200 $0
-21-
500 450
$500 $450 $0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6100 Auto Equipment
6230 Computer Equipment - Hardware
6250 Misc. Equipment
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
DIVISION TOTAL
-22-
20,000 1,000
2,500 0
596 600
$23,096 $1,600
$285,350 $154,290
$0
$0
F
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR (DEPARTMENT: Community Svcs
ESTMATED EXPENDITURES
DIVISION: Grow Park
1997-98 ;ACCOUNT V. 4311'
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2125 Telephone 720 0
2126 Utilities ' 12,600 12,600
2210 Maint-Grounds & Bldg 4,500 4,000
TOTAL OPERATING EXP $17,820 $16,600 $0
CONTRACT SERVICES
5300 Com Svcs Contract Services 13,200 13,450
TOTAL CONTRACT SVC $13,200 $13,450
DIVISION TOTAL
$31,020
-23-
$30,050
$0
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR (DEPARTMENT: community Svcs
ESTIMATED EX ?ENDM RES DIVISION. Heritage Park
1997-98 ACCOUNT* 4313
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2125 Telephone
720
720
2126 Utilities
11,275
11,275
2210 Maint-Grounds & Bldg
5,000
4,500
TOTAL OPERATING EXP
$16,995
$16,495 $0
CONTRACT SERVICES
5300 Com. Svcs. contract
TOTAL CONTRACT SVC
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6250 Misc. Capital Equipment
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
DIVISION TOTAL
9,000 9,200
$9,000 $9,200 $0
$0 $0 $0
$25,995 $25,695 $0
-24-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT: Community Svcs
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES DIVISION: H' Pk Com Center
1997-98 ACCOUNT k 4314
SUPPLIES
1200 Operating Supplies
TOTAL SUPPLIES
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2125
1996-97
City Manager City Council
Utilities
2130
Adjusted Budget
Recommended Approved
PERSONNEL SERVICES
0
TOTAL OPERATING EXP
0010
Salaries
0030
Wages - Part Time
50,210
45,000
0070
City Paid Benefits
510
510
0080
Retirement
2,800
2,800:
0083
Worker's Comp Expense
2,450
2,060
0085
Medicare Expense
3,850
3,450
0090
Cafeteria
5,150
5,400
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES
$64,970
$59,220 $0
SUPPLIES
1200 Operating Supplies
TOTAL SUPPLIES
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2125
Telephone
2126
Utilities
2130
Rental/Lease of Equipment
2210
Maint-Grounds & Bldg
0
TOTAL OPERATING EXP
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6230 Computer Equipment
6250 Misc. Capital Equipment
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
DIVISION TOTAL
3,200 3,000
$3,200 $3,000
800
800
14,145
14,000
9,400
7,000
$24,345
$21,800 $0
1,000
0
$1,000 $0
$93,515
-25-
$84,020
$0
$0
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT: Communfty Svcs j
ESTMATED EXPENDITURES i DIVISION, MaplehillPark
1997-98 ACCOUNT 4316
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adopted Budget Recomrnended Approved
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2125 Telephone 720 600
2126 Utilities 14,250 13,000
2210 Maint-Grounds & Bldg 4,000 3,600
TOTAL OPERATING EXP $18,970 $17,200 $0
CONTRACT SERVICES
5300 Com. Svcs. contract
TOTAL CONTRACT SVC
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6410 Capital Improvements
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
10,800
11,000
$10,800
$11,000 $0
12,700
12,500
$12,700
$12,500
DIVISION TOTAL $42,470 $40,700 $0
-26-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT: Community Svcs
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES PIVISIOM Penters Parts
1996-97 !ACCOUNT * 4318
1995-96 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2125 Telephone
2126 Utilities 6,000
2210 Maint-Grounds & Bldg 2,000 3,000
TOTAL OPERATING EXP $2,000 $9,000 $0
CONTRACT SERVICES
5300 Contract Services 6,000
TOTAL CONTRACT SERVICES $0 $6,000 $0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6250 Misc Capital Equipment
TOTAL CAPITAL OUT LAY
DIVISION TOTAL
-27-
500
$0 $500 $0
$2,000 $15,500 $0
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR (DEPARTMENT: Community Svcs
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES DIVISION: Peterson Park
1997-98ACCOUNT V 4318
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Ad)usted Budget Recommended Approved
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2125 Telephone
720
600
2126 Utilities
16,675
22,000
2210 Maint-Grounds & Bldg
10,190
6,200
TOTAL OPERATING EXP
$27,585
$28,800 $0
CONTRACT SERVICES
5300 Cont Svcs - Community Svcs
TOTAL CONTRACT SVC
14,400 14,700
$14,400 $14,700 $0
DIVISION TOTAL $41,985 $43,500 $0
-28-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ESTMATED EXPENDITURES
1997-98
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2125 Telephone
2126 Utilities
2210 Maint-Grounds & Bldg
TOTAL OPERATING EXP
CONTRACT SERVICES
5300 Com. Svcs. contract
TOTAL CONTRACT SVC
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6410 Capital Improvement
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
DIVISION TOTAL
DEPARTMENT: Community Svcs
DIVISION Reagan Park
ACCOUNT # 4322
1998-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
720
600
16,000
16,000
6,095
5,500
$22,815
$22,100 $0
12,000
12,250
$12,000
$12,250 $0
6,835
15,000
6,835
15,000
$41,650 $49,350
-29-
$0
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT: Community Svcs
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURESDIVISION: Starshine Park
1997-98 ACCOUNT 4325
DIVISION TOTAL $18,400 $17,150 $0
-30-
1986-97
City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget
Recommended Approved
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2126 Utilities
9,400
9,000
2210 Maint-Grounds & Bldg
3,000
2,000
TOTAL OPERATING EXP
$12,400
$11,000 $0
CONTRACT SERVICES
5300 Com. Svcs. contract
6,000
6,150
TOTAL CONTRACT SVC
$6,000
$6,150 $0
DIVISION TOTAL $18,400 $17,150 $0
-30-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR !DEPARTMENT: Community Svcs j
ESTrgATED EXPENDUMS DIVISION: Summltridge Pk
1997-98 ;ACCOUNT #* * 4329 {
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2126 Utilities 22,700 22,000
2210 Maint-Grounds & Bldg 7,060 6,000
TOTAL OPERATING EXP $29,760 $28,000 $0
CONTRACT SERVICES
5300 Com. Svcs. contract
TOTAL CONTRACT SVC
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
6410 Capital Improvement
DIVISION TOTAL
z
18,000 18,350
$18,000 $18,350 $0
4,140 5,000
$4,140 $5,000 $0
$51,900 $51,350
-31-
$0
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT. Community Svcs
ESTEWATED EXPENDITURES DIVISION': Sycamore Park
1997-98 ACCOUNT* 4331'
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2125 Telephone 1,800 11800
2126 Utilities 12,600 12,500
2210 Maint-Grounds & Bldg 12,500 18,000
TOTAL OPERATING EXP $26,900 $32,300 $0
CONTRACT SERVICES
5300 Com. Svcs. contract
TOTAL CONTRACT SVC
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6250 Misc. Equipment
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
DIVISION TOTAL
28,200 30,950
$28,200 $30,950
$0
$55,100
-32-
$0
$63,250
$0
$0
$0
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT: Community Svcs
ESTMATED EXPENDITURES !DIVISION' Recreation
1997-98 . ACCOUNT * 4350
PERSONNEL SERVICES
0010
Salaries
0020
Overtime
0030
Wages -Part Time
0070
City Paid Benefits
0080
Retirement
0083
Worker's Comp. Exp.
0085
Medicare
0090
Cafeteria Benefits
TOTAL PERSONNEL SVC
SUPPLIES
1200 Operating Supplies
TOTAL SUPPLIES
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2140 Rent/Lease of Prop.
2325 Meetings
TOTAL OPERATING EXP
PROFESSIONAL SVCS
4100 Commissioner Camp
4300 Prof Svcs -Com Svcs
TOTAL PROF SVCS
CONTRACT SERVICES
1998-97 City Manager. City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
71,500
71,500
1,000
11000
38,000
38,000
2,550
2,550
14,410
14,450
2,010
2,050
2,000
2,000
22,400
22,400
$153,870 $153,950
$0
49,629 45,000
$49,629 $45,000 $0
118,000 70,000
500 450
$118,500 $70,450
$0
3,000
3,000
8,400
7,500
$11,400
$10,500 $0
5300 Com. Svcs. contract
381,000
381,000
5305 Concerts In the Park
13,000
15;300
Excursions Excursia
43,200
43,200
TOTAL CONTRACT SVC
$437,200
$439,500 $0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6250 Misc Equipment
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
DIVISION TOTAL
1,771 0
$1,771 $0 $0
$772,370 $719,400 $0
-33-
CITY OFDIAM OND BAR .
� ��yq
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
1997-98
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
SUPPLIES 8,250 7,250 0
1200 Operating Supplies 500 1,000 0
1300 Small Tools & Equipment $8,750 $8 250 $0
TOTAL SUPPLIES
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
1,250
1,400
0
2110 Printing
250
200
0
2115 Advertising
3,250
2,000
0
0
2125 Telephone
200
200
66,000
2126 Utilties
2,800
2,800
0
0
2130 Equipment Rent
100
200
0
2140 Rental/Lease - Real Property
18,000
12,000
0
2200 Equipment Maint.
1,500
1,200
0
2310 Fuel
3,000
3,000
0
0
2315 Membership &Dues
1,500
1,700
$3,919,285
2325 Meetings
305
0
0
2330 Travel - Conferences
3,250
31500
0
2340 Education & Training
$35,405
$28,200
$0
TOTAL OPERATING EXP.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
6,000
12,000
4040 Prof Svcs -Emergency Coord
$6,000
$12,000
TOTAL PROF SVCS
CONTRACT SERVICES
5401
Contr Svcs -Sheriff
5402
Contr Svcs -Fire
5403
Contr Svcs -An Contrl
5404
Contr Svcs - Sheriff Sp Evts
5405
Parking Citation Admin
5531
CS - Crossing Guards
4,000
TOTAL CONTRACT SVCS
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6100
Vehicle Equipment
6230
Computer Equipment
6240
Communications Eq
6250
Misc Equipment
6310
Bldg Impr - EOC
0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
DEPARTMENT TOTAL
31645,250
3,560,000
7,530
7,530
65,850
65,000
0
70,000
70,000
0
5,000
4,000
0
66,000
55,000
$0
$3,859,630
$3,761,530
0
3,000
0
2,500
500
0
0
1,000
700
0
6,000
5,500
0
0
2,000
$0
$9,500
$11,700
$3,919,285
$3,821,680
$0
-34-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ES,yMATED EXYENDn
1997-98
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2200 Equipment Maint.
2325 Meetings
TOTAL OPERATING EXP.
� DEPARTMENT: Public Safety
DIVISION. Law Enforcement
(ACCOUNT t.4411
City Manager City Council
19W9T nded Approved
Adjusted Bud et Recomme
15,000 10,000
500 500 $0
$15,500 $10,500
CONTRACT SERVICES
3 64,5 250
3,560,000
70,000
5401 Contr Svcs -Sheriff
Svcs -Sheriff Sp Events
70, 000
5,000
4 ,000
4,000
5404 Cony
5405 Parking Citation Administration
66,000
$0
$3,689,000
5531 CS -Crossing Guards
CONTRACT SVCS
$3,786,250
TOTAL
5,000
CAPITAL OUTLAY 51000 $5,0006250 , Miscellaneous Equipment $5,000
$3,704,500 $0
DIVISION TOTAL $3,806,750
—35—
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT, Public Safety
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES DIVISION: Comm. Vol. Patro�
1997-98 ACCOUNT #: 4415 j
SUPPLIES
1200 Operating Supplies
1300 Small Tools & Equipment
TOTAL SUPPLIES
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2110
Printing
2115
Advertising
2125
Telephone
2200
Equipment Maint.
2310
Fuel
2325
Meetings
2330
Travel - Conferences
1,200
TOTAL OPERATING EXP
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
2,250
2,250
500
500
$2,750
$2,750 $0
250
200
250
200
1,250
1,000
1,500
1,000
1,500
1,200
1,000
1,200
305
0
$6,055
$4,800 $0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6230 Computer Equipment -Hardware
6240 Communications Equipment 0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0
DIVISION TOTAL $8,805 $7,550 $0
-36-
CITY OF DIAMOND BARDEPARTMENT: Public Safety
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES DIVISION Fire
1997-98 ACCOUNT #: 4421'
1996-97 City Manager City Council
CONTRACT SERVICES Adjusted Budget Reconxnended Approved
5402 Contr Svcs -Fire $7,530 $7,530
TOTAL CONTRACT SVCS 7,530 7,530
DIVISION TOTAL $7,530 $7,530
-37-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR (DEPARTMENT: Public Safety
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES DIVISION: Animal Control
1997-98 ACCOUNT #* 4431
1996-97 City Manager City Council
CONTRACT SERVICES
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
5403 Contr Svcs -An Contrl 65,850 65,000
TOTAL CONTRACT SVCS $65,850 $65,000
DIVISION TOTAL $65,850 $65,000
-38-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
.l•;l:•.aeA
1997-98
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
SUPPLIES
1200 Operating Supplies 6,000 5,000
1300 Small Tools & Equipment 500
TOTAL SUPPLIES $6,000 $5,500 $0
OPERATING EXP.
2110
Printing
1,000
1,200
2125
Telephone
2,000
1,000
2126
Utilities
200
200
2130
Equipment Rent
2,800
2,800
2140
Rent/Lease - Real Property
100
200
2200
Equipment Maintenance
1,500
1,000
2315
Membership & Dues
3,000
3,000
2340
Education & Training
3,250
3,500
TOTAL OPERATING EXP
$13,850
$12,900 $0
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4040
Prof Svcs - Emergency Coord
6,000
12,000
TOTAL PROF. SERVICES
$6,000
$12,000 $0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6100
Vehicle Equipment
3,000
6230
Computer Equipment
2,500
500
6240
Communications Eq.
1,000
700
6250
Misc. Equipment
1,000
500
6310
Bldg Impr-EOC
2,000
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
$4,500
$6,700 $0
DIVISION TOTAL $30,350 $37,100 $0
-39-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT-- Public Works
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
[NVtSWf. Sgmma
5221
1997-98
ACCQUr4 #` 4530=4558
13,000
0
5222
1996-97
City Manager City Council
10,000
Adjusted Budget
Recommended Approved
67,576
PERSONNEL SERVICES
0
5224
CS -Soils
0010 Salaries
151,000
142,650
0
0020 Overtime
1,100
0
0
0030 Wages - Parttime
11,000
11,000
0
0070 City Paid Benefits
2,400
2,250
0
0080 Retirement
21,210
20,100
0
0083 Worker's Comp Exp-
1,650
1,600
0
0085 Medicare
3,050
2,950
0
0090 Cafeteria Benefits
24,500
22,800
0
TOTAL PERSONNEL SVCS
$215,910
$203,350
$0
SUPPLIES
0
5508
CS-Veg Control
1200 Operating Supplies
3,196
2,000
5509
1300 Small Tools & Equipment
500
0
0
TOTAL SUPPLIES
$3,696
$2,000
$0
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
5512
CS -Storm Drainage
7,800
2110 Printing
3,500
2,400
0
2115 Advertising
1,700
1,150
0
2126 Utilities
50,000
50,000
0
2315 Membership & Dues
700
525
0
2320 Publications
500
300
0
2325 Meetings
275
250
0
2330 Travel-Conf & Mtgs
1,225
950
0
2335 Mileage & Auto Allow
200
100
0
2340 Education & Training
3,500
2,000
0
TOTAL OPERATING EXP.
$61,600
$57,675
$0
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
6230
Computer Equip -Hardware
1,500
4000 Professional Svcs
4,500
9,250
0
4100 Commissioner Comp
3,000
3,000
4230 Pavement Mgt
10,930
0
0
4240 Enviromental
0
25,000
0
4520 PW Engineering
129,660
125,000
0
TOTAL PROF SVCS
$148,090
$162,250
$0
CONTRACT SERVICES
5221
CS -Engineering
15,085
13,000
0
5222
CS -Traffic
29,208
10,000
5223
CS -Plan Check
67,576
60,000
0
5224
CS -Soils
5,000
2,500
0
5226
CS -Surveying
2,500
1,500
0
5227
CS -Inspection
65,967
85,000
0
5501
CS -Street Sweeping
110,000
115,000
0
5502
CS -Road Maint
260,000
260,000
0
5503
CS -Pkwy Maint
6,500
6,500
0
5506
CS-Stp/Mk/Sign
50,000
50,000
0
5507
CS -Traffic Signals
65,290
90,000
0
5508
CS-Veg Control
56,000
56,000
0
5509
CS -Tree Maintenance
90,000
65,000
0
5510
CS -Tree Watering
22,000
22,000
0
5512
CS -Storm Drainage
7,800
7,000
0
5513
CS -Bridge Maint
4,000
0
0
5520
CS -Graffiti Removal
35,000
35,000
0
5521
CS -Litter Abatement
10,100
10,100
0
5522
CS -Right of Way Maint
38,100
30,000
0
5530
Contr Svc -Ind Waste
12,000
12,000
0
TOTAL CONTRACT SVCS
_
$952,126
$930,600
$0
CAPITAL OUTLAY
$0
6200
Office Equipment
$1,192
$1,000
6230
Computer Equip -Hardware
1,500
0
0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
$2,692
$1,000
$0
DEPARTMENTTOTAL $1,384,114 $1,356,875 $0
-40-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
1996-97
PERSONNEL SERVICES
0010
Salaries
0020
Overtime
0030
Wages - Part time
0070
City Paid Benefits
0080
Retirement
0083
Worker's Comp Exp.
0085
Medicare /Social Security
0090
Cafeteria Benefits
SVCS
11,450
TOTAL PERSONNEL
SUPPLIES Supplies
1200 Operating pp Equipment
1300 Small
OTAL SUPPLIES
pEPARTMENT: Public Works
Dl1lN Public 1AForks
4s1a
EXPENDITURES
City Council
City Manager
1996-97 roved _
Recommended ApP
Adjusted Budget
_
78,450
72,250
600
11,000
11,000
1,100
1,000
11,000
10,150
900
850
2,000
1,900
10,200
11,450
$0
$107,350
$116,500
3,196
2,000
500
-- $0
$2,000
- $3,696
EXPENDITURES
2 ,000
1,500
OPERATING
2110 Printing
1,000
800
50000
21 15 Advertising
50,000
,
225
2126 Utilities
2315 Membership & Dues
250
500
300
1,000
2320 Publications
1,500
$0
$53 825
2340 Education &Training
OPERATING EXP.
TOTAL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,000
75010,930 0
4000 Professional Services25,000
Management125,000
.4230 Pavement
4240 Environmental
129,660
0
150,750
4520 PW Engineering
PROFESSIONAL SVCS.
141,590
TOTAL
CONTRACT SERVICES
10,085
9,000
75,000
5221 Contract Svcs - Engineering
48,907
I
5227 Contract Svcs -nspections
Contract Svcs -Public Wks
110,000
115,000
5500
5501 Contract Svcs -Street Sweeping
Maintenance
260,000
260,000
50,000
5502 Contract Svcs - Road
Contract Svcs - Marking/Sign Maint.
50,000
65,290
gp 000
5506
5507 Contract Svcs - Traffic Signals
7,800
7,000
5512 Contract Svcs - Storm Drainage t
Bridge Insp aint
4,000
30,000
5513 Contract Svcs -
Contract Svcs - Right of Way
38,100
12,000
12000
, $0
5522
5530 Contract Svcs -Industrial Waste
$606,182
$648,000
TOTAL CONTRACT SVCS
CAPITAL OUTLAY
1 192
$1,000
$0
6200 Office Equipment
Computer Equipment -Hardware
1,500
$2 692
$a
$1 000
6230
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
$p
$962,925
$925,910
DIVISION TOTAL
-41-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT: Public Works
ESTMATED EXPENDITURES
1997-98
Printing
DIVISION:
ACCOUNT #:
Engineering
4551
2115
1996-97
City Manager
City Council
2315
Adjusted Budget
Recommended
Approved
PERSONNEL SERVICES
Meetings
275
250
0010 Salaries
44,650
44,650
800
0070 City Paid Benefits
700
700
100
0080 Retirement
6,300
6,300
1,000
0083 Worker's Comp Exp.
450
450
$3,100 $0
0085 Medicare
650
650
0090 Cafeteria Benefits
7,200
7,200
TOTAL PERSONNEL SVCS
$59,950
$59,950
$0
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
2110
Printing
1,000
500
2115
Advertising
500
250
2315
Membership & Dues
250
200
2325
Meetings
275
250
2330
Travel - Conterences & Meetings
1,000
800
2335
Mileage
200
100
2340
Education &Training
2,000
1,000
$162,311
TOTAL OPERATING EXP.
$5,225
$3,100 $0
CONTRACT SERVICES
5221
Cont Svc -Engineering
5,000
4,000
5223
Cont Svc -Plan Check
67,576
60,000
5224
Cont Svc -Soils
5,000
2,500
5226
Cont Svc -Surveying
2,500
1,500
5227
CS -Inspection
17,060
10,000
TOTAL CONTRACT SVCS
$97,136
$78,000 $0
DIVISION TOTAL
$162,311
$141,050 $0
—42—
PERSONNEL SERVICES
0010 Salaries
0020 Overtime
0070 City Paid Benefits
0080 Retirement
0083 Worker's Comp Exp.
0085 Medicare
0090 Cafeteria Benefits
TOTAL PERSONNEL SVCS
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
27,900
25,750
500
400
600
550
3,910
3,650
300
300
400
400
5,850
5,400
_
$39,460
$36,050 $0
2110
Printing
500
400
2115
Advertising
200
100
2315
Membership & Dues
200
100
2330
Travel -Conferences
225
150
TOTAL OPERATING EXP.
$1,125
$750 $0
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4000 Professional Svcs
4100 Commissioner Comp
TOTAL PROF SVCS
CONTRACT SERVICES
5222 Cont Svc -Traffic
TOTAL CONTRACT SVCS
DIVISION TOTAL
—43-
3,500 8,500
3,000 3,000
$6,500 $11,500 , $0
29,208 10,000
$29,208 $10,000 $0
$76,293 $58,300 $0
,. ,_ .0 �• .r .��.,t\_1:.�") .;` ici 1 DEPARTMENT: Public Works
1?S" I vLkTI?I) EX P E NDI-F ARES DIVISION: Landscape Maint
1997-)8 ACCOUNT #: 4558
COP T ZA0,T SI:ItVll;l;;t
550<
C3-P<vy Ma n:
5 50E
C3-V,N a atic n C nb l
5:505
CS-Treo vlaii itin arca
5:51C
C3 -T eti Nahtirg
5,520
CS -G -a ii 1 Rt n va1
5521
CS -Lifter 4ba :e rr ent
$194,600 $0
TOTAL CON CIS>CT SVCS
DE:PARrAEW, DOTAL
14196-97 City Manager City Council
_Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
6,500
6,500
56,000
56,000
90,000
65,000
22,000
22,000
35,000
35,000
10,100
10,100
$219,600
$194,600 $0
-- $219,600 $194,600 $0
—44—
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
1997-98
OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT
9010 Transfer out -Library Fund
9250 Transfer out-CIP Fd
9510 Transfer out -Ins Fd
DEPARTMENT TOTAL
CAPITAL PROJECTS INCLUDE.
Pantera Park
Civic Center Design
Sycamore Cyn - Landslide Repair
1996-97 City Mgr. City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
50,000
62,525 350,000
_ 260,000 267,500
$322,525 $667,500 $0
—45—
200,000
100,000
50,000
350,000
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET
1997-98
LIBRARY SERVICES FUND
FUND DESCRIPTION:
FUND TYPE:
IFUNCTiON:
General Fund
FUND #:
Library Services
!
City Paid Benefits
010
J
This fund is being established this Fiscal Year to account for revenues and expenditures related to
the possibility that the City would supplement the LA County Public Library funding. In FY95-96
the City Implemented a computer system in which the City has provided furn;ture, computers, printer,
and modem access. This budget reflects the continuance of this program.
ESTIMATED RESOURCES:
3610 Interest Revenue
3915-9001 Transfer -in Gen Fund
2550 Fund Balance Reserve
TOTAL
APPROPRIATIONS:
4099-0010
Salaries
4099-0070
City Paid Benefits
4099-0080
Retirement
4099-0083
Worker's Comp Exp
4099-0085
Medicare
4099-0090
Cafeteria Benefits
4355-2125
Telephone
4355-2205
Computer Maintenance
4355-5300
Contr Svcs - Library
4355-6220
Office Equipment -Furniture
4355-6230
Computer Equip -Hardware
4355-6235
Computer Equip -Software
4355-6250
Misc Equipment
2550
Fund Balance Reserve
TOTAL
FY96-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
3,000 6,000
50,000
106,904 96,904
$109,904 $152,904 $0
3,400
3,450
100
100
500
500
50
50
50
50
700
750
1,500
1,000
4,000
3,000
138,500
5,000
3,000
2,500
1,000
96,904
1,504
$109,904
$152,904 $0
-46-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET FUND TYPE; SPecral Revenue
1997-98 FUNCTION: Traffic Safety
!FUN
DD #: 110
TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
The City receives traffic fines levied by local courts. California Penal Code (section 1463(b))
requires that these funds are to be used for traffic safety purposes. These funds are recorded
in the Traffic Safety Fund and then are consequently transferred to the General Fund for traffic
safety Purposes.
FY96-97 City Manager
City Council
Aglusted Budget Recommended
ESTIMATED RESOURCES: Aonreved
3215 Vehicle Code Fines
3610 Interest Revenue 100,000
TOTAL 1,000
$101,000 $0 $0
APPROPRIATIONS:
4915-9001 Trans out - Gen Fund
TOTAL 101,000
$101,000
-47-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET
1997-98
GAS TAX FUND
FUND DESCRIPTION:
The City receives funds from Sections 2105, 2106, 2107, and 2107.5 of the Streets and Highway
Code. State law requires that these revenues be recorded in a Special Revenue Fund, and
that they be utilized solely for street -related purposes such as new construction, rehabilitation,
or maintenance.
—48—
1996-97
City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget
Recommended Approved
ESTIMATED RESOURCES:
2550 Approp. Fund Balance
$2,497,827
$1,980,065
3171
Gas Tax - 2106
274,200
206,600
3172
Gas Tax - 2107
577,000
435,700
3173
Gas Tax - 2107.5
7,500
417,250
7,500
314,700
3174
Gas Tax - 2105
110,000
140,000
3610
Interest Revenue
_
$3,883,777
$3,084,565 $0
TOTAL
APPROPRIATIONS:
4915-9001 Trans out - Gen Fund
613,600
621,750
4915-9225
Trans out - Grand Av
18,600
2,271,512
0
2,387,500
4915-9250
Trans out - CIP Fund
980,065
75,315
2550
Reserves
TOTAL
$3,883,777
$3,084,565 $0
—48—
CITY OF DIAMOND BARRevenue
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET Str Mai ffc-
1997-98
>Ft111�1�, '11 t
GAS TAX FUND
CAPITAL PROJECTS INCLUDE:
Various Street & Signal Improvements
Carry over from FY96-97
10298
Pathfinder Rehab -Shaded Wd to DBB
12498
DB Bid Rehb - Palomino to No City Limit (2 -yr proj)
12098
Meadowglen - Seepage (May Increase)
12198
Ambushers St. - Seepage
12298
Chinook - Seepage Study
FY97-98 Projects
01498 Slurry Seal - #1
08998 Rule 20A Undergrounding - Pedestals
Gldn Spgs-BCR-Westerly City Limits (2 -yr proj)
Gldn Spgs-Grand to Torito Lane (2 -yr proj)
BCR-Gldn Spgs/Pathfinder (design)
BCR-Pthfinder-Srthly City Limit (design)
Lemon-Gldn Spgs to No City Limit (design)
Sunset Xing Streetscape Design
12998 BCR Pkwy Imp-Ftn Spgs to Cool Spgs
13098 Sidewalk Improv. - Area 1
TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND:
Utilities
$50,000
PW -Engineering (contract svcs)
9,000
Street Sweeping
115,000
Road Maint
260,000
Right of Way Maint
30,000
Strping/Signing
50,000
Storm Damage
7,000
Traffic Signals
90,000
T & T - Operating Ex
750
T & T - Traffic
10,000
$621,750
—49—
$350,000
102,500
500,000
150,000
300,000
$1,402,500
240,000
40,000
150,000
150,000
50,000
70,000
30,000
25,000
180,000
50,000
$985,000
$2,387,500
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET AMENDMENT
1997-98
PROP A TRANSIT FUND
FUND DESCRIPTION:
The City receives Proposition A Tax which is a voter approved sales tax override for public
transportation purposes. This fund has been established to account for these revenues and
approved project expenditures. Budgeted expenditures for this fiscal year include the sale of
$385„000 in Prop A Reserves. The proceeds from this sale will help to fund the refurbishment
of the Library and partial funding of the Pantera Park construction project.
ESTIMATED RESERVES:
2550
Fund Balance Reserve
3110
Local Trans Tx-Prp A
3610
Interest Revenue
3485
Transit Subsidy Prg Revenue
4099-0080
TOTAL
APPROPRIATIONS:
4090-7230
Contributions -Other Govts
4099-0010
Salaries
4099-0030
Wages -Part Time
4099-0070
City Paid Benefits
4099-0080
Benefits
4099-0083
Worker's Comp Expense
4099-0085
Medicare Expense
4099-0085
Cafeteria Benefits
4360-5310
CS-Exursions
4360-5315
CS -Holiday Shuttle
4553-2315
Membership & Dues
4553-5527
Bus Bench Maintenance
4553-5528
Public Transit Svcs.
4553-5529
Para -Transit Svcs. -Dial a Cab
4553-5533
Transit Subsidy Program
4553-5535
Transit Subsidy - Fares
4553-6220
Office Furniture (Trans Subs)
4915-9250
Trans out - CIP Fund
2550
Fund Balance Reserve
TOTAL
CAPITAL PROJECTS INCLUDE:
FY96-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
$1,281,779
$1,719,889
614,270
630,150
65,000
80,000
215,000
330,000
$2,176,049
$2,760,039
670
385,000
8,100
1,720
6,700
11,750
170
50
1,160
250
100
150
670
950
1,300
350
32,000
32,000
20,000
5,000
7,500
7,500
3,500
3,500
4,000
4,000
205,000
240,000
72,000
58,200
215,000
330,000
1,000
120,000
100,000
1,479,519
1,578,619
$2,176,719
$2,760,039 $0
12498
DBB Rehb-Palomino-NCity Lmt
30,000
(2 - Year Project)
09698
DB Park & Ride Expansion _
70,000
100,000
PERSONNEL INCLUDES:
Full Time:
Admin Secretary
0.05
Part Time:
Transportation Clerk
0.50
-50-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET
1997-98
PROPOSITION C FUND
FUND DESCRIPTION:
The City periodically receives additional allocations of State Gas Tax funds from Los Angeles
County. These funds must be used for street -related purposes such as construction, rehabilitation,
or maintenance. In order to receive these funds the City must submit a project to the County for
approval.
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Adopted
ESTIMATED RESOURCES:
2550
Fund Balance Reserve
$1,589,237
$1,515,037
3112
Transportation Tax
510,800
526,600
3610
Interest Revenue
60,000
80,000
DB Blvd @ Montefino & Quail Summit
TOTAL
$2,160,037
$2,121,637 $0
APPROPRIATIONS:
4090-6100
4915-9001
Trans out - Gen Fund
10,000
4915-9250
Trans out - CIP Fund
1,220,000
1,530,000
2550
Fund Balance Reserve
930,037
591,637
TOTAL
$2,160,037
$2,121,637 $0
CAPITAL PROJECTS INCLUDE:
12498
DBB Rehab - Palomino - No City Limit (2 -yr Proj)
Gldn Spgs-BCR to Wstrly City Limits (2-yr,Proj)
Gldn Spgs-Grand to Torito Ln (2 -yr Proj)
10598
Golden Spgs @ Calborne
10798
DB Blvd @ Palomino/Gntl Spgs
12598
DB Blvd @ Montefino & Quail Summit
12698
Gldn Spgs @ Racquet Club Dr.
—51—
325,000
275,000
300,000
125,000
125,000
250,000
130,000
$1,530,000
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 'FUNDTYPE: Spe WRevenue
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET FUNCTION Sir Maint/Const
1997-98 FUND # 114
INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPTN EFFICIENCY ACT FUND
(ISTEA FUND)
FUND DESCRIPTION:
The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act is a federal act which allocates resources
to local agencies for the improvement of streets and roadways. The City receives their apportionment v
Cal Trans. These funds are held intrust for the City by Cal Trans until qualified projects have been
identified. As a result, the esKmated revenue listed includes prior years' apportionments ($645,181) as
well as the current fiscal year's apportionment ($414,819). This is the final year of the program.
ESTIMATED RESOURCES:
3331 ISTEA Revenue
3610 Interest Revenue
TOTAL
APPROPRIATIONS:
4915-9250 Trans out - CIP Fund
2550 Reserves
TOTAL
FY96-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
-52-
1,000,000
N
$1,000,000 $0 $0
1,000,000
M
$1,000,000 $0 $0
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FUND TYPE: Special Revenue
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET FUNCTION: Waste Mgt
1997-98 ;FUND #: 115
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT FUND
FUND DESCRIPTION:
The Integrated Waste Management Fund was created during FY 90-91, to account for expenditures
and revenues related to the activities Involved with the City's efforts to comply with AB939.
Revenues recorded in this fund are the adopted waste hauler fees. Revenues recorded in this fund
also include funds received from the State for Used Oil Recycling educational purposes.
1998-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
ESTIMATED RESOURCES:
2550
Reserve Fund Balance
$119,545
$116,895
3340
Intergovt Revenues
18,600
17,360
3482
A8939 Admin Fees
65,500
65,500
3610
Interest Revenue
1,500
5,000
TOTAL
$205,145
$204,755 $0
APPROPRIATIONS:
4099-0010
Salaries
$22,000
$24,700
4099-0070
City Paid Benefits
350
350
4099-0080
Benefits
3,100
3,460
4099-0083
WWs Comp Exp.
350
250
4099-0085
Medicare Exp.
350
360
4099-0090
Cafeteria Benefits
3,300
3,600
4515-1200
Operating Supplies
1,500
1,500
4515-2110
Printing
5,000
4,000
4515-2115
Advertising
1,500
1,500
4515-2130
Rental/Lease-Equipment
1,000
1,000
4315-2315
Membership & Dues
100
100
4515-2320
Publications
100
100
4515-2325
Meetings
100
100
4515-2330
Travel-Conf S Mtgs
500
500
4515-2340
Education & Training
500
500
4515-2352
Promotional Items
6,000
6,000
4515-2355
Contributions -Incentives Pgm
2,500
2,500
4515-4000.
Prof Svcs
5,000
4,000
4515-5500
Contract Services
35,000
36,000
2550
Reserve Fund Balance
116,895
114,235
TOTAL
$205,145
$204,755 $0
PERSONNEL:
Full Time:
Deputy Public Works Dir
Admin. Secretary
Total Positions
-53-
.25
.25
.75
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET
1997-98
State Local Transportation Partnership Program Fund
FUND DESCRIPTION:
FY96-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
ESTIMATED RESOURCES:
3XXX Intergovt Revenue-SLTPP
TOTAL
APPROPRIATIONS:
4915-9250 Transfer Out - CIP Fund
2550 Fund Balance Reserve
TOTAL
CAPITAL PROJECTS INCLUDE:
12498 DB Blvd Rehab -Palomino to N City Limit
—54—
42,500
$42,500
42,500
$0 $42,500 $0
$42,500
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FUNDTYPE: Special Revenue
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET 'FUNCTION: Air Quality
1997-98 FUND #118
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUND
FUND DESCRIPTION:
This fund was established in FY 1991-92 to ar-mount for revenues received as a result of AB2766.
AB 2766 authorizes the imposition of an additional motor vehicle registration fee to fund
the implementation of air quality management plans and provisions of the California Clean Air
Act of 1988. Included within this year's budget are funds for the implementation of the air quality
improvement element and funding for the City on Line program.
ESTIMATED RESOURCES:
2550 Approp. Fund Balance
3315 Pollution Reduc Fees
3610 Interest Revenue
TOTAL
APPROPRIATIONS:
4099-0010
Salaries
4099-0030
Wages - Part Time
4099-0070
City Paid Benefits
4099-0080
Benefits
4099-0083
WWs Comp Exp
4099-0085
Medicare
4099-0090
Cafeteria Benefits
4098-1200
Operating Supplies
4098-2110
Printing
4098-2125
Telephone
4098-2205
Computer Maint
4098-2315
Membership & Dues
4098-2320
Publications
4098-2340
Education 5 Training
4098-4000
Professional Svcs
4098-5000
Contract Svcs
4098-6100
Equipment - Vehicle
4098-6230
Computer Equipment-Hdware
4098-6235
Computer Equipment -Software
4098-7250
Employee Computer Purchase
4915-9250
Transfer -Out - CIP
2550
Approp. Fund Balance
TOTAL
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
$128,380
$85,430
45,000
45,000
6,500
7,500
$179,880
$137,930 $0
$19,450
$19,750
350
350
2,750
2,800
200
200
300
300
3,300
3,600
500
1,000
2,500
3,000
1,000
1,000
7,000
7,000
.-100
100
500
1,000
5,500
5,000
6,500
5,000
20,000
21,000
3,000
2,500
2,500
10,000
75,430
83,330
$179,880
$137,930 $0
PERSONNEL:
Asst to City Mgr 0.25
MIS Assistant 0,25
0.50
-55-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FUND TYPE: Special Revenue
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET FUNCTION: Street/Paths Imp
FUND: 119
1997-98
SB 821 FUND
The state allocates funds to cities for the specific purpose of the construction of bike and
pedestrian paths via SB821. This fund has been established to account for transactions related
to the receipt and expenditure of these funds.
1998-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
ESTIMATED RESOURCES:
22 950 22,950
3350 From Other Agencies
3610 Interest Revenue
500
28,550
2550 CIP Reserve
$52,000 $22,950 $0
TOTAL
APPROPRIATIONS:
4915-9225 Trans out -Grand Ave 52,000
4915-9250 Trans out-CIP Fd 22,950
2550 CIP Reserve $0
TOTAL $52,000 $22,950
-56-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET AMENDMENT
1997-98
PARK FEES FUND
FUND TYPE: Special Revenue
FUNCTION: Park lmprovemnt
FUND #: 122
FUND DESCRIPTION:
Within the Subdivision Map Act of the California State Constitution is a requirement that
developers either contribute land or pay fees to the local municipal government to provide
recreational facilities within the development. This fund is used to account for the fees
received.
ESTIMATED REVENUE:
2550 Approp. Fund Balance
3456 Quimby Fees
3610 Interest Revenue
TOTAL
APPROPRIATIONS:
9001 Transfer Out -Gen Fd
9250 Transfer Out-CIP Fd
2550 Reserves
TOTAL
CAPITAL PROJECTS INCLUDE.
Fy 96-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
$316,307
$344,702
225,000
250,000
20,000
20,000
$56.1,307
$614,702 $0
$11,225
635,380
430,000
(85,298)
184,702
$561,307
$614,702 S0
06598' Pantera Park Development
$130,000
10998• Peterson Pk -Fields Drainage
200,000
11298' Lorbeer-Athletic Field Lighting
100,000
$430,000
'Denotes Carryover Projects from FY96-97
-_,7-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET
1997-98
PROP A - SAFE PARKS ACT
FUND DESCRIPTION:
The Los Angeles County Safe Neighborhood Parks Act was passed in 1992. This act provides
funds to Cities to improve, preserve, and restore parks. For FY93-94, the City was awarded
$2,040,000 for this purpose. In 1996 an addtional $275,250 was allocated for the same purpose.
The balance of available funds will be used to complete the construction of Pantera Park.
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adusted Budget Recommended Approved
ESTIMATED REVENUE:
3320 Park Grants
TOTAL
APPROPRIATIONS:
4915-9250 Transfer Out-CIP Fd
2550 Reserves
TOTAL
CAPITAL PROJECTS INCLUDE:
06598` Pantera Park - Development
—58A—
$1,925,884 $2,056,000
$1,925,884 $2,056,000
1,925,884 2,056,000
$1,925,884 $2,056,000 $0
$2,056,000
$2,056,000
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET
1997-98
PARK & FACILITY DEVELOPMENT FUND
FUND DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of this fund is to provide resources for the development and enhancement of
City's parks.
FY96-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
ESTIMATED RESOURCES:
3630 Sale of Fixed Assets - Land 1,300,000
TOTAL $0 $1,300,000 $0
APPROPRIATIONS:
2550 Fund Balance Reserve 1,300,000
TOTAL $0 $1,300,000 $0
—58B—
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FUND TYPE: Special Revenue
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET FUNCTION: Community Dev
1997-98 ;FUND #: 125
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND
FUND DESCRIPTION.
The City receives an annual CDBG allotment from the federal government via the Community
Development Commission. The purpose of this grant is to fund approved community development
Programs and projects benefiting low and :,ioderate income citizens.
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
ESTIMATED RESOURCES:
0.300
Clerk Typist
2550
Approp. Fund Balance
0.050
CS Coordinator/Seniors
3330
CDBG Revenue
$522,835
$555,750
3635
TOTAL
$522.835
200
$555,950 $0
APPROPRIATIONS:
4215-0010
Salaries
39,700
40,100
4215-0070
City Paid Benefits
740
810
4215-0080
Retirement
5,600
5,650
4215-0083
Wkr's Comp Exp.
400
410
4215-0085
Medicare Exp.
575
590
4215-0090
Cafeteria Benefits
8,500
8,440
4215-1200
Departmental Supplies
2,750
2,800
4215-2115
Advertising
700
700
4215-2120
Postage
50
50
4215-2130
Rental/Lease - Equipment
519
800
4215-2315
Membership & Dues
50
0
4215-2325
Meetings
250
250
4215-2355
Contrbtns-Com Groups
64,200
46,000
4215-4000
Professional Svcs
11,231
11,700
4215-5310
Senior Excursions
5,000
4,400
4215-6250
Misc Capital Equip
1,300
0
4915-9250
Transfer Out-CIP
381,270
433,250
2550
Reserves
TOTAL
$522,835
$555,950 $0
PERSONNEL INCLUDES:
Asst to City Mgr
0.300
Clerk Typist
0.100
Com Dev Director
0.050
CS Coordinator/Seniors
0.750
GS/Gateway
1.650
CAPITAL PROJECTS INCLUDE.,
11798 Park ADA Retrofit
225,000
06798 Handicap Access Ramps
8,250
11598 Sidewalk Impr-Aspen Grove
Swlk Impr-OBB/ClrCrk-StpCyn
GS/Gateway
200,000
$433,250
—59—
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR!FUND TYPE: Special Revenue
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET ;FUNCTION: Public Safety
1997-98 FUNDS: 126
CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY FUND
FUND DESCRIPTION.
During fiscal year 1996-97, the City received COPS grants from both the state and federal government.
The purpose of these funds are to enhance the City's public safety budget and to fund special
public safety related projects.
FY96-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
ESTIMATED RESOURCES:
3326 Public Safety Grant - Federal 61,900
3340 Public Safety Grant - State 130,300
2550 Fund Balance Reserve 90,000
TOTAL $192,200 $0 $0
APPROPRIATIONS:
4411-1200
Departmental Supplies
6,000
5,000
4411-2340
Education and Training
23,000
23,000
4411-2352
Promotional Items
7,000
7,000
4411-4000
Professional Services
7,500
5,000
4411-6100
Vehicles
62,000
4411-6230
Computer Equipment
17,000
4411-6250
Misc Equipment
69,700
50,000
2550
Fund Balance Reserve
TOTAL
$192,200
$90,000 $0
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FUND TYPE: Special Revenue
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET *UNCTION: Public Safety
1997-98 LFUND 127
NARCOTICS ASSET FORFEITURE FUND
FUND DESCRIPTION.
During fiscal year 1996-97, the City received Narcotics Asset Forfeiture funds from the Federal Govt.
It is required that these funds be used to enhance drug and law enforcement activities.
FY96-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
ESTIMATED RESOURCES:
2550 Fund Balance Reserve 295,000
TOTAL $0 $295,000 $0
APPROPRIATIONS:
4411-1200 Departmental Supplies
4411-2340 Education and Training
4411-2352 Promotional items
4411-4000 Professional Services
4411-6100 Vehicles
4411-6230 Computer Equipment
4411-6250 Misc Equipment
2550 Fund Balance Reserve 295,000
TOTAL $0 $295,000 $0
-61-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET
1997-98
FUND TYPE:
FUNCTION:
,FUND #:
Special Revenue
Landscape
138
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - DIST. #38 FUND
FUND DESCRIPTION:
The City is responsible for the operations of the LLAD #38. This district was set up in accordance
with the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Property owners benefiting from this district receive a
special assessment on their property taxes, This fund is to account for the cost of the operations of this
special district. It is anticipated that medians on Gone Court will eventually be built with the reserves.
1996-97 City Manager City Council
ESTIMATED RESOURCES: Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
2550 Approp. Fund Balance $147,970 $209,385
3015 Prop Tx -Sp Assessmnt 260,115 260,115
3610 Interest Revenue 2,000 5,000
TOTAL $410,085 $474,500 $0
APPROPRIATIONS:
Personal Services
4538-0010 Salaries
$6,630
$6,630
4538-0070 City Paid Benefits
100
100
4538-0080 Benefits
930
930
4538-0083 W kr's Comp Exp.
270
270
4538-0085 Medicare Exp.
100
100
4538-0090 Cafeteria Benefits
970
970
Total Personal Svcs
$9,000
$9,000 $0
Operating Expenses
4538-2126 Utilities
$83,100
$82,000
4538-2210 Maint-Grounds & Bldg
15,300
15,000
Total Operating Expense
$98,400
$97,000 $0
Professional Services
4538-4000 Professional Svcs
3,800
5,000
Contract Services
4538-5500 Contract Svcs
39,500 -
41,400
Capital Outlay
4915-9250 Capital Improvements
50,000
4,400
Fund Balance Reserves
2550 Reserves
209,385
317,700
TOTAL
$410,085
$474,500 $0
PERSONNEL INCLUDES:
Community Services Director
Supt. - Parks & Maintenance
Maintenance Worker II
CAPITAL PROJECTS INCLUDE:
12997 BCR Pky Imp-FtnSpg-CoolSpg
-62-
0.010
0.100
0.025
0.135
50,000
50,000
L 11_ i U,'- -AA-MU-S—) .') .BAR FUND TYPE: Special Revenue
SPE( LkL F(:I D,; BUDGE T' FUNCTION: Landscape
1997-98 ;FUND #: 139
-VDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - DIST. #39 FUND
FUND DESCRIPTION:
The City is respcnsitle for the operations of the LLAD #39. This district was set up in accordance
with the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Property owners benefiting from this district receive
a special assess-ner t on their property taxes. This fund is to account for the cost of the operations
of this special district.
1998-97 City Manager City Council
Adopted Budget Recommended Approved
ESTIMATED RESOURCES:
2550 Reserve Fund Balance $32,344 $35,849
3015 Prop Tx -Sp Assessmnt 165,360 165,360
3610 nterest 300 600
TOTAL $198,004 $201,809 $0
Personal Services
4539-0010 Salaries
4539-0070 City Paid Benefits
4539-0080 Benefits
4539-0083 Wkr's Comp Exp.
4539-0085 Medicare Exp.
4539-0090 Cafeteria Benefits
Total Personal Svcs
Operating Expenses
4539-2126 Utilities
4539-2210 Maint-Grounds & Bldg
4539-7200 insurance Expense
Total Operating Expense
Professional Services
4539-4000 Professional Svcs
Contract Services
4539-5500 Contract Svcs
Capital Outlay
4539-6410 Capital Improvements
Fund Balance Reserves
2550 Reserve Fund Balance
TOTAL
$6,525
$6,630
100
100
915
930
260
270
95
100
880
970
$8,775
$9,000 $0
-63-
58,900 55,000
16,000 15,000
74,900 70,000 0
5,400 5,400
73,080 74,400
2,000
35,849 41,009
$198,004 $201,809 $0
ITY OF DIAMOND BAR ;FUND TYPE: Special Revenue
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET `FUNCTION: Landscape
1997-98 (FUND: 141
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - DIST. #41 FUND
FUND DESCRIPTION.
The City is responsible for the operations cf LLAD #41. This district was set up in accordance
with the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Property owners benefiting from this district receive
a special assessment on their property taxes. This fund is to account for the cost of the operations
of this special fund.
ESTIMATED RESOURCES.
2550 Approp. Fund Balance
3015 Prop Tx -Sp Assessmnt
3610 Interest Revenue
TOTAL
APPROPRIATIONS:
Personal Services
4541-0010
Salaries
4541-0070
City Paid Benefits
4541-0080
Benefits
4541-0083
Worker's Comp. Exp.
4541-0085
Medicare Exp.
4541-0090
Cafeteria Benefits
62,000
Total Personal Svcs.
Operating Expenses
4541-2126 Utilities
4541-2210 Maint-Grounds & Bldg
Total Operating Expense
Professional Services
4541-4000 Professional Svcs
Contract Services
4541-5500 Contract Svcs
4541-5519 Weed/Post Abatement
Total Contract Services
Capital Outlay
4541-6410
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
$225,465
$216,731
124,141
124,141
3,000
10,000
$352 606
$350 872 $0
6,525
6,630
100
100
915
930
260
270
95
100
880
970
$8,775
$9,000 $0
62,000
60,000
10,000
10,000
$72,000
$70,000 $0
5,700 5,700
35,400 35,400
14,000 15,000
$49,400 $50,400 $0
Capital Improvements 2,000
Total CapMal Improvements $0 $2,000 $0
Fund Balance Reserves
2550 Reserve Fund Balance
TOTAL
PERSONNEL INCLUDES:
Community Services Director
Supt. - Parks and Maintenance
Maintenance Worker II
-64-
216,731 213,772
$352,606 $350,872 $0
0.010
0.100
0.025
0.135
i
T
J
H
W
Ni
Lei.
a
z co
W 0
20
LU � LL
LL
w
a
2
Cl
0
N
N
O O
O
O
O
Cl)
�L-!
0000000000000
OOOOOOOOo0o0o
tnooOOOCR. vOOOotn
NOOOOCOOOOOUof-�
0to014"It00Oto1-0N0
r � � N Ln e M 00
0
0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 oto
oa0000ao00o00
0000000000000
O0o0oo0000000
0NNLO LNd•Oin0�A1l-MNw
N
u
E o
J a� c •� a
CD
°E E ma°'Edmu
I -i a m (D G
6�
c V o 9 co V a E
E T`o oma yU ° m
y C f- mg y G M >%Z Gni
CL
.-., ,
O-� c �' ym - Q R(,? Rto
;�
d s m I c c m c c c c m i
4+ m p ;? m0 c .r
0-0 Rcoc)0 V) o
a2'c
�� x~
O
m c c N 0 (D - ,c U U E c
j3 ErL�a��
OpC9C9CD0 �<0mm�tn
L
a
Eaoo mo � j6 o
rnrn
W-000NNN
d 0 0
L
N
—65—
0
0
to
�o
0aCD&C
00000
00000
tntrioo0
NNU-)0M
r N — mp
0E
Q
C= E
U p O
a� acidU O
c U ad C)
d
oc 13
0U�v
CLU) 2 (n
c CO m c
0:2 m m -0
=C9pOC9
0
V o0 0o c0 co
O O N N
L
0
0
0
0
CO)
O
0 0 0 0
0
O
O
O O O O
O
O
O
t A t A 0 0
0
O
O
NNtnm'MM
co
O
—N—W
to
r
0000000000000
OOOOOOOOo0o0o
tnooOOOCR. vOOOotn
NOOOOCOOOOOUof-�
0to014"It00Oto1-0N0
r � � N Ln e M 00
0
0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 oto
oa0000ao00o00
0000000000000
O0o0oo0000000
0NNLO LNd•Oin0�A1l-MNw
N
u
E o
J a� c •� a
CD
°E E ma°'Edmu
I -i a m (D G
6�
c V o 9 co V a E
E T`o oma yU ° m
y C f- mg y G M >%Z Gni
CL
.-., ,
O-� c �' ym - Q R(,? Rto
;�
d s m I c c m c c c c m i
4+ m p ;? m0 c .r
0-0 Rcoc)0 V) o
a2'c
�� x~
O
m c c N 0 (D - ,c U U E c
j3 ErL�a��
OpC9C9CD0 �<0mm�tn
L
a
Eaoo mo � j6 o
rnrn
W-000NNN
d 0 0
L
N
—65—
0
0
to
�o
0aCD&C
00000
00000
tntrioo0
NNU-)0M
r N — mp
0E
Q
C= E
U p O
a� acidU O
c U ad C)
d
oc 13
0U�v
CLU) 2 (n
c CO m c
0:2 m m -0
=C9pOC9
0
V o0 0o c0 co
O O N N
L
0
0
0
0
CO)
J
F—
U
W
Q0
m�
oa
g Woo
c'
Q�I- R
LL a
OLLOCa.
U J
a
a
U
O
O
O
N
N
N
O
0
0
co
0
00
0 0
00
N
00000
!0
00000
10
0 0 0 0 0
O
�OOOu")
Ico
ON�(NV
IW
�
N IN
•c-� a
(1)ami �
CD
c
N 0
ry+�J Nom_
m.0� a�iL
Uf L •�
Wo C � - J
> Y ca s y Q
O`o U cts
0
EO O O `
y E Q
V c m
o @
�acoa-ja
.o
�rnrnrnrn0)
V.) 00 C) N r-
Y<000��
lC
a
O O
LO O
N O
00 O
O
N
O
•
•
O
00 0
00 0 0 0 im
I0M
N
00000000
LO O O O O O u)
N O O O O O N
00 0000000
htA00000
•- N r CD
O
CO
cn C7 LL
o °ate
U) (9 0
cao a
xjUcn
w
O
a> 0) y U) Y O
�E FU
Gi m
O
Y c m
E H acs >u -
(D a. o aw m
O a(oaE0w C13 - if- F- U
Q. a p -"dc 0 :)
CL
�'a m'a V'a :>
0=(n�fAmtnU
as
c
0o
�cbo co co
rCO 00rn0
Co
UIOr'rnCoN
O �
—66—
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET
1997-98
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND
FUND DESCRIPTION:
This fund was created to account for the City capital improvement projects which are not required
to be accounted for in independent funds. The revenues in this fund will generally come from
transfers -in from other funds and have been identified for specific capital projects.
ESTIMATED RESOURCES:
2550
CIP Reserve-Traf Sig
3325
FEMA Reimbursement
3455
Developer Fees
3915-9001
Transfer in -Gen Fd
3915-9111
Transfer in -Gas Tx
3915-9112
Transfer in-Prp A Transit
3915-9113
Transfer in -Prop C
3915-9114
Transfer in-ISTEA
3915-9119
Transfer in-SB821
3915-9122
Transfer in -Pk Fees
3915-9123
Transfer in-Prp A Pks
3915-9125
Transfer in-CDBG
3915-9138
Transfer in -District #38
3915-9XXX
Transfer in-SLTPP
TOTAL
APPROPRIATIONS:
4510-00xx
Salaries & Benefits
4510-6411
Street Improvements
4510-6412
Traffic Control Imp
4310-6415
Park & Rec Imprmts
4510-6416
Landscape & Irr Imp
4215-6420
Municipal Bldg & Fac
2550
CIP Reserve-Traf Sig
0
TOTAL
1996-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
160,023
160,023
20,000
630,000
153,000
35,000
62,525
350,000
2,271,512
2,387,500
120,000
100,000
1,376,246
1,530,000
1,000,000
0
52,000
0
638,730
430,000
1,925,864
2,056,000
381,270
433,250
50,000
42,500
$8,211,170 $7,524,273 $0
3,869,693
3,130,000
815,565
630,000
3,030,139
2,996,000
57,500
180,000
278,270
428,250
160,023
160,023
$8,211,190
$7,524,273 $0
—67—
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET
1997-98
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND
FY97-98 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS INCLUDE:
STREET IMPROVEMENTS:
01498
Slurry Seal (Area 1)
$240,000
Gas Tax
08998
Rule 20A Undergrounding-Peds
40,000
Gas Tax
10298
Pthfndr Rehab -Shaded Wd-DB B
350,000
Gas Tax
12498
DB Blvd Resurf-Palom-No City Lm
500,000
(2 -Year Project)
Prop C (325,000)
Gas Tax (102.500)
SLTPP (42,500)
Prp A Trans (30,000)
12098
Meadowglen - Seepage
500,000
Gas Tax
12198
Ambushers St. - Seepage
150,000
Gas Tax
12298
Chinook - Seepage
300,000
Gas Tax
GldnSpgs-BCR-Wstrly City Limit
425,000
(2 -Year Project)
Prop C (275,000)-
275,000)Gas
GasTax (150,000)
Gldn Spgs-Grand to Tonto Ln
450,000
(2 -Year Project)
Prop C (300,000)
Gas Tax (150,000)
BCR-Gldn Spgs/Pthfinder (design)
50,000
Gas Tax
BCR-Pthfdr-Srthly City Lmt(design
70,000
Gas Tax
Lemon-GSpg-No City Lmt (design;
30,000
Gas Tax
Sunset Xing Street Scape-Design
25,000
Gas Tax
TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS
$3,130,000
Emu
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET
1997-98
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND
TRAFFIC CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS:
10598 Gldn Spgs @ Calbourne
125,000
Prop C
Pantera Pk -Design & Dev
10798 Gldn Spgs @ Palomino/GenSprgs
125,000
Prop C
70,000
12598 DB Blvd @ Montefino & Quail Surr
250,000
Prop C
50,000
12698 Gldn Spgs @ Racquet Club Dr.
130,000
Prop C
Developer Fees (35,000)
TOTAL TRAFFIC CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS $630,000
PARK & REC IMPROVEMENTS:
06598
Pantera Pk -Design & Dev
$2,421,000
Prop A -Safe Pks (2,056,000)
70,000
Prop A
Quimby (130,000)
13098 Sidewalk Improvements - Area 1
50,000
General Fund (200,000)
Swlk Imp-DBB/ClrCrk-StpCyn;GS/
Developer Fees (35,000)
Gateway
10898
Sycamore Cyn -Landslide Repair
50,000
Civic Center Design
General Fund
General Fund
10998
Peterson Pk -Fields Drainage Rep
200,000
Park Fees Fd
11298
Lorbeer - Athletic Field Lighting
100,000
Park Fees Fund
11798
Park ADA Retrofit
225,000
CDBG
TOTAL PARK IMPROVEMENTS
$2,996,000
MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS & FACILITIES:
06798 Handicap Access Ramps
$8,250
CDBG
09698 Diamond Bar Park & Ride Expansi
70,000
Prop A
13098 Sidewalk Improvements - Area 1
50,000
Gas Tax
Swlk Imp-DBB/ClrCrk-StpCyn;GS/
200,000
Gateway
CDBG
Civic Center Design
100,000
General Fund
TOTAL MUNICIPAL BLDGS & FACILITIES IMP. $428,250
—69— _____
CITY OF DIAMOND BARS
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGETr
1997-98
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PROJECTS: 180,000
12998 BCR Pkwy Imp-Ftn Spr/Cool Spg
Gas Tax
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IMP. $180,000
GRAND TOTAL - CAPITAL PROJECTS
—70—
$7,364,250
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FUND TYPE: Internal Svc
SPECIAL FUNDS BUDGET FUNCTION: Self Insurance
1997-98 FUND V. 510
SELF INSURANCE FUND
FUND DESCRIPTION:
This fund was established in accordance with Resolution #89-53. The resolution states the City
will establish a self-insurance reserve fund. The purpose of the fund shall be to pay all self -
assumed losses and related costs. Contributions to the fund shall be pro -rata from all other
City funds afforded protection under the program based upon each of the funds exposure to liability.
1995-97 City Manager City Council
Adjusted Budget Recommended Approved
ESTIMATED RESOURCES:
2550 Reserved Fund Bal 749,610 794,610
3610 Interest Revenue 15,000 30,000
3915-9001 Transfer in -Gen Fd 260,000 267,500
TOTAL $1,024,610 $1,092,110 $0
APPROPRIATIONS:
4810-7200 Insurance Exp.
160,000
167,500
4810-7210 Insurance Deposit
70,000
13,000
2550 Self Ins Reserve
794,610
911,610
TOTAL
$1,024,610
$1,092,110 $0
-71-
DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman Werner anBoard of Directors
FROM: Linda G. Magnuson, Accounting Manager
SUBJECT: Voucher Register, June 3, 1997
DATE: May 29, 1997
Attached is the Voucher Register dated June 3, 1997 for the Diamond
Bar Redevelopment Agency. The checks will be produced after any
recommendations and the final approval is received.
Payment of the listed vouchers totalling $2,174.80 is hereby
allowed from the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency Fund.
APPROVED BY:
Li da G. M g uson
Accounting Manager
Terrence L. Belang
Executive Director
Gary H. Werner
Chairman
Robert S. Huff
Vice Chairman
T -TP
TO: Honorable Chairman and Agency Members
^
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, Executive Director{
DATE: June 3, 1997
SUBJECT: Resolution Recommending Approval by the City Council of the Exclusion of
Property from the Proposed Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area
Recommendation:
That the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") adopt a resolution recommending
that the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar ("City Council") approve the exclusion of
certain property from the proposed Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area.
Background:
The Agency and the City Council are now in the final steps in the process of adopting a
redevelopment plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area ("Redevelopment
Plan"). The Agency and the City Council opened the joint public hearing on the Redevelopment
Plan and related Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") on May 20, 1997, for the purposes of
taking public testimony on both of these documents. Prior to the opening of the joint public
hearing on May 20, 1997, staff recommended that the boundaries of the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area ("Project Area") be changed to exclude certain properties, as shown on
Exhibit A to the attached resolution. These properties were originally included due to public
facilities/infrastructure deficiencies and for the purposes of effective reuse and redevelopment.
However, after considerable analysis of these properties, it has been determined that the inclusion
of these properties may not further the Agency's abilities to meet the goals outlined in the
Redevelopment Plan and the Diamond Bar General Plan. Additionally, the proposed
improvements may be completed even if the properties are not in the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area.
The Agency adopted Resolution No. R-97-10, prior to the opening of the joint public hearing,
requesting that the Diamond Bar Planning Commission prepare its report and recommendation
regarding the exclusion of certain property from the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area,
pursuant to the requirements of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and
Safety Code Section 33000, et. seg ("CRL"). The joint public hearing was then opened, public
testimony was taken, the joint public hearing with respect to the EIR was closed, and the joint
public hearing with respect to the Redevelopment Plan was continued to June 3, 1997, for the
sole purpose of considering the exclusion of certain properties from the Project.
DiambaOjphrecap
Nnnnrlhle (-hrman and Uaw' V&'Ml, rk
June 3, 1997
Page 2
The Planning Commission acted on this matter at their May 27, 1997 meeting and adopted
PC Resolution No. 97-8, which included the following findings: 1) the Redevelopment Plan is in
conformance with the General Plan; 2) the Planning Commission report pursuant to the
PC Resolution No. 97-5 is sufficient and requires no modifications; and 3) the Planning
Commission recommended that the City Council exclude the properties, shown on Exhibit A,
from the boundaries of the Project Area.
Following the adoption of the attached resolution, the City Council will consider approving the
exclusion of the properties, shown on Exhibit A, from the Project Area and the City Council and
Agency will re -open the joint public hearing for the sole purpose of taking public testimony only
on the exclusion of territory set forth in Resolution No. R-97-10, Exhibit A, and proceed with
activities related to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area.
DiambaOjphrecap
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR OF THE
EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM THE
PROPOSED DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION
AREA
THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HEREBY
FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
(the "City Council") and the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
(the "Agency") are undertaking proceedings to adopt a
redevelopment plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Diamond Bar
Economic Revitalization Area.
Section 2. The City Council proposes to change the
boundaries of the Project Area to exclude from the Project Area
certain property as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit
A.
Section 3. The Planning Commission of the City of
Diamond Bar, pursuant to its PC Resolution No. 97-8, adopted on
May 27, 1997, found and determined that following the exclusion'
of the property shown on Exhibit A the Redevelopment Plan is in
conformity with the General Plan of the City of Diamond Bar and
recommended that the City Council change the boundaries of the
Project Area to exclude the property shown on the map attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 4. The Agency hereby recommends that.the City
Council change the boundaries of the Project Area to exclude the
property shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A. By
previous resolution, the Agency approved its supplemental report
to the City Council in connection with the proposed exclusion of
property from the Project Area and the Executive Director of the
Agency transmitted such supplemental report to the City Council.
Section 5. In connection with the proceedings for the
adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan, the Agency and the
Planning Commission cooperated in the preparation of a
preliminary plan, which is on file in the office of the City
Clerk. The Agency hereby finds and determines that such
preliminary plan requires modification to change the description
of the boundaries of the Project Area to reflect the exclusion of
the property shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, and
hereby finds and determines that the preliminary plan, as so
modified, is sufficient and does not require further
modifications or changes. The Agency hereby approves the
preliminary plan, as so modified. Such preliminary plan, as
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp 1672879 4
modified, is now on file in the office of the City Clerk.
ATTEST:
Secretary
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of
1997 by the following vote, to wit:
Chairman
I, LYNDA BURGESS, Secretary of the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Agency, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting
of the Board of Directors of Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
held on the day of , 1997, by the following vote:
AYES:
BOARD
MEMBERS:
NOES:
BOARD
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
BOARD
MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
BOARD
MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Agency
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp 1672879 4 — 2 —
MURRAY O. KANE
BRUCE O. BALLMER
GLENN F. WASSERMAN
R. BRUCE TEPPER. JR.
JOSEPH W. PANNONE
ROYCE K. JONES
STEPHANIE R. SCHER
PRINCIPALS
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
The Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Re: Written Objections on behalf of Affected Property Owners and Others
To (1) The Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bard Economic
Revitalization Area and (2) The Exclusion of Certain Properties, as set forth
In Resolution No. R-97-10
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, and
Honorable Chair and Members of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment
Agency:
The following written objections are hereby submitted on behalf of a number of affected property
owners and other interested persons represented by the undersigned in opposition to (1) the
Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the "Project
Area') and (2) the exclusion of certain properties from the proposed Project Area, as set forth in .
Resolution No. R-97-10 (the "Exclusion"). Each written objection requires the conclusion that
the Project Area fails to qualify as a legal and valid redevelopment project and that the Exclusion
is invalid in that (a) it leaves the Project Area after the Exclusion as a non -blighted and non -
urbanized project area and therefore without legal justification to be validly adopted as a
redevelopment project area, and (b) no criteria have been advanced to rationally explain the
Exclusion while simultaneously leaving in the proposed Project Area a large number of equally
non -blighted and non -urbanized areas.
Since the public hearing on this matter was not closed (oral statement of Chairman at May 20,
1997 public hearing) and was continued "only on the question of excluding property from the
Project Area" (statement of Agency Counsel at May 20, 1997 public hearing), and since the
question of excluding property from the Project Area is inextricably linked to whether the Project
Area is blighted and urbanized and to the criteria used for the Exclusion, written objections to the
Project Area are now timely. In any event, this written objection is also a written objection to the
Exclusion made on behalf of affected property owners and other interested persons. .
KANE, BALLMER 8c BERKMAN
A LAW CORPORATION
515 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 1850
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TELEPHONE (2131 617-0480
FAX (213) 625-0931
ROBERT P. BERKMAN
RETIRED
June 3, 1997
EUGENE B. JACOBS
A PROFE55IONAL CORPORATION
OF COUNSEL
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
The Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Re: Written Objections on behalf of Affected Property Owners and Others
To (1) The Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bard Economic
Revitalization Area and (2) The Exclusion of Certain Properties, as set forth
In Resolution No. R-97-10
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, and
Honorable Chair and Members of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment
Agency:
The following written objections are hereby submitted on behalf of a number of affected property
owners and other interested persons represented by the undersigned in opposition to (1) the
Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the "Project
Area') and (2) the exclusion of certain properties from the proposed Project Area, as set forth in .
Resolution No. R-97-10 (the "Exclusion"). Each written objection requires the conclusion that
the Project Area fails to qualify as a legal and valid redevelopment project and that the Exclusion
is invalid in that (a) it leaves the Project Area after the Exclusion as a non -blighted and non -
urbanized project area and therefore without legal justification to be validly adopted as a
redevelopment project area, and (b) no criteria have been advanced to rationally explain the
Exclusion while simultaneously leaving in the proposed Project Area a large number of equally
non -blighted and non -urbanized areas.
Since the public hearing on this matter was not closed (oral statement of Chairman at May 20,
1997 public hearing) and was continued "only on the question of excluding property from the
Project Area" (statement of Agency Counsel at May 20, 1997 public hearing), and since the
question of excluding property from the Project Area is inextricably linked to whether the Project
Area is blighted and urbanized and to the criteria used for the Exclusion, written objections to the
Project Area are now timely. In any event, this written objection is also a written objection to the
Exclusion made on behalf of affected property owners and other interested persons. .
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 3, 1997
Page 2
The affected property owners and other interested persons represented by the undersigned and on
whose behalf this written objection is made and on whose behalf the written objection filed by
the undersigned dated May 20, 1997 was made (including for both the May 20 and June 3, 1997
written objections, attachments and oral and videotape testimony and exhibits) include but are
not limited to: Joyce K. Birrell, David R. Busse, Mary F. McCormick -Busse, William G. Smith,
Norman and Barbara Beach-Courcusne and Louis J. Marcellin, Walnut Valley Trailers.
This written objection is based on the oral testimony and videotape and photographic evidence to
be presented by the undersigned at the continued joint public hearing scheduled for the above -
referenced proposal as well as the contents of this letter. A map is attached and labeled Exhibit
A depicting those portions of the Project Area shown and described in the said videotape
evidence (the "Videotape"). The Videotape is the same videotape filed with the City Clerk and
refused to be shown by the Chairman at the May 20 joint public hearing on this matter, but has
been edited down from its original 28 minute length to its present 24 minute length by removing
all footage of the six parcels excluded in the Exclusion. The edited Videotape now displays well
over 80% of the Project Area, and clearly depicts the complete absence of physical or economic
blight throughout.
1. The Project Area (before or after the Exclusion) is Not Predominantly Urbanized
The Supplemental Report to the City Council prepared by the Agency staff and consultants for
this proposed project to provide Exclusion -related data (the "Supplemental Report') discloses
that either 266.12 or 314 of the Project Area's 1300.41 acres (after the Exclusion) are
undeveloped (depending on whether Revised Table 3-1 or 3-2 is consulted).
No matter which Revised Table in the Supplemental Report is used, each table's statistics
establishes that less than 80 percent of the land in the Project Area is developed for urban uses or
an integral part of an area developed for urban uses in violation of the requirements of Sections
33320.1 and 33030(b) of the California Health & Safety Code [the California Community
Redevelopment Law; all references to statutes herein are to the California Health & Safety Code
unless otherwise indicated], and that the proposed Project Area is clearly not predominantly
urbanized, as required by law..
Revised Table 3-1 somehow designates 190.8 acres of vacant undeveloped land as `urbanized"
and "an integral part of an area developed for urban uses". No facts are given in support of this
proposition, which is belied by the Videotape (see, g:g=, large undeveloped parcel in Videotape
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 3, 1997
Page 3
at Brea Canyon Road, much of which has been designated `'wilderness area", other parcels in the
Gateway Center and on Diamond Bar Boulevard at the 60 freeway), as well as the photographic
evidence submitted at the continued joint public hearing (the photographs were copied from the
Videotape). These parcels are either wilderness or parkland areas, or large stand alone never
developed vacant parcels, yet all are preposterously referred to without factual basis as
"urbanized" on "Urbanization Map- Map 3-1" in the Report. Stand alone parcels as large as 13,
24, 35 and 41 acres and larger are incredibly included in this category, including the wilderness
area referred to above, which is restricted by covenants as not to be developed, the parkland
promised to residents known as Area D in the Report to the City Council, and many others. The
acreage figures in Revised Table 3-2 are inconsistent with the Exclusion documents and
description and the rest of the Supplemental Report; hence there is literally no way of identifying
the parcels constituting the supposed "urbanized" vacant land. For example, Revised Table 3-2
shows 314.12 acres of undeveloped property and Revised Table 3-1 shows 266.12.
Of the Project Area's 1300 acres, 550 acres are freeways and streets. If these areas are not
counted, almost 40% or more of the Project Area is vacant never developed land.
2. The Proposed Project Area (before or after the Exclusion) is Not a Blighted Area
The Report to the City Council prepared by the Agency's staff and consultants (the "Report")
relies heavily on deterioration and dilapidation to support a finding of blight (at Table B-1 and
throughout). Yet even though deterioration and dilapidation are legally irrelevant to a finding of
blight unless bad enough to cause buildings to be unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live oorre work,
it
(Section 33031(a)(1) not one unsafe or unhealthy building is identified L t�e C1�
proposed response to my May 20 written objection, staff indicates that the category of "deferred
maintenance" includes items such as a sagging roof or "exposed wiring." Yet staff is unable to
identify as s.pole building with a sagging roof or eauosed wiringdespite being asked to do so
at the joint public hearing on this matter. Based on simply listing items supposedly included in
this category, they claim that the "deferred maintenance" should be counted towards the required
finding of blight.
Table B-1 establishes the following:
Only one J.1) building in the entire Project Area was found to require extensive rehabilitation.
Only twenty one (2 1) buildings in the entire 1454 acres was found to require "moderate
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 3, 1997
Page 4
rehabilitation" (a term never defined in the Draft Report).
Only 8.8% of all buildings require moderate or extensive rehabilitation. 91.2% of all buildings
are just fine or only require things like a coat of paint.
The Report cannot claim widespread deterioration in the Project Area, a fact now admitted at P.
B-4-4 in the staffs proposed response to the May 20 written objections (the "Response"):
"Mr. Kane also incorrectly states that the Report to City Council claims that 62% of all
Project Area buildings suffer from deterioration and dilapidation. Rather the Report to
the C& Council states that 62% of all Proiect
maintenance...:' (emphasis added).
This is a crucial admission, because "need of maintenance" is simply not blight. The statute
clearly calls for deterioration and dilapidation causing unsafe or unhealthy buildings that are a
serious burden on the community which private enterprise acting alone cannot alleviate. That
91.2% of buildings require no rehabilitation of any substance does not begin to meet this test and
instead supports a finding that the Project Area is predominantly non -blighted.
Table B-1 also establishes:
76% of all building have standard design and no design defects (the other 240/0 are simply
buildings built under older codes and are fully lawful non -conforming uses).
Over 95% of all improvements are compatible with surrounding uses.
80% of all buildings have adequate parking, even under the questionable criteria used in the
Draft Report.
Over 83% of all lots are free of defective design conditions.
These statistics, developed by the Agency staff and consultants, corroborate the absence of
physical blight shown above. Despite the fact that each of these statistics, without exception,
shows that the overwhelming majority of buildings and parcels in the Project Area have no
problem and cause no burden to the community, these numbers are somehow shown as support
for a showing of a predominantly blighted project area. Instead, without exception, they clearly
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 3, 1997
Page 5
support a finding of a predominantly non -blighted project area.
Hazardous waste is mentioned as a blighting condition, yet is never linked to hindering the
economically viable use of a property as required by Section 33031(a)(2). The EIR demonstrates
that only 6 underground storage tanks in the entire City leak (Initial Study at page 19), a record
that would make Beverly Hills envious.
Geologic concerns are cited as a blighting condition. Yet the EIR flatly states that Geological
Problems are not an issue (Initial Study at p. 7 and Appendix p. 7) and does not even bother to
discuss the issue at all.
NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL BLIGHT IS OFFERED!
As to economic blight, the Report relies heavily on an "11°/d' decline is assessed values in the
Project Area, and the economic obsolescence of the retail centers in the Project Area.
First, even this erroneous figure is a five-year or three year figure (depending on which section of
the Report is consulted). Justifying a 1300 acre redevelopment project based on a claimed 2-3%
annual decline in assessed values in the middle of the worst real estate recession in decades is
ludicrous and would qualify most of Southern California for redevelopment.
Second, the claimed 11 % decline is just plain wrong and is based on totally discredited figures.
The figures used in a table on page B-20 of the Report have been shown to be in error by as
much as $62 mullion based on the County Report on Project Area Assessed Values prepared as
required by Health & Safety Code Section 33328 (found at Section L of the Report):
Table B-20 says there was a $13,000,000 drop in assessed value, 95-96 to 96-97. The County
Report establishes only a $3,000,000 drop in assessed values, a $10.000.000 error.
Unsecured assessed values are mysteriously ignored by the Agency's consultants in the entire
Draft Report. The County Report shows an increase in unsecured assessed values of over
$3.500.000 from 95-96 to 96-97.
Table B-20 says 95-96 secured assessed values were $403 million; the County Report shows
them to really have been $341 million, a $62,000.000 error.
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 3, 1997
Page 6
Table B-20 says 96-97 secured assessed values were $390 million; the County Report shows
them to really have been $334 million, a $56.000,000 error.
The "i l% drop" in assessed values so heavily relied upon by the Report is totally discredited and
cannot be relied upon. Applicable law requires an analysis of the County Report to be included
in the Draft Report (Section 33352(n)(1)), yet that part of the Report has no such analysis.
In their Response, staff attempts to explain these major errors away by saying that some
identified person at the County told them there had been errors in assessed valuation numbers for
some other project and there were problems with the assessment roll figures. On June 3, 1997
the undersigned spoke to Manuet Valenzuela, Deputy County Counsel for the County of Los
Angeles in an attempt to confirm the representations made by staff. On the contrary, Mr.
Valenzuela indicated that he had consulted on June 2 and 3 with both the office of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the Assessor for the County of Los Angeles, and that based upon
such inquiries he was not aware of any such problems with the assessment roll figures or with the
County assessed valuation report for this proposed Project, nor was he aware of the alleged
conversation cited by staff in their Response.
The Report, so bereft of factual support for physical or economic blight, resorts to unsupported
broad -brushed generalizations, culminating in the following ridiculous assertion, totally belied
by the Videotapes and other testimony:
"The majority of the retail properties in the Project Area [are] obsolete ... and
are no longer economically viable." (Page B-11)
It is incomprehensible that this statement be made in the face of the Report's own statistics (only
1 building requires extensive repair work; only 8.8% of all buildings require moderate or
extensive work; 75% of all buildings and 83% of all lots are free of any other conditions of
physical blight) and in the face of the reality of the Videotape and other testimony showing busy
and thriving retail centers anchored by almost every conceivable nationally recognized and
financially strong tenant.
Staff now admits (at Response, p. B-4-6) that 73% of the Project Area's commercial buildings do
not suffer from any vacancies. Staff also admits they could only find 150 tenant space vacancies
in the entire Project Area of 1300 acres and 250 buildings, and that these vacancies are
concentrated in three retail centers comprising less than 1% of the property in the Project Area!
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 3, 1997
Page 7
Again, every statistic corroborates the absence of blight. The Report makes no attempt to find
out why the anomaly of the vacancies at these three centers exists in the context of dozens of
thriving retail centers shown in the Videotape throughout the Project Area.
In their proposed response to the May 20 written objections, the staff relies heavily on the
"consumer preference survey" set forth in the Report. Incredibly, this data also destroys and
undercuts any possible finding of blight for the Project Area According the this survey:
Less than 1 out of 4 Diamond Bar residents think of their retail shopping areas as "unattractive".
Only 8% of the residents felt the appearance or services of their Diamond Bar retail businesses
needed improvement!
Only of the residents felt any need to improve traffic control.
These statistics (Report at Graph B-4) also corroborate the absence of predominant blight from
the Project Area shown in the Videotape and Table B-1.
3. The Project Area Fails to Meet Other Eligibility Requirements
In order to qualify as a redevelopment project, the proposed Project Area must not only be
predominantly urbanized and blighted, but Section 33030 also requires that:
• The combination of conditions of blight must be so prevalent and substantial (and
must predominate and injuriously affect the entire area, Section 33321);
• As to cause a lack of proper utilization;
• To the extent of being a serious physical Ed economic burden on the community;
• Which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise and/or governmental action without redevelopment.
The proposed Project Area flunks all of these requirements, each of which is necessary in and of
themselves for the Project Area to be valid and legal.
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 3, 1997
Page 8
Blight conditions do not even exist in any significant way in the Project Area, let alone in
prevalent and substantial and predominate form, as shown above.
No lack of proper utilization can be shown to be caused by blight. Of the 1300 acres:
550 acres are properly utilized as freeways and streets;
50 acres are properly utilized as schools;
300 acres are vacant non -urbanized property, including wilderness and parkland areas;
400+ acres are with rare exception in a handful of cases thriving retail and commercial
properties, overwhelmingly new or in excellent condition with strong nationally
recognized tenants.
No physical and economic burdens of any kind are identified on the community in the Report, let
alone serious ones. Conditions of blight must be so predominate throughout the Project Area as
to cause a serious physical md economic burden on the community. The Report's data, as
shown above, only supports the opposite conclusion.
The Report does not even begin to explain why the mere maintenance required of some
buildings, the anomalous tenant vacancies concentrated in a tiny percentage of the Project Area
and the lingering effects of the major Southern California real estate recession or depression will
not be handled by private enterprise and the generally improving economy. There is no evidence
in the Report whatsoever to indicate the contrary. For example, the vacant parcels shown on the
Videotape in the Gateway Corporate Center will be built out when it makes economic sense for
their owners to do so. In the meantime, the -ready to build vacant parcels are not a burden to
anyone, and certainly not the serious physical md economic burden on the community required
to establish blight.
The May 20, 1997 written objections previously submitted by the undersigned are hereby
incorporated herein by this reference, including all exhibits and Videotape evidence referred to
therein.
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 3, 1997
Page 9
For these and many other reasons demonstrated in the Videotapes and otherwise during the joint
public hearing and continued joint public hearing, it is overwhelmingly clear that the proposed
redevelopment project would be an illegal and invalid project and that the Exclusion does not
result in a legally valid proposed Project Area.
The proposed redevelopment project and the Exclusion must be rejected by the City Council
because it is illegal and because it is harmful to the City.
It is respectfully requested that the Proposed Redevelopment Project be rejected by the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar.
Sincerely,
KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN
Murray O. Kane
R. Bruce Tepper
By 0. /(awe_
Murray O. Kane
Counsel for Affected Property Owners
And Other Interested Persons
MAP
The preceding Exhibit A -b, which is incorporated herein by reference, is a
written communication from Mr. Murray Kane of Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, addressed
to the Mayor and Members of the City Council and the Chair and Members of the
Agency, dated June 3, 1997.
In such communication, Mr. Kane asserts that each written objection
requires the conclusion that the Project Area fails to qualify as a valid and legal
redevelopment project and that the exclusion of property from the Project Area (as
described in the Agency's Resolution No. 97-10) is invalid in that (a) it leaves the
Project Area, after exclusion, as a nonblighted and nonurbanized project area and
therefore without legal justification to be validly adopted as a redevelopment project area
and (b) no criteria have been advanced to rationally explain the exclusion while
simultaneously leaving in the proposed Project Area a large number of equally
nonblighted and nonurbanized areas. Mr. Kane alleges that the question of excluding
property from the Project Area is inextricably linked to whether the Project Area is
blighted and urbanized and to the criteria used for exclusion and therefore written
objections to the Project Area are now timely and, in any event, the written
communication is also a written objection to the exclusion.
Mr. Kane raises a number of issues which he previously raised in his
letter dated May 20, 1997, and included in Exhibit A attached hereto and his oral
testimony, summarized in Exhibit C, attached hereto.
Mr. Kane asserts that the written objection is based, in part, on the
videotape he previously submitted to the City Council, edited by removing footage of the
six parcels excluded. He asserts that the edited videotape displays well over 80% of the
Project Area, and depicts the complete absence of physical or economic blight
throughout.
The following is the written findings of the City Council in response to
such communication:
Mr. Kane, in his letter dated May 20, 1997, included in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and his oral testimony summarized in Exhibit C, attached hereto, asserts
that parks should not be considered urbanized. He also questions the characterization in
the Report to City Council of vacant parcels as urbanized. Therefore, Mr. Kane's
assertion in his June 3`d letter that the exclusion is invalid because it leaves the Project
Area as a nonurbanized project area is without merit in that only parks and one vacant
parcel were excluded. The City Council has already addressed the requirement of
urbanization in its written responses set forth in Exhibit B and Exhibit C, attached hereto
and incorporated herein. In addition, Mr. Kane's assertion that no criteria have been
advanced to rationally explain the exclusion while simultaneously leaving in the Project
Area a large number of equally nonblighted and nonurbanized areas is without merit.
Determining the boundaries of the Project Area is within the discretion of the City
Council so long as the Project Area meets the requirements of the Community
Redevelopment Law. The Project Area is not required to include every blighted property
0 \
within its boundaries. Therefore, no explanation for excluding certain parcels from the
Project Area is required. Similarly, the contention that no criteria have been advanced to
explain the inclusion of the remaining parcels is not supported. The Report to City
Council and the City Council's written responses set forth in Exhibit B and C, attached
hereto and incorporated herein, document that the Project Area is predominantly
urbanized in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33320.1 and meets the
requirements of the Community Redevelopment, including those requirements set forth
in Health and Safety Code Section 33030.
Mr. Kane's assertions regarding the existence of blight and compliance
with the Community Redevelopment Law were raised in his May 20th letter and his oral
testimony and addressed in the City Council's written responses set forth in Exhibit B
and Exhibit C and incorporated herein. While the City Council is not required to
respond to Mr. Kane's comments regarding the City Council's written responses set forth
in Exhibit B and Exhibit C to the extent they are not related to the exclusion of territory
from the Project Area, the City Council notes that it has not simply listed a building with
a sagging roof or exposed wiring as alleged by Mr. Kane. Based on RSG's field surveys,
a structure was observed with exposed wiring on Brea Canyon Road (Assessor's Parcel
No. 8719-010-007) and a structure with a sagging roof was observed on Via Sorella
(Assessor's Parcel No. 8763-001-034), both of which conditions cause the structures to
be unsafe and unhealthy to occupy.
Mr. Kane's assertion that buildings in need of maintenance are not
blighted because they are not identified as dilapidated or deteriorated is without
merit. The Community Redevelopment Law defines buildings which are unsafe
or unhealthy as blighted. Buildings which have not been adequately maintained
can cause the buildings to be unsafe or unhealthy. For example, the building
located on Grand Avenue (Assessor's Parcel No. 8293-002-800), which the
Report to City Council identifies as suffering from deferred maintenance, was
observed during the field surveys conducted by RSG to have inadequate utilities
(including exposed and damaged electrical wiring and plumbing ), thus causing
the building to be unsafe and unhealthy.
While the City Council is not required to respond to Mr. Kane's
comments regarding the City Council's written responses set forth in Exhibit B
and Exhibit C, attached hereto, with respect to evidence of declining property
values because this is not relevant to the issue of excluding property from the
Project Area, the City Council notes that Mr. Valenzuela's statements, as
reported by Mr. Kane, are not dispositive.
Similarly, while Mr. Kane's comment regarding vacancy rates of
commercial buildings is not germane to the properties which were excluded from
the Project Area, (which do not contain commercial buildings), the City Council
notes that Mr. Kane's contention that vacancies are concentrated in three retail
centers is without merit. The City Council's written responses set forth in
Exhibit B and Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein, and the Report
0-Z
to City Council documents that 12 of the 15 retail centers have business
vacancies ranging from 4% to 56%. The City Council cited three retail centers in
its written response contained on page B-4-6 as examples of centers suffering
from high vacancies. However, this listing of the three centers was for
illustrative purposes only and was not meant to imply that only these three centers
suffer from high vacancies rates.
While Mr. Kane's comments regarding the consumer preferences
survey do not require a response from the City Council because they are not
germane to the exclusion of property from the Project Area, the City Council
disagrees with Mr. Kane's assertion that the survey destroys any possible finding
of blight in the Project Area. First, the survey does not address every type of
blight existing in the Project Area. Secondly, this assertion ignores the evidence
of blight presented in the Report to City Council such as declining property values
and declining sales tax revenues. The results of the survey indicate that 70% of
the respondents shop outside of Diamond Bar and nearly 24% of the respondents
indicated that the shopping areas do not provide an attractive environment in
which to shop. In response to a question regarding what is needed to improve
retail businesses in Diamond Bar, the need for improved appearances/services of
stores ranked 6 out of 13 choices as the most important improvement. Mr.
Kane's assertion that only 8% of the residents felt that appearance or services of
retail buisinesses must be improved is a mistatement of fact. What the survey
actually shows is that 8% of the respondents to the survey felt that the best way to
improve retail business is to improve appearances and services.
The Report to City Council, including the supplemental report, and
the City Council's written responses set forth in Exhibit B and Exhibit C and
incorporated herein document that the Project Area meets the requirements of the
Community Redevelopment Law.
The City Council finds that on the basis of information in the
record and the foregoing specific responses, the objections of Mr. Kane to the
proposed Redevelopment Plan are hereby overruled.
0-3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE EXCLUSION OF
CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM THE PROPOSED DIAMOND
BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR HEREBY
FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
(the "City Council") and the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
(the "Agency") are undertaking proceedings to adopt a
redevelopment plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the proposed
Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the "Project Area").
Section 2. The City Council desires to approve a
change of boundaries of the Project Area by excluding property
from the Project Area. The property to be excluded is shown on
the map attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 3. The Agency and the Planning Commission of
the City of Diamond Bar have recommended excluding the property
shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A from the Project
Area.
Section 4. The City Council and the Agency have
considered the change in boundaries of the Project Area at a
joint public hearing reopened for such limited purpose.
Section 5. The City Council hereby changes the
boundaries of the Project Area by excluding from the Project Area
the property shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of
1997.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
970529 10572-00001 rdh/gp 1672880 2
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond
Bar, California do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
as duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar, California, at its regular meeting held
on the day of 1997, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
California
970529 10572-00001 rdi/gp 1672880 2 - 2 -
17
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA; ADOPTING THE MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM; ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HEREBY FINDS,
DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency (the
"Agency") and the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar ("City
Council") have proposed to adopt a redevelopment plan (the
"Project") for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the
"Project Area"). The Project Area is proposed to include
approximately 1,300 acres of publicly.and privately owned land.
While many existing uses in the Project Area will be retained,
the Agency proposes to facilitate redevelopment and
rehabilitation of underutilized and blighted properties with
light industrial, office, and retail uses, and through the
improvement of public infrastructure including streets, public
service facilities, parks, utilities, drainage facilities and
landscape to improve the economic health of the Project Area.
All anticipated development in connection with the Project will
be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Diamond Bar.
Section 2. The City and Agency prepared an Initial
Environmental Study for the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of
the State Guidelines for implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Initial Study concluded
that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a
significant environmental impact in certain specifically
identified categories.
Section 3. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15064 and 15081, and based upon the information
contained in the Initial Study, a decision was made to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project. A Notice of
Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") was
prepared for the Project on November 18, 1996 and sent to the
State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for
the State of California and to other responsible, trustee, and/or
interested agencies and persons. The City and Agency contracted
with an independent consultant for the preparation of the EIR.
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796
Section 4. The DEIR was circulated to interested
persons and agencies for public comment pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15087(c). In response to the circulation of
the DEIR, the City and Agency received written and oral comments
regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. The City and Agency prepared
written responses to all comments which raised significant
environmental issues. The City and Agency incorporated the
comments and the Agency's written responses to those comments
which raised comments relating to CEQA into the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Project ("FEIR") and returned
responses to commenting agencies at least ten (10) days prior to
the Certification of the FEIR, pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21092.5.
Section 5. The FEIR is comprised of the DEIR,
including any revisions and/or addenda thereto; the list of
persons, organizations and public agencies which commented on the
DEIR; the comments which were received by the City and Agency
regarding the DEIR; and the written responses to significant
environmental points raised in the review and consultation
process, each of which is incorporated herein and made a part
hereof by this reference.
Section 6. The City Council and Agency held a duly -
noticed public hearing on the Project and the EIR on May 20,
1997. At the hearing, interested persons presented both written
and oral comments regarding the adequacy of the FEIR.
Section 7. The findings made in this Resolution are
based upon the information and evidence set forth in the FEIR and
upon other substantial evidence which has been presented in the
record of this proceeding. The documents, staff reports, plans,
specifications, technical studies and other materials that
constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is
based and the FEIR for the Project are on file and available for
public examination during normal business hours in the Office of
the Community Development Director of the City of Diamond Bar,
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100,'Diamond Bar, California
91765. The custodian of said records is the Community
Development Director of the City of Diamond Bar.
Section 8. The Agency finds that the public and
government agencies have been afforded ample notice and
opportunity to comment on the Initial Study, DEIR, and FEIR.
Section 9. The Agency finds, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15084(e), that the EIR has been independently
analyzed by the Agency and its Staff, and that the EIR represents
the independent judgment of the lead agency with respect to the
Project. The Agency further finds that the additional
information provided in the staff reports accompanying the
Project description and the FEIR, the corrections and
modifications to the DEIR made in response to comments, and the
evidence presented in written and oral testimony presented at the
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 — 2 —
above -referenced hearing does not represent significant new
information so as to require recirculation of any section of the
EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1.
Section 10. The Agency finds that the comments
regarding the DEIR and the responses to those comments have been
received by the Agency; that the Agency has received public
testimony regarding the adequacy of the FEIR; and that the
Agency, as the final decision-making body for the lead agency,
has reviewed and considered all such documents and testimony
prior to acting on the Project. Pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15090, the Agency, on the basis of the
foregoing and the record of the proceeding, certifies that the
FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.
Section 11. Based upon the Initial Study, the DEIR,
the FEIR, public and agency comments and the record before the
Agency, the Agency hereby finds that the Project will not cause
significant environmental impacts in the areas of Land Use and
Planning, Geology, Water, Transportation and Circulation,
Biological Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, Cultural
Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities and Service
Systems, Aesthetics, and Recreation. Explanations for why the
foregoing impacts were found to be insignificant are contained in
the Initial Study in Appendix A of the DEIR. Any reduction in
the size of the Project Area will further reduce the
environmental impacts identified in the FEIR by reducing the area
subject to development pursuant to the Project.
Section 12. The Initial Study identified some of the
Project's effects as "potentially significant." However, based
upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and the FEIR, and upon
public and agency comments and the record before the Agency, the
Agency hereby finds that the Project will not cause significant
environmental impacts in the following areas identified as
"potentially significant" in the Initial Study:
a. Land Use and Planning: The Project will not substantially
conflict with the City's long range land use plans, or
conflict with existing uses in the vicinity. The Economic
Revitalization Area Redevelopment Plan does not propose any
change in land use policy or permitted intensity of
development for the Project Area. The intent of the Project
is to revitalize the Project Area in conformance with the
City's General Plan land use designation and policies.
Future development in the Project Area will be required to
be consistent with the General Plan and existing Zoning.
Further explanation for this finding can be found in Section
3.1 and 7.0 of the FEIR.
b. Population and Housing. The Project will not induce
substantial growth or concentration of population through
provision of employment or housing that is inconsistent with
regional growth management plans or create demand for
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 - 3 -
housing which exceeds available supply on either a project -
related or cumulative basis. The EIR indicates that the
employment, housing and population needs generated by the
project are well within applicable regional and local
projections. The Southern California Association of
Governments ("SCAG"), in a letter dated March 25, 1997,
found in Section 9 of the FEIR, also indicates that the
Project is consistent with regional policies within SCAG's
jurisdiction, to the extent such consistency can be
determined. Further explanation for this determination may
be found in Sections 3.2, 7.0, and 9 of the FEIR.
C. Schools. The proposed project will not result in a project -
related or cumulative increase in current student enrollment
beyond school districts' current capacity at a rate that
cannot be accommodated by capital improvements funded by
developer fees or other sources of funds available to the
districts. Fees from residential and non-residential
development anticipated as part of the Project, as well as
other state school funding mechanisms, will generate
sufficient revenue to mitigate new student demand generated
by future development of the Project Area. Further
explanation for these determinations may be found in Section
3.5 and 7.0 of the FEIR.
Section 13. Based upon the initial study, the EIR,
public comments and the record of these proceedings, the Agency
finds that the Project may create significant adverse impacts in
the area of Traffic and Circulation and Air Quality. With regard
to Traffic and Circulation impacts, the FEIR identifies feasible
mitigation measures for each impact that reduce the impact to a
level of insignificance. With regard to Air Quality impacts, the
FEIR identifies mitigation measures that will substantially
lessen, but not eliminate, such impact. Any reduction in the
size of the Project Area will further reduce the environmental
impacts identified in the FEIR by reducing the area subject to
development pursuant to the Project. Further explanation for
these determinations may be found in Sections 2.0, 3.3 and 3.4 of
the FEIR.
Section 14. In response to each significant impact
identified in the EIR, and listed in Section 13 of this
Resolution, changes or alterations are hereby required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental impacts identified. The
changes or alterations required in, or incorporated into, the
Project, and a brief explanation of the rationale for this
finding with regard to each impact, are contained in Exhibit A of
this Resolution and are incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 15. Any reduction in the size of the.Project
Area will further reduce the environmental impacts identified in
the FEIR by reducing the area subject to development pursuant to
the Project. Such a reduction still attains the goals and
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 - 4 -
objectives of the Project to a significant extent and the
environmental consequences of reducing the scope of the project
are primarily beneficial in that they reduce the area of
development and thus the environmental consequences of
development.
Section 16. The FEIR describes, and the Agency has
fully considered, a reasonable range of alternatives to the
Project which might fulfill the basic objectives of the Project.
These alternatives include the "No Project" alternative; the
Smaller Project Alternative, which considered a smaller
geographic are for the Project Area; the Lower Traffic -Generating
Alternative, which proposed replacing high -traffic generating
commercial, entertainment and restaurant uses with less traffic -
intense uses such as office, business park, research and
development uses. The alternatives identified in the EIR either
would not sufficiently achieve the basic objectives of the
Project or would do so only with unacceptable adverse
environmental impacts. Accordingly, and for any one of the
reasons set forth herein, in the EIR, or in the "Statement of
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" attached hereto as
Exhibit "A," the Agency finds that specific economic, social, or
other considerations make infeasible each of the Project
alternatives, including the "No Project" alternative, identified
in the EIR and each is hereby rejected. The Agency further finds
that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives
into the preparation of the EIR, and that all reasonable
alternatives were considered in the review process of the EIR and
the ultimate decision on the Projects. An alternative site was
not considered feasible because an alternative site would fail to
fulfill the most basic goal of the Project by not failing to
address conditions of blight in the Project Area.
Section 17. The Agency hereby makes the findings
contained in the "Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of
Findings" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" with respect to each of
the significant impacts defined in the FEIR and the alternatives
analysis. Further, the Agency hereby finds that each fact in
support of finding is true and is based upon substantial evidence
in the record, including the FEIR.
Section 18. The Agency hereby adopts the "Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization
Area" prepared by Cotton/Beland Associates, Inc. This program
will be used to monitor the changes to the project which have
been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as provided
herein and in Exhibit "A."
Section 19. Upon approval of this Resolution, the
Director of Community Development is hereby directed to file a
Notice of Determination with the County Recorder's Office, County
of Los Angeles, and the California State Clearinghouse pursuant
to Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 5
Section 20. A full and fair joint public hearing
regarding the proposed Redevelopment Plan has been duly noticed
and held by the City Council and the Agency pursuant to law and
the Agency and City Council have received written and oral
testimony concerning such proposed Redevelopment Plan. The City
Council has duly considered the recommendations of the Agency;
has evaluated the Agency's Report to the City Council, which is
comprised of the reports and information required by Health and
Safety Code Section 33352, and which report was previously
submitted to the City Council, and all evidence and testimony for
and against adoption of such Redevelopment Plan; and has adopted
written findings in response to each written objection,
communication or suggestion, in accordance with Health and Safety
Code Section 33363. The Agency hereby finds and determines that
the responses made to each written objection, communication or
suggestion are full and complete and have addressed each written
objection, communication or suggestion in detail, giving reasons
for not accepting specified objections, and suggestions and
include good -faith, reasoned analysis which describes the
disposition of the issues raised. All objections to the proposed
Redevelopment Plan were heard and passed upon by the Agency and
the City Council and are hereby overruled by the Agency.
Section 21. The proposed Redevelopment Plan, a copy of
which has been presented to the Agency and which is now on file
in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved subject to
the mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit A hereof.
Section 22. The Agency hereby recommends approval and
adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the City Council and hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the Redevelopment Plan by
ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of June, 1997.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
970530 10572-00029 cas/ap 1201796 — 6 —
I, LYNDA BURGESS, Secretary of the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Agency, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of
the Board of Directors of Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency held on
the day of 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: BOARD MEMBERS:
NOES: BOARD MEMBERS:
ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: BOARD MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Agency
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 - 7 -
EXHIBIT "A"
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
1. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF
INSIGNIFICANCE.
Traffic and Circulation.
Traffic Demands and Level of Service. The Project will
result in increased traffic and will cause or worsen unacceptable
levels of service ("LOS") at certain intersections in the Project
Area. The intersections are specifically identified in Section 3.4
of the FEIR. Cumulative traffic impacts or related projects also
may be created without mitigation.
Finding: For each such intersection, changes or
alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified above.
Facts Sugportincr Findincr. The Project includes the
following traffic and circulation mitigation measures which have
been demonstrated in the FEIR to reduce each Project -related
significant traffic impact to a level of insignificance based on
LOS and intersection volume/capacity ratio, as described more fully
in Section 3.4, Table 13 and Figure 10 in the FEIR. Cumulative
traffic impacts will be mitigated as well through the
implementation of such measures and project -specific mitigation
measures for related projects:
a. Diamond Bar/Golden Springs: Add a left turn lane to each
approach on Golden Springs for a total of two in each
direction. This can be accomplished within the existing
street width but requires elimination of the bicycle lanes at
the intersection.
b. S 60/57 East -Bound Ramps/Grand Avenue: Change the S
60/57 off -ramp approach stripping and operations to prohibit
a through movement (allow left and right turns only). This
will allow a right turn overlap signal phase from Grand Avenue
(northbound) to S 60/57 on-ramp. Modify the S 60/57 off -ramp
approach to provide a free right turn from off -ramp to
south -bound Grand Avenue. Three southbound lanes presently
exist on Grand, south of the freeway ramp.
C. S 60/57 West -Bound Ramps/Grand Avenue: Restripe the
north Grand Avenue approach to provide a left, through,
through/right, and right turn lane.
d. Grand Avenue/Golden Springs: On Golden Springs for what
was identified as the eastbound approach, add a left turn lane
(for a total of two) and improve the eastbound right turn to
a free right turn.
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 - 8 -
On westbound Golden Springs, add a right turn lane.
e. Diamond Bar Boulevard/Grand Avenue: Implement
improvements to provide three through lanes on the Grand
Avenue approaches and the southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard
approach.• The existing southbound right turn lane will be
converted into a through lane.
For the northbound approach, stripe for a through,
through/right, and right turn lane to accommodate the high
number of northbound right turn during the PM peak hour.
These improvements will be implemented as determined
appropriate by the City pending a review of alternate traffic
routes, effects on adjacent residential areas, and other
applicable factors.
f. Brea Canyon Road/Golden Springs -Calami: Add a left turn
lane to the northbound and southbound approaches on Brea
Canyon Road, for a total of two.
Eastbound - make improvements to convert the right turn lane
to a through lane.
Westbound - add a left turn lane to provide a total of two.
g. Pathfinder Road/Diamond Bar Boulevard: Make"
modifications to provide an added northbound through lane at
intersection. This will impact existing bicycle lane at this
location.
2. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS.
Air Quality Impacts. Development in the Project Area will
result in additional mobile and stationary emissions above the
SCAQMD daily thresholds for CO, ROG, and Nox on a project -specific
and cumulative basis.
Finding: Although mitigation measures have been adopted
to address these impacts, project -related air quality impacts
cannot be reduced a level of insignificance and are therefore found
to be significant and unavoidable.
Facts Supporting Finding: A number of mitigation
measures have been proposed to reduce air quality impacts resulting
from development pursuant to the Project, a number of mitigation
measures have been imposed. A full description of those mitigation
measures is found in Table 2 and Section 3.3 of the FEIR. While
these measures will reduce certain aspects of the Project -related
air quality impacts, estimation of the efficacy of these mitigation
measures to reduce vehicular and operational emissions is
difficult. It is unlikely, however, that these measures will be
adequate to reduce mobile and stationary emissions to below the
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 - 9 -
SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, mobile and stationary
emissions from the Project are considered significant and
unavoidable. The Agency hereby finds that there are specific
economic, social, legal, technological, and other considerations
that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the EIR and that the benefits of the project outweigh
its potential adverse construction -related impacts. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been prepared, and is set forth
below.
3. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The Agency has considered various project alternatives as
analyzed in the EIR and makes the following findings:
i. No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative
considers retaining the Project Area in its existing condition with
no additional development taking place in the framework of the
redevelopment plan. This alternative would permit continuing
development in the Project Area without the guidance and benefits
of the redevelopment plan. Because such development would be
undertaken pursuant to the existing General Plan, this alternative
would create the same environment impacts as the Project.
Finding: Specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative.
Facts in Support of Finding: The No Project Alternative
is infeasible because it does not achieve any of the stated goals
and objectives of the Project including, without limitation, the
elimination of blighted conditions in the Project Area, the
improvement of public facilities and public infrastructure, and the
encouragement of resident and business participation in the
economic revitalization of the Project Area. The Project is
intended, in part, to provide necessary tax increment financing for
public infrastructure and facilities in the Project Area which
would not be supplied under the No -Project Alternative. Buildout
of the Project Area in the absence of the Project will not have as
beneficial an impact on reducing blighted conditions as would the
Project in that the -No -Project alternative would result in the
piecemeal development of the Project Area over a longer period of
time than that estimated in the FEIR.
The overriding social, economic and other considerations
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide
additional facts in support of this finding.
ii. Smaller Project Area Alternative. The Smaller
Project Area Alternative considers the Project in a smaller
geographic area than the Project Area. Reducing the size of the
Project Area could result in reduced traffic impacts, and air
quality impacts could be reduced, although not to a less -than -
significant level.
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 - 10 -
Finding: Specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the Smaller Project Area
Alternative. The Smaller Project Area Alternative would not meet
the goals and objectives of the Project and would not eliminate the
significant unavoidable environmental impact of the Project.
Facts in Support of Finding: While a reduced level of
development under the Smaller Project Area Alternative would create
less traffic, thereby reducing traffic -related impacts, the Smaller
Project Area Alternative would not produce all of the needed
infrastructure and facility improvements created by the Project.
Partial implementation of such improvements could exacerbate
deficiencies related to traffic and parking that will affect the
City's ability to attract high-quality development into the Project
Area, thereby adversely impacting the goals and objectives of the
Project. In addition, while a reduction in traffic may, to a
certain extent, reduce air quality impacts caused by mobile
emissions, such a reduction is not likely to be in the 400%-800%
range necessary to reduce air quality impacts to a less than
significant level under SCAQMD guidelines. Therefore, the Smaller
Project Area Alternative would not eliminate the significant
unavoidable impact of the Project.
The overriding social, economic and other considerations
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide
additional facts in support of this finding.
iii.Lower Traffic -Generating Alternative: This
alternative considers development of the Project Area with
commercial and industrial uses that would generate less vehicular
trips that those anticipated for the Project. The alternative
would replace "high trip" uses such as retail and entertainment/
restaurant with office, business park, and research and development
uses which generate fewer vehicle trips. The result would be a
reduction in the overall volume of traffic from the Project Area.
As with the Smaller Project Area Alternative, this reduction in
vehicle trips would reduce traffic -related impacts and the need for
traffic improvements as mitigation measures. With less traffic,
mobile air pollutant emissions also would be reduced. However, as
with the Smaller Project Area Alternative, this reduction would not
be sufficient to reduce air quality impacts below a level of
significance. In addition, this Alternative would be inconsistent
with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code, and might require the
imposition of development restrictions not currently in place.
Finding: Specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the Lower Traffic -Generating
Alternative. This Alternative would not meet the goals and
objectives of the Project and is not environmentally superior to
the Project.
Facts in Support of Finding: This Alternative would not
implement the policies, goals, objectives and strategies of the
General Plan for the City of Diamond Bar to the same extent as the
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 11 —
Project would, in that revisions to the General Plan and Zoning
Code would be required to replace retail, restaurant and
entertainment uses with office, research and development and
business park uses. This Alternative also would not meet the goal
of providing opportunities for retail business. Fewer retail and
restaurant /ente'rtainment uses also would result in a significant
reduction in sales tax revenue to the City, by comparison to the
Project, making this Alternative economically infeasible.
The overriding social, economic and other considerations
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide
additional facts in support of this finding.
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The Agency has carefully and independently considered the
significant unavoidable adverse air quality impacts identified
above in deciding whether to approve the Project. Although the
Agency believes that the unavoidable air quality impacts identified
in the FEIR will be substantially lessened by the mitigation
measures incorporated into the project, it recognizes that approval
of the Project will nonetheless result in certain unavoidable and
potentially irreversible effects.
The Agency has weighed the benefits of the Project
against its environmental risks. The Agency specifically finds
that, to the extent that any adverse or potentially adverse impact
set forth above has not been mitigated to a level of
insignificance, that specific economic, social, legal,
environmental, technological or other benefits of the project
outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Furthermore,
the Agency finds that any and each of the following considerations
is sufficient to approve the Project despite any one or more of the
unavoidable impacts identified; that each of the overriding
considerations is adopted with respect to each of the impacts
individually, and that each consideration is severable from any
other consideration should one or more consideration be shown to be
legally insufficient for any reason. The following considerations
support approval of the Project:
a. The Project will implement the City's General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance and other policies, goals, plans, objectives and
strategies for the development of the Project Area in a coordinated
manner that will revitalize existing blighted areas through the
imposition of design and use standards.
b. The Project proposes and will provide tax increment
revenue to finance improvements of public infrastructure, including
streets, public service facilities, parks, utilities, drainage
facilities, and landscape that are necessary to promote the
economic revitalization of the Project Area and attract appropriate
businesses to the area.
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 - 12 -
C. The Project will promote local job opportunities in the
community.
d. The Project will encourage participation by residents,
businesses, business persons, public agencies and community
organizations in the economic revitalization of'the Project Area.
e. The Project will preserve and enhance the unique open
space resources in the community.
f. The Project will increase, improve, or preserve the
supply of housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate income
households.
970530 10572-00024 caslgp 1201796 — 13 —
ADDENDUM
TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL UWpACT REPORT
FOR THE
DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REv1TALIZATION AREA
SCF. NO. %111047
May 29, 1997
Introduction
This addendum to the Final Envirornnental Impact Report (EIR) for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area in the City of Diamond Bar was prepared in accordance with Section 15164
of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 1500 and following). Under
provisions of CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency may prepare an addendum to an EIR if only
minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make an EIR under consideration adequate
under CEQA, and the changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new
issues about the significant effects on the environment.
This addendum is hereby included as part of the Final EIR. The City of Diamond Bar will
consider the addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project.
Issues Addressed in this Addendum
This addendum addresses effects of the change in the territory to be included within the
boundaries of the Diamond Har Economic Revitalization Area. On May 27, 1997, the City of
Diamond Bar Planning Commission recommended the deletion of certain properties from the
Revitalization Area, as shown in the attached Exhibit A. The deletion will result in a decrease of
approximately 154 acres in territory comprising the Revitalization Area, from 1,454 acres to
1,300 acres. The territory to be deleted includes parks, public rights of way, and an undeveloped
area designated for residential uses in the City's general Plan. The change to the Revitalization
Area will result in no change in expected commercial or industrial development within the
project area, and a reduction of approximately 130 residential units from projected development
analyzed in the Final EIIt.
Environmental Effects Associated with the Reduced Revitalization Area
The Final EIR considered environmental effects of redeveloping a 1,454 -acre Revitalization
Area. Redevelopment of a smaller Project Area is anticipated to reduces the magnitude of most
environmental effects considered in the Final EM, including traffic impact which was found to
be the only Apd1eam impact of the project. Mitigation measure: have been included in the
project that reduce traffic impact to a less than significant level. With less territory, most of the
environmental impaab analyzed in the Final MR, including traffic, will decrease in rough
proportion to the induction in the potential for new development on the twitwy deleted from
the Revitahmon Area. Thus, the analysis of environmental impacts m the Final FIR represents
the "wom case" davelopment scenario for the project inclusive of impacts that will occur in a
smaner Re:vitaliizsdon Area. Such environmental impacts are, therefore, fully and adequately
addressed in the Final MR, and the change in the Revitalization Area's territory will not result m
any new or increased signiScant environmental impacts.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS IN
RESPONSE TO ORAL AND WRITTEN OBJECTIONS,
COMMUNICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA OF
THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR HEREBY FINDS,
DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency (the
".Agency") has prepared a proposed Redevelopment Plan (the
"Redevelopment Plan") for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization
Area (the "Project Area"). On May 20, 1997, the Agency and the
City Council of the City of Diamond Bar (the "City Council") held
a duly noticed joint public hearing (the "joint public hearing")
on the proposed Redevelopment Plan, and such joint public hearing
was continued to June 3, 1997 for the sole purpose of considering
the exclusion of property from the proposed Project Area. Any
and all persons having any objections -to the proposed
Redevelopment Plan or who deny the existence of blight in the
proposed Project Area, or the regularity of any of the prior
proceedings, were given an opportunity to submit written comments
prior to the commencement of or at the joint public hearing and
to give oral testimony at the joint public hearing and show cause
why the proposed Redevelopment Plan should not be adopted. In
addition, any and all persons having any objections to the
exclusion of property from the proposed Project Area were given
an opportunity to submit written comments prior to the
commencement of or at the joint public hearing and the
continuance thereof and to give oral testimony at the joint
public hearing and continuance thereof. The City Council has
heard and considered all evidence, both written and oral,
presented in support of and in opposition to the adoption of the
Redevelopment Plan.
Section 2. Written objections, communications and
suggestions received before or at such joint public hearing or
continued joint public hearing are attached hereto as Exhibit A
and incorporated herein. Having reviewed such written
objections, communications and suggestions, the City Council,
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 33363 and 33364,
hereby adopts written findings, attached hereto as Exhibit B and
incorporated herein, in response to each written objection,
communication and suggestion set forth in Exhibit A. The City
Council has not accepted specified written objections,
communications and suggestions for the reasons set forth in the
attached written findings.
Section 3. Oral testimony presented at the joint public
hearing is summarized in Exhibit C, attached hereto and
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2
incorporated herein. Having reviewed such oral testimony, the
City Council hereby adopts written findings, attached hereto as
Exhibit C in response to such oral testimony. The City Council
has not accepted specified objections, communications and
suggestions for the reasons set forth in the attached written
findings.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of
1997.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar,
California do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution as
duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar, California, at its regular meeting held on
the day of , 1997, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
California
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 — 2 —
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS,
CONNECTION WITH THE
DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
EXHIBIT A
COMMUNICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
REVITALIZATION AREA OF THE DIAMOND BAR
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2
ROSEMEAD PROPERTIES, INC.
April 29, 1997
City of Diamond Bar
City Clerk
21660 E. Copley Drive, Ste. 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Subject: Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area
Gentlemen:
EXHIBIT
A - 1
This is in response to the Notice of Joint Public Hearing of the
Diamond Bar City Council and the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
on the Proposed Adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar
Economic Revitalization Area and Final Environmental Impact Report
Prepared in Connection Therewith.
Our office building located at 22632 E. Golden Springs Drive
(Assessor's Parcel Nos. 8717-052-54 and 55) has been .included in the
Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (DBERA). Our building is
relatively new, in excellent condition, and well maintained. We, therefore,
deny the existence of blight on our property and hereby request to be
excluded from the DBERA.
Very truly yours,
0�0* ***--Y
lW) '
Robert W. Nicholson
Vice President
RWN:cis
11142 GARVEY AVENUE 9 P.O. BOX 6010 • EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA 91734 • (818) 448-6183
a�
Y
r
t
This is in response to the Notice of Joint Public Hearing of the
Diamond Bar City Council and the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
on the Proposed Adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar
Economic Revitalization Area and Final Environmental Impact Report
Prepared in Connection Therewith.
Our office building located at 22632 E. Golden Springs Drive
(Assessor's Parcel Nos. 8717-052-54 and 55) has been .included in the
Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (DBERA). Our building is
relatively new, in excellent condition, and well maintained. We, therefore,
deny the existence of blight on our property and hereby request to be
excluded from the DBERA.
Very truly yours,
0�0* ***--Y
lW) '
Robert W. Nicholson
Vice President
RWN:cis
11142 GARVEY AVENUE 9 P.O. BOX 6010 • EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA 91734 • (818) 448-6183
ROSEMEAD PROPERTIES, INS! - "
May 20, 1997
The How" M"m
AM Members of the City Coundl
City of Dian and Sar
Honorable Qmdr &W Members
of the Dlaw"A Ear Robelopmert A,ency
21660 Bast Copley Dstve, gala 100
Diamond Dae, CA 91765
q7 MAY 20 IM 4: 3:
c � ; til
e t%
Re Wridm Objectim to Proposed Rede"k Ptah
Z0q�&to&v1udeAammm Purel Nae. i7174US-Ss and V17�OZ'f�s!f
* Golden Sprinss Drive, Dlammd gar
Ow Honomble Mayan and Members of the City Comg and
Hanarable Chair and Members of the Diaawoed Bar Red velepmnant Agency:
To`writan ob*dm as hereby mftdttrd by Rosemead ties
Proper. Inc.
in opposigoe10 itedrmbpmtnt Pen for the Dlmmd Ear Ecoaornk
Asea (ft Aml.
Naltlw pby* d na economic c mukdoos ofnor any con�bimdm dweof, east
at the des of Roemreed's property In Dkum d Dttt�� is proPoem to be included in the
i'roject Ara- Moaewt, therfs no sppa»nt reZadoe+shi+p betwwn the proposed public
impanovfmsrts at forth is " Report to tM Clly Cmun and da surAbdon or improvema d
33344ghting bliaondldonr dum9nd in the Report as rsgi*W by Hoeft& Safety Code Section
Rommad Properdes, Ire. owns property within the paoposed Pvojsct Asea and pays
real prppetty UM, part d wbkb benefit the City of Dlaamnd Bet. and Is at eeW as a
property awns by the pr�opoeed adoption of the psapoaad Radmi deFnmnt Plm
EXHIBIT
A - 1
For rheas reawe„ &OnrdW hopwties, Inc. hereby regaerb that you. to adopt
the Redevdog atw! Plat doe dw Dkmmx d Dat Economk ReritsUsation Arae Plan or in the
altw dw► ertdtds dna Am de - I - I property owned by Rosemead Propertl Inc. from
any such retia iopa mit phut tot If wlupted.
Very trulyY)
Robert W. Nkhoil0u
Vice Preeldett
RWN:Ic
11144 OARM ANUM 0 P.O. WX 0010 . 8. MONTJL CAU702 M 917" • (818144"UM
TOTAL P.01
Philip & Frances Kemdge
PO Box 203 V
Lakeshore, Ca. 93634
TeUFax 209-893-3216
97 MAY 14 F1 2: 58
May 12, 1997
EXHIBIT
A - 2
City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 --
Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765
Re: Diamond Bar Economic Redevelopment Plan
As Diamond Bar}@r-operty owners we are opposed to the
Redevelopment Plan At the following reasons:
1. The breadth of the Agency's control. From reading the
Revitalization Plan, it appears that the Agency is
attempting to gain the power of dictating whatever it
wants to dictate in the area of land use, building
design, and property confiscation. The plan discusses
"voluntary owner participation" and then alongside such
discussion, uses words such as."enforcement" (522) and
the threat of "acquiring" property if the "owner fails
or refuses to participate" in the plan (502). This is
not voluntary participation.
Further, there is no mention of who will shoulder the
financial burden of such "participation." Grants and
loans are broadly and vaguely mentioned. Are these
loans also "voluntary?"
2. Based on general conscience, we are adamantly opposed
to any entity, government or otherwise, forcing the
sale of or the taking of property by eminent domain or
any other means.
This plan gives the Agency far too much control over
the rights of individual property owners. Based on that fact
and those mentioned above, we are opposed to the proposed
Redevelopment Plan.
Re ar s,
Philip & Frances Kerri e
1
—7
Philip & Frances Kerridge
PO Box 203
Lakeshore, Ca. 93634
Tel/Fax 209.893-3216
EXHIBIT
A — 2
97 P1MY I g Fel i2� 57
- May 18, 1997
Y
i
The Honorable Mayor
and members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Re: Written Objections to Proposed Redevelopment Plan
for Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, and
Honorable Chair and Members of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment
Agency:
The following written objections are hereby submitted by
Philip and Frances Kerridge in opposition to the Proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Economic Revitalization
Area (the "Project Area"):
1. The Project Area is not predominantly urbanized as
that term is defined in Section 33320.1 of the
California Health 6 Safety Code.
2. The Project Area is not an area in which the
combination of conditions set forth in Health & Safety
Code Section 33031 -is so prevalent and so substantial
that it causes a reduction of, or lack of, proper
utilization of the area to such an extent that it
constitutes & serious physical and economic burden on
the community, which cannot reasonably be expected to
b• reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or
governmental action, or both, without redevelopment.
3. The physical conditions in the Project Area set in
the Report to the Ctiy Council are general and
conclusory, regurgitating the language of Health &
Safety Code Section 33031(a), but does not specify
if the condition set forth in the section is exist
in the Project Area and where they may be found. -
4. The discussion concerning economic conditions in the
proposed Project Area (Health & Safety Code Section
33344.4(b)) is general and conclueory, repeating the
language of the statue. Data and analyses regarding
The Honorable mayor
and Members of
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and
of the Diamond
May 18, 1997
Page 2
the City Council
Members
Bar Redevelopment Agency
depreciated values or impaired investments show no
direct relationship to the Project Area and blighted
conditions.
S. Neither physical nor economic conditions of*blight,
nor any combination thereof, predominate throughtout
the proposed Project Area.
6. The data concerning assessed valuation including the
Report to the City Council is out-of-date and
misleading and contradicted by more current data
supplied by the County of Los Angeles.
7. There is no apparent relationship between the proposed
public improvements set forth in the Report to the City
Council and the alleviation or improvement of the
blighting conditions described in the Report as
required by Health & Safety Code Section 33344.5(f).
We own real property within
pay -read property taxes to the
affected as property owners by
proposed redevelopment plan.
the proposed Project Area and
City of Diamond Bar and.are
the proposed adoption of the
For these reasons and for reasons offered by any other
objecting party herein, Philip and Frances'Kerridge hereby
request that you refuse to adopt the Redevelopment Plan for
the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization area.
Regards, •
Philip � Frances K ridge
LLJ
o
v�
o�
�r
o► .4.,
ai C�
V'3
�F.►
r
EXHIBIT
A - 3
v
tz
� � C
o
>
r �
a
o
`%
A �
E �
to
V
rA
o G $ A CS
aw
o -
�y >to .
u
�a �
o
v�
o�
o► .4.,
ai C�
V'3
�F.►
M
0 �
0
V
lz
Oto
m
0�
O �
A
�
r
EXHIBIT
A - 3
v
tz
� � C
o
>
r �
a
o
`%
A �
E �
to
V
rA
o G $ A CS
aw
o -
�y >to .
u
�a �
G
mot
1,
CITY CLUA
91 MAY 20 Fm 2. 58
i
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
The Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Re: Written Objections on behalf of Affected Property Owners and Others
To Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, and
Honorable Chair and Members of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment
Agency:
The following written objections are hereby submitted on behalf of a number of affected property
owners and other interested persons represented by the undersigned in opposition to the Proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the "Project Area").
Each written objection requires the conclusion that the Project Area fails to qualify as a legal and
valid redevelopment project. In combination, these written objections overwhelmingly Tequire
this proposed redevelopment project to be rejected by the City Council.
These written objections are based on the oral testimony and videotape evidence to be presented
by the undersigned at the joint public hearing scheduled for the above -referenced proposal as
well as the contents of this letter. A resume of the undersigned is attached as Exhibit A. Maps
are attached labeled Exhibits B and C depicting those portions of the Project Area shown and
described in the said"videotape evidence, both as to the full-length (28 minute) and the condensed
(7 minute) versions (the "Videotapes").
1. The Project Area is Not Predominantly Urbanized
The Environmental Impact Report prepared for this proposed project (the "EMR") flatly states that
"the Project Area ... contains approximately 1,454 acres of land ... and 309 acres are vacant
land...." (at page ES -1). The Draft Report to the City Council prepared for this proposed project
EXHIBIT
A — 4
KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN
A LAW CORPORATION
515 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET. SUITE 1850
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TELEPHONE (213) 517-0480
MURRAY O. KANE
FAX (213) 625-0931
ROBERT P. BERKMAN
BRUCE 0. BALLMER
GLENN F. WASSERMAN
RETIRED
R. BRUCE TEPPER. JR
May 20 1997
JOSEPH W. PANNONE
>
EUGENE B. JACOBS
ROYCE K. JONES
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
STEPHANIE R. SGHER
_
" _OF COUNSEL
PRINCIPALS
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
The Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Re: Written Objections on behalf of Affected Property Owners and Others
To Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, and
Honorable Chair and Members of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment
Agency:
The following written objections are hereby submitted on behalf of a number of affected property
owners and other interested persons represented by the undersigned in opposition to the Proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the "Project Area").
Each written objection requires the conclusion that the Project Area fails to qualify as a legal and
valid redevelopment project. In combination, these written objections overwhelmingly Tequire
this proposed redevelopment project to be rejected by the City Council.
These written objections are based on the oral testimony and videotape evidence to be presented
by the undersigned at the joint public hearing scheduled for the above -referenced proposal as
well as the contents of this letter. A resume of the undersigned is attached as Exhibit A. Maps
are attached labeled Exhibits B and C depicting those portions of the Project Area shown and
described in the said"videotape evidence, both as to the full-length (28 minute) and the condensed
(7 minute) versions (the "Videotapes").
1. The Project Area is Not Predominantly Urbanized
The Environmental Impact Report prepared for this proposed project (the "EMR") flatly states that
"the Project Area ... contains approximately 1,454 acres of land ... and 309 acres are vacant
land...." (at page ES -1). The Draft Report to the City Council prepared for this proposed project
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
May 20, 1997
Page 2 _
(the "Draft Report") discloses that 316.87 of the Project Area's 1454.3 acres are undeveloped (at
Table 3-1).
This establishes that less than 80 percent of the land in the Project Area is urbanized in violation
of the requirements of Sections 33320.1 and 33030(b) of the California Health & Safety Code
(the California Community Redevelopment Law) (all references to statutes herein are to the
California Health & Safety Code unless otherwise indicated).
The Draft Report somehow designates 190 acres of vacant undeveloped land as "urbanized" and
"an integral part of an area developed for urban uses" (at Appendix 4-1). No facts are given in
support of this proposition, which is belied by the Videotapes (see large undeveloped parcels in
Videotapes at Brea Canyon Road, in the Gateway Center and on Diamond Bar Boulevard at the
60 freeway, all preposterously referred to without factual basis as "urbanized" on "Urbanization
Map- Map 3-1" in the Draft Report). Stand alone parcels as large as 13, 24, 35 and 41 acres are
incredibly included in this category.
Of the Project Area's 1454 acres, 550 acres are freeways and streets, approximately 100 acres are
parks. If these areas are not counted, fully 40% or more of the Project Area is vacant land. If the
parks are counted as vacant land, especially Sycamore Canyon, but the streets are included,
almost 30% of the Project Area is vacant land. Under any calculation, the maximum 20% vacant
land limitation of the statute is violated.
2. The Proposed Project Area is Not a Blighted Area
The Draft Report relies heavily on deterioration and dilapidation to support a finding of blight (at
Table B-1 and throughout). Even though deterioration and dilapidation are legally irrelevant to a
finding of blight unless bad enough to cause buildings to be unsafe or unhealthy for persons to
live or work, (Section 33031(a)(1) not one unsafe or unhealthy building is identified in the Draft
Repott. Table B-1 also establishes the following:
Only one (1) buibui^lding in the entire Project Area was found to require extensive rehabilitation.
Only twenty one (2 1) buildings in the entire 1454 acres was found to require "moderate
rehabilitation" (a term never defined in the Draft Report).
Only 8.8% of all buildings require moderate or extensive rehabilitation. 91.2% of all buildings
are just fine or only require things like a coat of paint.
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
May 20, 1997
Page 3
Yet the Draft Report claims that 62% of all Project Area buildings are suffer from "deterioration
and dilapidation", a clearly unsupported claim.
Table B-1 also establishes:
76% of all building have standard design and no design defects (the other 24% are simply
buildings built under older codes and are fully lawful non -conforming uses).
Over 95% of all improvements are compatible with surrounding uses.
80% of all buildings have adequate parking, even under the questionable criteria used in the
Draft Report.
Over 83% of all lots are free of defective design conditions.
Hazardous waste is mentioned as a blighting condition, yet is never linked to hindering the
economically viable use of a property as required by Section 33031(a)(2). The EIR demonstrates
that only 6 underground storage tanks in the entire City leak (Initial Study at page 19), a record
that would make Beverly Hills envious.
Geologic concerns are cited as a blighting condition. Yet the EIR flatly states that Geological
Problems are not an issue (Initial Study at p. 7 and Appendix p. 7) and does not even bother to
discuss the issue at all in the EIR.
NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL BLIGHT IS OFFERED!
As to economic blight, the Draft Report relies heavily on an "11%" decline is assessed values in
the Project Area, and the economic obsolescence of the retail centers in the Project Area.
First, even this erroneous figure is a five-year or three year figure (depending on which section of
the Draft Report is consulted). Justifying a 1454 acre redevelopment project based on a claimed
2-3% annual decline in assessed values in the middle of the worst real estate recession in decades
is ludicrous.
Second, the claimed 11% decline is just plain wrong and is based on totally discredited figures.
The figures used in a table on page B-20 of the Draft Report have been shown to be in error by as
much as $62 million based on the County Report on Project Area Assessed Values prepared as
required by Health & Safety Code Section 33328 (found at Section L of the Draft Report):
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City, of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
May 20, 1997
Page 4
Table B-20 says there was a $13,000,000 drop in assessed value, 95-96 to 96-97. The County
Report establishes only a $3,000,000 drop in assessed values, a S 10,000,000 error.
Unsecured assessed values are mysteriously ignored by the Agency's consultants in the entire
Draft Report. The County Report shows an' se in m¢ .c•ured assessed values of over
$3,500,000 from 95-96 to 96-97.
Table B-20 says 95-96 secured assessed values were $403 million; the County Report shows
them to really have been $341 million, a %,000,000 error.
Table B-20 says 96-97 secured assessed values were $390 million; the County Report shows
them to really have been $334 million, a $56,000 000 error.
The "11 % drop" in assessed values so heavily relied upon by the Draft Report is totally
discredited and cannot be relied upon. After the County Report was issued, the Agency
consultants have made NO EFFORT to explain their errors or correct their work. Applicable law
requires an analysis of the County Report to be included in the Draft Report (Section
33352(n)(1)), yet that part of the Draft Report has no such analysis.
The Draft Report, so bereft of factual support for physical or economic blight, resorts to
unsupported broad -brushed generalizations, culminating in the following ridiculous assertion,
totally belied by the Videotapes and other testimony:
"The majority of the retail properties in the Project Area [are] obsolete ... and
are no longer economically viable." (Page B-11)
It is incomprehensible that this statement be made in the face of the Draft Report's own statistics
(only 1 building requires extensive repair work; only 8.8% of all buildings require moderate or
extensive work; 75% of all buildings and 83% of all lots are free of any other conditions of
physical blight) and in the face of the reality of the Videotapes and other testimony showing busy
and thriving retail centers anchored by almost every conceivable nationally recognized and
financially strong tenant.
3. The Project Area Fails to Meet Other Eligibility Requirements
In order to qualify as a redevelopment project, the proposed Project Area must not only be
predominantly urbanized and blighted, but Section 33030 also requires that:
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
May 20, 1997
Page 5
• The combination of conditions of blight must be so prevalent and substantial (and
must predominate and injuriously affect the entire area, Section 33321);
• As to cause a lack of proper utilization;
• To the extent of being a serious physical and economic burden on the community;
• Which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise and/or governmental action without redevelopment.
The proposed Project Area flunks all of these requirements, each of which is necessary in and of
themselves for the Project Area to be valid and legal.
Blight conditions do not even exist in any significant way in the Project Area, let alone in
prevalent and substantial and predominate form, as shown above.
No lack of proper utilization can be shown to be caused by blight. Of the 1450 acres:
550 acres are properly utilized as freeways and streets;
100 acres are properly utilized as parks;
50 acres are properly utilized as schools;
320 acres are vacant non -urbanized property and are not suffering from any blight;
400+ acres are, with rare exception in a handful of cases, thriving retail and commercial
properties, overwhelmingly new or in excellent condition with strong nationally
recognized tenants.
No physical or economic burdens of any kind are identified on the community in the Draft
Report, let alone serious ones.
There is no blight to reverse or alleviate. Private enterprise will do just fine. For example, the
vacant parcels shown on the Videotapes in the Gateway Corporate Center will be built out when
it makes economic sense for their owners to do so. In the meantime, the ready to build vacant
parcels are not a burden to anyone.
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
May 20, 1997
Page 6
4. The Public Hearing Should Be Continued Due to Lack of Required Documentation
The notice of this public hearing said the Report to the City Council would be available to the
public for review. In fact it has not been. As late as May 16, the Friday before the hearing, only
the "Draft" Report was available, and the finalized Report has never been publicly available.
The hearing should be continued to allow proper preparation by the public and meaningful input.
Also Section 33352 has been violated, in that the final Report is required to accompany the
submission of the proposed Redevelopment Plan to the City Council. This was not done.
5. Owner Participation Rules Not Timely Adopted
Sections 33339.5 and 33345 require these crucial rules to be adopted a reasonable time before the
public hearing to give the public adequate time for review. This was not done.
6. Eminent Domain Not Clearly Explained
Section 33350 requires the Agency's power of eminent domain to be clearly explained in the
notice of public hearing. This was not done.
7. Project Feasibility Not Shown
Page C-6 of the Draft Report shows a substantial negative balance in the first three years of the
Project of as much as $138,000. There is no explanation of where this money is coming from.
The proposed method of financing in the Draft Report does not comply with Section 33352(e).
There is no year by year comparison of revenues and expenditures. It is impossible to determine
in any given year if the project is feasible.
8. No Description of Alleviation of Blight
The Implementation Plan in the Draft Report does not contain a description of how the proposed
projects will alleviate conditions of blight, as required by Section 33352. There is only a quote
of the statutory definition of blight (at pp. C-3/4) and a half page outline simply listing claimed
generalized categories of claimed blight in statutory terms (at p. C-5).
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
May 20, 1997
Page 7 _
9. No Explanation of Why Private Enterprise Incapable of Removing Any Blight
Without Redevelopment
The requirements of Section 33352(d), to explain why private enterprise acting along is not
sufficient to alleviate any conditions of blight that may be show to exist, are not satisfied.
The prohibitive cost of rehabilitation is mentioned in this section of the Draft Report. Yet only 1
building is identified as requiring extensive rehabilitation in the entire Project Area, and only
8.8% of all Project Area buildings are cited as needing moderate to extensive rehabilitation.
Difficulty and the high cost of assembling parcels is cited. This is ludicrous. The Project Area is
strewn with 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30, and even 50+ acre vacant parcels, many in ready to build
condition, such as the Gateway Center, and many in large single ownership, such as the huge
vacant parcels on Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon. There is no shortage of already
assembled single -ownership parcels available for development.
QUESTIONS
Please provide me with answers to the following questions which I could not find in the EIR and
the Draft Report:
• Are any crops planted or grown anywhere in the Project Area for commercial
purposes?
• What is the breakdown of land uses in the Project Area by acreage, including
residential, commercial, industrial, school, parks and other, with a separate
calculation for each category?
• Exactly how many dwelling units are located in the Project Area and how many
people reside in those dwelling units?
• How much land and what land in the Project Area is owned by the City of
Industry?
• Is a copy of the redevelopment plan, resolutions and adopting ordinance
available?
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
May 20, 1997
Page 8 _
For the many reasons demonstrated in this letter, the Videotapes and otherwise during the joint
public hearing, it is overwhelmingly clear that the proposed redevelopment project would be an
illegal and invalid project.
The proposed redevelopment project must be rejected by the City Council because it is illegal
and because it is harmful to the City:
• Eminent domain will be hanging over the head of every business -person in
Diamond Bar for no reason for 12 long years;
• The City will lose millions of dollars of general funds it would have otherwise
received in the absence of the redevelopment project;
• 20% of all tax increments must be spent on very -low, low and moderate income
housing in the City of Diamond Bar
• Diamond Bar will be known to the State Legislature as a "rogue city" ready,
willing and able to break the law.
I have been advised by your City Attorney that videotapes are made of all City Council
Meetings. It is hereby formally requested that the videotape of all City Council and Agency
meetings concerning the consideration of the proposed Project Area, including but not limited to
the joint public hearing, be saved and reproduced and made a part of the administrative record of
this matter.
It is respectfully requested that the Proposed Redevelopment Project be rejected by the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar.
Sincerely,
D . K."
Murray O. Kane
KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN
Counsel for Affected Property Owners
And Other Interested Persons
MURRAY O. KANE
Born Middlesex County, England, on July 14, 1946.
Admitted to the California Bar, January, 1971. -
University of California at Los Angeles
A. B. 1967
J. D. 1970
Mr. Kane is a nationally prominent lawyer specializing in the practice of redevelopment law.
Mr. Kane joined the firm in 1973 and has been a principal of the firm since 1978. He has
obtained extensive experience in the handling of all phases of redevelopment, including the
creation, organization and administration of agencies, creation of projects, relocation and owner
participation, public improvements, and land disposition. He served as General Counsel for the
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles for over fifteen (15) years and is
also primarily responsible for the firm's representation of the Culver City, Lynwood, Hawthorne,
Moreno Valley, San Jose and Whittier redevelopment agencies.
Mr. Kane also served as litigation counsel on validating actions involving the Central Business
District Redevelopment Project of the City of Los Angeles, the Alpine Redevelopment Project of
the City of Tulare, the Village Redevelopment Project of the City of Claremont, the
Redevelopment Plan of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana, and
other projects.
Among his other most noteworthy accomplishments have been:
• Creator of concept of insurability of Orders of Immediate Possession to permit conveyance
and construction financing prior to Agency ownership of fee title to property.
• Advised on first use of tax increment for affordable housing. 1974-75 (Mission Inn,
Riverside and Airport Move -0n Program, Los Angeles).
• Drafted redevelopment plan language as the basis for redevelopment affordable housing
set aside legislation.
• Successful adoptions of redevelopment plans under Disaster Redevelopment (Including
EXHIBIT A
Whittier plan, adopted six weeks after October, 1987 earthquake, and Santa Monica and
five Los Angeles Earthquake Recovery Plans adopted after January, 1994 earthquake).
q )
• Lead attorney in the negotiation and documentation of such projects as:
• Fox Hills Mall, Culver City.
• Central Library Revitalization Project
Maguire/Thomas Library Tower Project.
• County of Los Angeles First Street Properties.
• Whittier Quad (Earthquake Recovery Project)
• San Jose Convention Center Hotel
• Corporate Pointe, Culver City
• Cloverleaf Project, Hawthorne
Mr. Kane is a frequent lecturer on redevelopment topics to such organizations as the
California Cities, the Los Angeles County Bar Association and the California League of
Association, as well as serving as periodic guest lecturer of the Schools of Law and BuRedevelopment
Estate) of the University of Southern California, Business (Reil
redevelopment projects before Legislative Committeeees �f �e States testified
California Co
financing of
Kansas. Mr. Kane has also testified as an expert witness of the subject of redevelopmentColorado and
in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles and the Countyof
His expert testimony was recently relied upon by the California Supreme Court in Napa.
a major case decided in favor of redevelopment agencies of the State of Californiiaa. v Marek
Before joining the firm, Mr.Kane served as City Prosecutor, Assistant City Attorne
City Attorney for the City of Culver City, California, y and Acting
In those capacities Mr. Kanebad _
to all levels of city ISOnal and pry' responsibility for providing legal services
ty government all aspects
Council and planning Commission, of municipal law. He sat as legal counsel to City
and prosecuted all misdemeanors occurringwithin (both State and Municipal Code) and advised and defended the olive department thm the City
in civil and criminy matters He drafted all revisions to the MunicipalCode
d its officers
ordinances, resolutions and contracts all City
and federal courts in man , and represented City and its officers and
y civil litigation matters, includiempng
in state
validity of City ordinances and regulations, municipal finance, Policed personnel tt�' attacks on
EXHIBIT A
4 1
;RR
General Plan Land Use Designation RM
0 FM - Runsi
RL - Low Density Fosider" City of Pomona
OO RMk,
RLM - Lm~trn Density Powder"
RM
RM - Medim Density Rewdo
.40;"
F*M - Makm High Derwity Readar"
RLM RL PK
RH - Hit Density Residen F�
C General Cwvnerdsil
C.4
CD CWMWOW Olks, -IRM y R RL
OP Poftesional 0*6 RLM RR�
I Liaw t RL
PF Rift Fadky W. Water R Foe S: Sd)od
PK Pay
GC Gdf Cam
OS Open Spam
PR ftmb Recreation RL PA-1/SP
Ar. Ag&utxn
SP So ,in, Flen Om* RL
RL
City of Industry 08
PA Ranrft Ana
R
RL
:4;= RL
'RL FIV
RL
W
4.
ik
OK
RL
PK
RL !%anlAt'a
PK
City Of
Chino Hills
252 a—mid BW OV ftdwy
POM Bazdwy
M*1 Plopoaad ftodAtwe
F ure 4
0 500°x`
OW lost 19
General Plan, Designations for
(C -115a Economic Revitalizatlon Area and Adjacent Areas
City OfManond Eff Economic Revitalization Area
Redevelopment Agency 1-14 Environmental Impact Report
EXHIBIT B
- it
1.4 PHASING
No phasing has been established for redevelopment within the Project Area. This EIR
anticipates that buildout of the Project Area will occur over a 10- to 20 -year period.
1.5 RELATIONSHIP TO LOCAL PLANS
Land uses allowed under the proposed redevelopment plan will be those permitted by the
General Plan and City zoning ordinances as they exist today or are amended in the future.
The proposed redevelopment plan therefore, conforms to the City's General Plan and
proposes a consistent pattern of land uses, and includes all highways and public facilities
as indicated in the General Plan. As illustrated in Figure 4, the City's General Plan land
use map shows a variety of land use designations for the Project Area, as follows:
• RL - Low Density Residential (mas. 3 dwelling units per acre)
• C - General Commercial (max. 1.0 floor area ratio FAR)
• CO - Commercial/Office (max. 1.0 FAR)
• OP - Professional Office (max. 1.0 FAR)
• I - Light Industrial (max. 1.0 FAR) .
• PF - Public Facility '
• F - Fire Station
• S - School
• PK - Park
• PA/SP - Planning Area/Specific Plan Overlay
The City is currently in the process of revising its Zoning Map for consistency with the
existing General Plan.
Development limits and standards established by the City's General Plan and zoning
ordinances will apply to future development in the Project Area. In addition, the
proposed redevelopment plan allows for the Agency to establish building heights, mass,
setbacks, and other standards to further define limits and development standards for the
Project Area.
1.6 RELATED PROJECTS
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR address the impacts of the
proposed project plus "past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects producing
related or cumulative impacts." For the purposes of this EIR, related projects are a 40 -
acre industrial park project in the City of Industry, and a 280 -unit residential project north
of Grand Avenue and east of Diamond Bar Boulevard in Diamond Bar.
Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area
Redevelopment Agency 1-13 Environmental Impact Report
r•
General Plan Land Use Designation'RR\►
*
-`.
FR -Rural Reaidenlal
City of Pomona jF
-
{� FL -Low De WV FleeideMiel
- Lo*medun nearly Re.oenual
RM - hlesi,n verily Re.de�0a
•,
RW - ones,,,,
li Denny Rerdefal`�
IIIIIIIIIII. HO `^' _`7 Readarral
K
C Goo
4
CO cbnn,e,celomoe �t,5�ta°SS
OP Piobukx* Office
RR
® PF Ptak r•w ty w Nyle. F. Fie a Sava(
PK Perk
® GC Golf Cbuee
os Open Specie.
w - .
® PR AMN Reaeam
,7
.._
FIL
AG AgricUUs
® SP 81nfic Plan overlay
City ty of Industry
i PA Pa.6 Am
I
PK
PK
♦/
p` RR
a K+aA►
,;
City of
Chino Hills
R.
RR
.
C
Drnvd eraN ft m"
a
Px*d ewsYy
® VAMAMooaIftoctAm
�
K
I
Figure 2
° 5,0W 1"
General Plan Designations for
Economic Revitalization Area and Adjacent Areas
Initial Study
Diamond Bar
4 Economic Revitalization Area
EXHIBIT C
SOURCE: City of Diamond ear, RadaN.l MwN A MW
T�
�� 01
Figure 1
Project Location
Initial Study Diamond liar
3 Economic Revitalization Area
EXHIBIT
A - 5
JOHN RUSSELL DEANE 111
RICHARD W. SNOWDON III
CHARLES A. TRAINUM. JR.
CHRISTOPHER J. KERSTING
COUNSEL
THOMAS A. FRAZIER. JR.
LAW OFFICES
TRAINUM. SNOWDON & DEANE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
SUITE 550
1317 F STREET. N.W
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20004
12021 783-5488
FACSIMILE (20217133-5502
May 13, 1997
Mr: Terrence Belanger
Executive Director
Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
21660 East Copley Drive
Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Re: Obligations of SEMA Pursuant to Vre Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Plan
Dear Mr. Belanger:
VIRGINIA OFFICE
15 401 371-9419
MARYLAND OFFICE
;4101 2 68-918 2
v -1
--c
V
I am writing on behalf of the Specialty Equipment Market
Association (SEMA), for which this firm serves as general
counsel. SEMA has its headquarters located at 1575 South Valley
Vista Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. The SEMA building is
located within the "Revitalization Area" identified by the
Preliminary Report for the Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar
Economic Revitalization Area. The SEMA building is a modern,
attractive, fully -utilized structure.
Per our conversation this afternoon I have expressed to you
SEMA's concern that it may have to make costly improvements to
its property in order to comply with the terms of the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Plan, despite the fact that its building is modern
and attractive. You informed me that any action taken by the
Redevelopment Agency must be made pursuant to an agreement
between the Agency and the property owner. You then stated that
SEMA would not have to make any improvements to its property
because of the fact that its building is already in compliance
with the terms of the Redevelopment Plan. You told me that I
could take your statements "to the bank."
Per our conversation,
letter acknowledging that
true. I intend to advise
statements, and that SEMA
to its property.
I hereby request that you send me a
the above statements are accurate and
SEMA that they can rely on your
will not have to make any improvements
As you are aware, the hearing for this matter is on May 20,
1997, so I would appreciate it if you could send the letter as
soon as possible.
Thank you ,very much for your attention to this matter. If
You have any questions, please call me at the above numbers.
S
incerel
1/Steven Lust' , Esq.
CC: Linda A. Czarkowski
Vice President, Administration
Specialty Equipment Market Association
0
EXHIBIT B
WRITTEN FINDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS, COMMUNICATIONS AND
SUGGESTIONS PREPARED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND
SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 33363 AND 33364 IN CONNECTION WITH THE
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA
The preceding Exhibit "A-1," which is incorporated herein by
reference, are written communications from Mr. Robert W.
Nicholson, Vice President, Rosemead Properties, Inc., addressed
to the City Clerk and the Mayor and Members of the City Council
(the "City Council") of the City of Diamond Bar (the "City"),
dated April 29, 1997, and May 20, 1997, in connection with the
proposed adoption of the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment
Plan") for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the
"Project Area").
In such communications, Mr. Nicholson states that their
office building located at 22632 E. Golden Springs Drive
(Assessor's Parcel Nos. 8717-052-54 and 55), which has been
included in the proposed Project Area, is relatively new, in
excellent condition and well-maintained and they, therefore, deny
the existence of blight on their property.
In addition, Mr. Nicholson states that there is no apparent
relationship between the proposed public improvements set forth
in the Report to City Council and the alleviation or improvement
of blighting conditions described in the Report as required by
Health and Safety Code Section 33344.5(f).
Finally, Mr. Nicholson states that Rosemead Properties, Inc.
owns property within the proposed Project Area and pays real
property taxes, part of which benefit the City and is affected as
a property owner by the proposed adoption of the Redevelopment
Plan. Rosemead Properties, Inc. requests the City Council to
refuse to adopt the Redevelopment Plan or, in the alternative,
exclude the above-described property from the Project Area.
The following is the written findings of the City Council in
response to such communication:
With respect to the condition of the office building, the
City's redevelopment consultant, Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
("RSG") conducted a filed survey of existing physical and
economic conditions in June, 1996 and December, 1996. During
these surveys, conditions observed on the Rosemead property
included defective design (inadequate vehicular access) and
irregular lot shape (See attached Los Angeles County Assessor
Parcel Map book 87117, page 25). In addition, an analysis of the
secured assessed property value of this property was conducted
shortly after the first survey was completed. Information
obtained from TRW Redi-Data, MetroScan in September 1996
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 3 — 1— 1
(representing the fiscal year 1996-97 equalized assessment roll)
indicates that the value of this property has decreased by
approximately 300 over the last five years. The Report to City
Council (including the supplemental report) approved by the
Agency on May 20, 1997 (the "Report to City Council") addresses
these conditions on pages B-8, B-9, B-16 and B-19.
With respect to the relationship between the proposed public
improvements and the alleviation or improvement of blighting
conditions, the Report to City Council at pages A-9, A-10, B-27
and B-28 detail the public improvement deficiencies throughout
the Project Area, such as traffic and circulation deficiencies,
and identify blighting conditions in the Project Area which will
be alleviated by these improvements. For example, page A-10
states that intersection modifications and the construction of
turn lanes will correct the awkward alignment, street widths and
traffic patterns on the arterials, alleviate current traffic
congestion and safety hazards, and improve inadequate access to
commercial areas of the City, thereby correcting defective
design.
Mr. Nicholson indicates that Rosemead Properties, Inc. is a
property owner which pays property taxes and will be affected by
the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. Based upon information
in the Report to City Council, including Section M, the City
Council believes that property owners, businesses and residents
in the Project Area will all benefit from implementation of the
Redevelopment Plan. Redevelopment will assist in eliminating the
existing conditions of blight and preventing their reoccurrence.
This will increase property values and employment opportunities
within the Project Area.
The City Council finds that on the basis of information in
the record and the foregoing specific responses, the objections
of Mr. Nicholson to the proposed Redevelopment Plan are hereby
overruled and his request for the City Council to refuse to adopt
the Redevelopment Plan or, in the alternative, exclude the above-
described property from the Project Area is hereby denied.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B — 1— 2
The preceding Exhibit "A-2," which is incorporated herein by
reference, are written communications from Philip and Frances
Kerridge, addressed to the City Clerk and the Mayor of Diamond
Bar, dated May 12, 1997 and May 18, 1997, in connection with the
proposed adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area.
In such communications, Philip and Frances Kerridge indicate
that, as Diamond Bar property owners, they are opposed to the
Redevelopment Plan for the following reasons:
(1) They are concerned that the Agency is attempting to
gain the power of dictating whatever it wants in the area of land
use, building design and property confiscation. They are
concerned that "voluntary owner participation" as discussed in
Section 522 of the Redevelopment Plan is not voluntary
participation because of the provisions of Section 522 and 502 of
the Redevelopment Plan. They also question if loans are
voluntary.
(2) Based on general conscience, they are opposed to any
entity forcing the sale of or the taking of property by eminent
domain or any other means.
In addition, they contend the following:
(1) The Project Area is not predominately urbanized in
accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33320.1.
(2) The Project Area is not an area in which the
combination of conditions set forth in Health and Safety Code
Section 33031 is so prevalent and so substantial that it causes a
reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such
an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and economic
burden on the community, which cannot reasonably be expected to
be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental
action, or both, without redevelopment.
(3) The physical conditions in the Project Area set forth
in the Report to City Council are general and conclusory,
regurgitating the language of Health and Safety Code Section
33031(a), without specifying if the conditions set forth in the
section are existing in the Project Area and where they may be
found.
(4) The discussion concerning economic conditions in the
proposed Project Area is general and conclusory, repeating the
language of the statute. Data and analyses regarding depreciated
values or impaired investments show no direct relationship to the
Project Area and blighted conditions.
(5) Neither physical nor economic conditions of blight, nor
any combination thereof, predominate throughout the proposed
Project Area.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B — 2— 1
(6) The data concerning assessed valuation is out of date
and misleading and contradicted by more current data supplied by
the County of Los Angeles.
(7) There is no apparent relationship between the proposed
public improvements set forth in the Report to City Council and
the alleviation or improvement of the blighting conditions
described in the Report as required by Health and Safety Code
Section 33344.5(f).
They conclude that the Redevelopment Plan gives the Agency
far too much control over the rights of individual property
owners and that they are opposed to the proposed Redevelopment
Plan.
The following is the written findings of the City Council in
response to such communication:
The Kerridges express a concern that the Agency may dictate
whatever it wants in the area of land use, building design and
property confiscation. No rezoning is contemplated by the
proposed Redevelopment Plan. Instead, Section 601 of the
Redevelopment Plan provides that the land uses permitted by the
Redevelopment Plan shall be those permitted by the City's General
Plan and zoning ordinances. In addition, Section 609 provides
that the type, size, height, number and use of buildings within
the Project Area will be controlled by the applicable City
planning and zoning ordinances. Section 620 provides that
subiect to the provisions of Sections 601 and 609, the Agency is
authorized to establish heights of buildings, land coverage,
setback requirements, parking requirements, design criteria,
traffic circulation, traffic access and other development and
design controls necessary for proper development of the Project
Area.
The Kerridges' express a concern that owner participation in
the conservation and rehabilitation of buildings as set forth in
Section 533 of the Redevelopment Plan is not voluntary because of
the provisions of Section 502 of the Redevelopment Plan. Section
502 of the Redevelopment Plan provides that the Agency may
acquire property in the Project Area by any means, including
eminent domain. However, Section 502 also provides that the
Agency shall not acquire property on which an existing building
is to be continued on its present site and in its present form
and use without the consent of the owner unless (1) the building
requires structural alteration, improvement, modernization or
rehabilitation; or (2) the site or lot on which the building is
situated requires modification in size, shape or use; or (3) it
is necessary to impose upon such property any of the standards,
restrictions and controls of the Redevelopment Plan and the owner
fails or refuses to participate in the Redevelopment Plan by
executing an owner participation agreement.
Any loans by the Agency to a property owner are voluntary.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-2-2
The Kerridges are opposed to the use of eminent domain by
the Agency. The Redevelopment Plan contains authority for the
Agency to exercise the power of eminent domain because the type
and extent of parcel assemblage required cannot always be
accomplished by private developers without Agency assistance. In
addition, the provision of needed public improvements may require
eminent domain. Therefore, the City Council believes it is
necessary to include the power of eminent domain in the
Redevelopment Plan. However, the Agency intends to accomplish
all redevelopment with as little displacement as possible and
will make every effort to accomplish the redevelopment of the
Project Area without the use of eminent domain. A goal of the
Agency and the City Council is to accomplish the retention and
expansion of as many existing businesses as possible and there
are no current plans to condemn any property. If the occasion
arises where property in the Project Area is to be acquired by
the Agency by eminent domain, this may occur only after proper
notice and the payment of just compensation, including relocation
assistance, as required under the Community Redevelopment Law.
The Kerridges contend that the Project Area is not
predominately urbanized in accordance with Health and Safety Code
Section 33320.1. Health and Safety Code Section 33320.1 defines
a project area as a predominantly urbanized area of a community.
"Predominantly urbanized" means that not less than 80 percent of
the land in the project area (i) has been or is developed for
urban uses, or (ii) is characterized by the existence of
subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size
for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple
ownership, or (iii) is an integral part of one or more areas
developed for urban uses which are surrounded or substantially
surrounded by parcels which have ben or are developed for urban
uses. As set forth in Appendix 3 of the Report to City Council,
the Project Area is predominantly urbanized. The Project Area
contains 1,300 acres and approximately 1,225 (or 94%) of these
acres are developed for urban uses or are an integral part of an
area developed for urban use. Approximately 75 acres (or 60) are
nonurbanized. Thus, the Project Arda meets the requirements of
Health and Safety Code Section 33320.1.
The Kerridges allege that the Project Area does not meet the
requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law. Substantial
evidence has been presented to the City Council to support a
finding that the Project Area is blighted to such an extent that
it causes a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the
area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and
economic burden on the community, which cannot reasonably be
expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or
governmental action, or both, without redevelopment. Data
.presented in Section B and Appendices 2 and 4 of the Report to
City Council document that conditions of blight predominate the
Project Area and cause a reduction of and lack of proper
utilization of the Project Area to such an extent that it causes
a serious physical and economic burden on the City. Table B-1
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-2-3
indicates that 65.20% of the buildings (58.070 of the parcels) in
the Project Area suffer from one or more physical blighting
conditions; 49.20% of the buildings (38.51% of the parcels)
suffer from one or more economic blighting conditions; and 89.600
of the buildings (71.12% of the parcels) suffer from one or more
physical and/or economic conditions of blight. Section D of the
Report to City Council documents why the elimination of blight
cannot be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone or
through financial alternatives other than tax increment
financing. As documented in Section D of the Report to City
Council, the conditions of blight in the Project Area have
continued to worsen over time despite the City's efforts to
encourage commercial and industrial property owners to
rehabilitate properties to facilitate the removal of physical and
economic impediments to economic development. Private
development has been hindered by the risks associated with
investment in the Project Area. Property owners tend to be
dissuaded from rehabilitating their property unless the
surrounding property owners also do so. Absent this assurance,
individual property owners assume that their individual efforts
will not affect the area and they will lose their investments.
The lack of incentive to develop or rehabilitate property in the
Project Area is evidenced by the extremely low numbers of
building permits issued from 1992 to 1994, compared to
surrounding Cities, and high vacancies. Section D of the Report
to City Council cites the following reasons for the inability of
private enterprise to eliminate blighting conditions in the
Project Area: 1) the prohibitive cost of rehabilitation,
especially when property values and lease rates are declining due
to high business vacancies; (2) the difficulty of assembling
parcels by private developers without Agency assistance when
dealing with multiple property owners; and (3) the high cost of
assembling parcels that often outweigh benefits of such activity
given current conditions in the Project Area. As documented in
the Report to City Council, other sources of revenue, including
state and federal funds, general obligation bonds, general funds
of the City, special assessments, development fees and special
taxes are insufficient to implement redevelopment of the Project
Area.
The Kerridges allege that the physical conditions in the
Project Area set forth in the Report to City Council are general
and conclusory, regurgitating the language of Health and Safety
Code Section 33031(a), without specifying if the conditions set
forth in the section are existing in the Project Area and where
they may be found. While the Report to City Council describes
physical conditions that fall within the statutory definition of
physical blight contained in Health and Safety Code Section
33031(a)(such as substandard design), the Report does not merely
recite the statute. Instead, Section B describes all of the
physical blighting conditions in the Project Area and describes
where these conditions exist. For example, the Report describes
the instances of substandard design in the Project Area,
including obsolescence, outdoor storage and inadequate loading.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B - 2- 4
In addition, Appendix 2 contains a map of the blighting
conditions and Appendix 4 contains photographs of the blighting
conditions.
The Kerridges make the same allegation with respect to
economic conditions in the Project Area. Further, they allege
that data and analyses regarding depreciated values or impaired
investments show no direct relationship to the Project Area and
blighted conditions. Again, the Report to Council describes
economic conditions that fall within the statutory definition of
economic blight contained in Health and Safety Code Section
33031(b),but does not merely recite the statute. Instead,
Section B describes all of the economic blighting conditions in
the Project Area and describes where these conditions exist. In
addition, Appendix 2 contains a map of the blighting conditions
and Appendix 4 contains photographs of the blighting conditions.
Regarding data in connection with depreciated values or impaired
investments, the data contained in the Report to City Council
provides secured assessed property values for the current fiscal
year (fiscal year 1996-97) and for prior fiscal years, including
fiscal years 1993-94 through 1995-96 for the Project Area. The
data for the current fiscal year was obtained from TRW Redi-Data,
MetroScan, a service which provides current property information,
including secured assessed values, and reflects the official
equalized Los Angeles County assessment roll as of August 10 of
each year. Based on converstations with the Los Angeles County
Assessor's Office and the Auditor-Contoller's Office, property
values may change after the assessment roll is equalized as a
result of recordation of property transfers, assessment appeals,
etc.
Information from the County regarding secured assessed
valuation for fiscal years 1993-94 through 1996-97 was not
available prior to the receipt by the Agency of the County's base
year report on March 25, 1997 (nearly 60 days later than the time
precribed by the Community Redevelopment Law for preparation of
the base year report by the County). The Community Redevelopment
Law provides that if the base year report is not recevied by the
Agency within the time prescribed, the Agency may proceed with
the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. Because the County did
not provide the base year report within the prescribed time, TRW
Redi-Data MetroScan information was utilized in order to provide
a reasonable analysis of property values in recent years. After
the base year report was received, this information was not
incorporated into the analysis for the following three reasons:
a. As shown in Section L of the Report to City Council, the
base year report provided secured and unsecured property
values for the Project Area for fiscal years 1995-96 and
1996-97 only.
b. To avoid comparing inconsistent data (i.e., "apples and
oranges"). The secured and unsecured values are current
as of March 1997. In contrast, the TRW data reflects
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-2-5
values (which are updated each year based on county data)
as of the date the assessment roll is equalized, or
August 10. In order to keep this analysis consistent in
terms of the date the secured values are reviewed, it is
inappropriate to look at the secured assessed valuation
of the Project Area as of August 10, 1994 for fiscal year
1994-95 and then look at the secured assessed valuation
of the Project Area as of March 1997 (which is not a
meaningful date for the Assessor's Office as these values
are still subject to change before the next equalization
date).
C. Recent discussions with staff from the Los Angeles County
Auditor -Controller's Office (which prepares the base year
report) indicate that the County Assessor's Office has
submitted incorrect secured and unsecured valuation
information to the Auditor's office for use in base year
reports for other redevelopment projects. During phone
conversations (in February and March 1997) between RSG
and the County regarding the lateness of the base year
report, a staff person in the Auditor's Office stated
that secured and/or unsecured valuation data had been
recently rejected and sent back to the Assessor's Office
for correction. The Auditor's staff indicated that
during this fiscal year, a number of discrepancies in the
Assessor's reports of base year values were found by the
Auditor's office. This type of error has been prevalent
in recent years as several Los Angeles County
jurisdictions, including the City of Long Beach, have
either filed lawsuits or are in the process of joining
other law suits against Los Angeles County due to errors
in base year value information.
It should be noted, however, that the total secured and
unsecured valuation pursuant to the base year report was
inadvertently included in error in Table B-4 of the Report to
City Council) in fiscal year 1996-97 only. However, a
corrected Table B-4, attached hereto, shows the correct
secured valuation, based on TRW data, for fiscal year 1996-97.
As shown on Table B-4, the net effect of this change is
minuscule as secured property values continue to show an 11t
decrease over this time period. [NOTE- THE VALUES SHOWN IN THE
ATTACHED TABLE B-4 WERE THE SAME VALUES WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN
THE PRELIMINARY REPORT AS TABLE B-21
The Kerridges' concern regarding the relationship'between
the proposed public improvements and the alleviation or
improvement of the blighting conditions was addressed in the City
Council's written response set forth in B-1, which is
incorporated.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B — 2— 6
The City Council finds that on the basis of information in
the record and the foregoing specific responses, the objections
of the Kerridges to the proposed Redevelopment Plan are hereby
overruled.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B - 2- 7
The preceding Exhibit "A-3," which is incorporated herein by
reference, is a written communication from Mr. Dale Yoder
received by the City Council and the Agency at the Town Hall
Meeting held on the Redevelopment Plan on May 3, 1997.
In such communication, Mr. Yoder contends that the
Preliminary Report cites real estate brokers as a source
indicating that the City is more severely impacted than other
surrounding cities and that this is a general statement not
backed by statistics. Further, Mr. Yoder contends that Brea,
Industry and Pomona have large malls, Industry is a "completely
different animal" and what is happening in Pomona has not been
fully established at this time. Mr. Yoder contends that the main
loss by investors is occurring because of the building of large
office buildings and the high rent asked by some of the local
owners. Mr. Yoder also contends that the main factor in
declining lease revenues was overbuilding and changes in use and
ways of use. Mr. Yoder contends that no one will want to use the
buildings no matter what they look like or how easy they are to
see from the freeway and that a "pretty building" does not
guarantee more income. Mr. Yoder expresses concern regarding
putting existing businesses out of business because of higher
taxes. He suggests to "leave it alone" and economics of supply
and demand will control and that keeps government out of business
too.
Mr. Yoder requests information regarding the actual increase
in revenues in San Dimas and Fullerton and downtown Pomona.
Mr. Yoder asks about the new development of Diamond Bar
areas which are presently vacant land. He contends that a great
amount of the "blighted" area is on or directly adjacent to
freeways and is not suitable for redevelopment due to grading
deficiencies and the size of plots.
Mr. Yoder concludes that the pay back of funds used for
redevelopment is to come from taxes on successful business
operations and that this is a "crapshoot."
The following is the written findings of the City Council in
response to such communication:
Real estate brokers which provided information for the
Report to City Council include representatives from CB
Commercial, Seeley and Company, City Investments and Pacific
Realty. All of these brokers are licensed in the State of
California as real estate professionals. Brokers representing
specific vacant properties in the Project Area provided site
specific data, such as the total number of vacant square feet and
the length of time a property has been vacant. The brokers also
discussed their personal experience with vacancies in the Project
Area and other cities, if applicable. Additionally, CB
Commercial, one of the largest commercial real estate brokerage
firms in the state, produces quarterly reports every year which
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 2-3-1
contain statistics regarding vacancies by city, county and region
for the entire state of California. Not only was a broker at CB
Commercial contacted, but information from their quarterly
reports was provided on page 3-25 of the Report to City Council.
The City Council is unable to respond to Mr'. Yoder's
contendion regarding Brea, Industry and Pomona because of the
nonspecific nature of his comments. However, the City Council
agrees that these cities have large malls.
Regarding Mr. Yoder's contention in connection with
declining lease revenues, after extensive data gathering and
analysis, as well as research into a wide spectrum of issues
pertaining to the physical and economic conditions in the Project
Area (cited throughout Section B of the Report to City Council,
with data sources identified in Appendix 1), RSG did not uncover
any information indicating that declining lease revenues have
resulted from overbuilding and changes in land uses.
Mr. Yoder's contention that no one will want to use the
buildings in the Project Area regardless of what they look like,
is mere speculation. In addition, this contention is
contradicted by the results of the consumer preferences survey of
Diamond Bar residents set forth in Section B of the Report to
City Council (pages B-22 through B-24 of the Report to City
Council, with corresponding tables and graphs). This survey
indicates that 70% of the respondents shop outside of Diamond
Bar. Nearly 241 of respondents indicated that the shopping areas
do not provide an attractive environment in which to shop. In
addition, in response to a question regarding what can be done to
improve retail buinsess in Diamond Bar, a number of residents
suggested that the appearance of retail businesses should be
improved. Additional information on page B-24 of the Report to
City Council, regarding discussions with real estate
professionals from the firms stated above, directly addresses the
reasons that the appearance and design of commercial areas in the
Project Area negatively impact income earning opportunities.
With respect to the suggestion to allow private enterprise
to correct the blighting conditions in the Project Area, there
has been substantial evidence presented to the City Council that
private enterprise acting alone could not be expected to reverse
or alleviate the conditions of blight in the Project Area. This
was addressed in the City Council's written response set forth in
B-1 and is incorporated.
Increases and/or decreases in revenues for Pomona and Los
Angeles County as a whole are contained on page B-22 of the
Report to City Council. Information for San Dimas and Fullerton
is not available.
Mr. Yoder provides no support for his contention that areas
adjacent to freeways are not suitable for redevelopment.
Regarding the development of vacant land, in implementing the
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 3-3-2
Redevelopment Plan, the Agency will have the flexibilty to work
with propety owners to overcome factors which prevent the
economically viable use of the properties. However, no specific
plans are in place to undertake these types of activities at this
time. The Agency will review the needs of the Project Area and
these issues on a case by case basis over the life of the Plan.
With respect to the concern regarding higher taxes on
businesses and the pay back of funds, redevelopment projects will
be funded by tax increment financing, as authorized by Section
33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law. Tax increment
financing does not mean that taxes will be raised. A
redevelopment agency has no power to levy a tax. Rather, as
property is improved throughout the Project Area and the taxes
collected from the Project Area increase, the Agency receives the
increase (called tax increment). Individual property owners are
still protected by Proposition 13, however, and will not be
subject to higher taxes unless the property is reassessed as a
result of a transfer or substantial improvement. Also, in no
case will individuals be co -signors or will a lien be placed on
individual property owners to repay Agency debt.
The City Council finds that on the basis of information in
the record and the foregoing specific responses, the objections
of Mr. Yoder to the proposed Redevelopment Plan are hereby
overruled and his suggestion to not adopt the Redevelopment Plan'
is not accepted.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/qp/sas 1672881 2 B - 3- 3
The preceding Exhibit "A-4," which is incorporated herein by
reference, is a written communication from Mr. Murray Kane of
Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, addressed to the Mayor and Members of
the City Council and the Chair and Members of the Agency, dated
May 20, 1997, in connection with the proposed adoption of the
Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area.
In such communication, Mr. Kane contends as follows:
(1) The Project Area is not predominantly urbanized. Mr.
Kane contends that the Report to City Council's characterization
of 190 acres of vacant undeveloped land as urbanized and an
integral part of an area developed for urban uses is not
supported. Mr. Kane contends that freeways, streets and parks
should not be counted as developed land.
(2) The Project Area is not a blighted area. He contends
that the Report to City Council relies heavily on deterioration
and dilapidation to support a finding of blight, but that not one
unsafe or unhealthy building is identified in the Report. He
contends that the Report claims that 62% of all Project Area
buildings suffer from deterioration and dilapidation and that
this is unsupported. He recites that the Report establishes that
91.2% of the buildings are just fine or only require things like
a coat of paint; 76% of all buildings have standard design and no
design defects and that the other 24% are simply buildings built
under older codes and are fully lawful non -conforming uses; over
95% of all improvements are compatible with surrounding uses; 8011
of all buildings have adequate parking; over 83% of all lots are
free of defective design conditions; hazardous waste is not
linked to hindering the economically viable use of a property as
required by Health and Safety Code Section 33031 (a)(2) and only
6 underground storage tanks in the City leak; and that while
geologic concerns are cited as a blighting condition, the EIR
states that geological problems are not an issue and does not
discuss this.
As to economic blight,.Mr. Kane contends that the Report to
City Council relies heavily on an 11% decline in assessed values
in the Project Area over a number of years (3 or 5) and the
economic obsolescence of the retail centers in the Project Area.
He disagrees that a 2-3% annual decline in assessed values in the
middle of one of the worst real estate recessions in decades
justifies establishing the Project Area. He also alleges that
the 11% decline is based on discredited figures and are in error
by as much as $62 million based on the County report on the
Project Area. Mr. Kane alleges that the Report to City Council
does not cite unsecured assessed values, while the County report
shows an increase in unsecured assessed values of over $3.5
million from 1995-96 to 1996-97.
Mr. Kane alleges that the Report to City Council resorts to
unsupported generalizations which are not supported by other
testimony or Mr. Kane's videotape (submitted by Mr. Kane to the
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-4-1
City Council on May 20, 1997 at the joint public hearing),
including the statement that "The majority of the retail
properties in the Project Area [are] obsolete ... and are no
longer economically viable."
(3) Mr. Kane alleges that the Project Area fails to meet
other eligibility requirements, including the requirement that
the combination of conditions of blight must be so prevalent and
substantial (and must predominate and injuriously affect the
entire area) as to cause a lack of proper utilization to the
extent of being a serious physical and economic burden on the
community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or
alleviated by private enterprise and/or governmental action
without redevelopment. Mr. Kane asserts that blight conditions
do not exist in any significant way in the Project Area.
Mr. Kane asserts that the lack of proper utilization of the
Project Area has not been shown to be caused by blight because
550 acres are properly utilized as freeways and streets; 100
acres are properly utilized as parks; 50 acres are properly
utilized as schools; 320 acres are vacant non -urbanized property
and are not suffering from any blight; and 400+ acres are, with
rare exception, thriving retail and commercial properties.
(4) Mr. Kane asserts that the public hearing should be
continued due to a lack of required documentation because the
Report to City Council was not available for public review. He
also asserts that Health and Safety Code Section 33352 was
violated because the final Report did not accompany the
submission of the proposed Redevelopment Plan to the City
Council.
(5) Mr Kane asserts that owner participation rules were not
adopted a reasonable time before the public hearing.
(6) Mr. Kane asserts that the notice of the joint public
hearing did not clearly explain the Agency's power of eminent
domain.
(7) Mr. Kane asserts that the Report to Council shows a
negative balance in the first three years of the project of as
much as $138,000, without explaining where this money is coming
from. He also asserts that the proposed method of financing in
the Report does not comply with Health and Safety Code Section
33352(e) because there is no year by year comparison of revenues
and expenditures and it is impossible to determine in any given
year if the project is feasible.
(8) Mr. Kane asserts that the Implementation Plan does not
contain a description of how the proposed projects will alleviate
conditions of blight, as required by Health and Safety Code
Section 33352.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B - 4- 2
(9) Mr. Kane asserts that the Report does not explain why
private enterprise acting alone is not sufficient to alleviate
any conditions of blight. He contends that while the Report
indicates that the cost of rehabilitation is prohibitive, the
Report only identifies one building which requires extensive
rehabilitation and only 8.80 of all Project Area buildings as
needing moderate to extensive rehabilitation. He also asserts
that while difficulty and the high cost of assembling parcels is
cited, the Project Area contains 1 to 50+ acre in size parcels,
many in ready to build condition and many in large single
ownership. He concludes that there is no shortage of already
assembled single -ownership parcels available for development.
Mr. Kane contends that the proposed redevelopment project
must be rejected by the City Council because it is illegal and
because it is harmful to the City for the following'reasons: the
power of eminent domain will be a threat to every business person
for 12 years with no reason; the City will lose millions of
dollars of general funds it would have otherwise received in the
absence of a redevelopment project; 20% of all tax increment must
be spent on very low, low and moderate income housing in the
City; and Diamond Bar will be known to the State Legislature as a
"rouge city" ready, willing and able to break the law.
Mr. Kane requests that the videotape of all Agency and City
Council meetings concerning the consideration of the proposed
Project Area be made a part of the administrative record on this
matter. He also requests the City Council to reject the proposed
project.
The following is the written findings of the City Council in
response to such communication:
With respect to Mr. Kane's first contention, substantial
evidence has been presented to the City Council that the Project
Area is predominantly urbanized. This was addressed in the City
Council's written response contained in B-2 and is incorporated.
The Project Area includes 190.80 acres of undeveloped land which
is an integral part of an area developed for urban uses. Each
undeveloped property was analyzed by a review of the Los Angeles
County Assessor parcel maps and land use information from the
field surveys conducted in June and December 1996, in order to
determine the developed status of surrounding properties.
Undeveloped properties were designated as urbanized if they were
an integral part of one or more areas which are surrounded or
substantially surrounded by parcels which have been or are
developed for urban uses. In the event that parcels were
separated by only an improved right-of-way, those parcels were
deemed adjacent, pursuant to section 33320.1(b)(3) of the
Community Redevelopment Law. Pursuant to the Community
Redevelopment Law, those vacant properties which are adjacent to
an area developed for urban uses on multiple sides of the given
property were deemed as undeveloped, but urbanized and an
integral part of an urban area. For example, several of the
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B - 4- 3
vacant parcels in the Gateway Center were deemed as an integral
part of an area or areas developed for urban uses because these
properties are either completely surrounded or surrounded on
multiple sides by existing office buildings which are developed,
urban uses. Parks have been eliminated from the Project Area.
Mr. Kane offers no reason or evidence why freeways and streets
should not be counted as developed land. Streets and freeways
are not raw, undeveloped land; they are developed for roadway
purposes. In addition, Health and Safety Code Section 33320.1
includes publicly owned land within the 80% of land which must be
urbanized.
With respect to Mr. Kane's second contention that the
Project Area is not blighted, this was addressed in the City
Council's written response set forth in B-2 and is incorporated.
Contrary to Mr. Kane's assertion, the Report to City Council does
identify unsafe or unhealthy buildings. For example, the Report
cites buildings with deteriorated roofs, exposed wiring and
outdoor storage of materials and other debris. Further, it is
incorrect that the Report relies heavily on deterioration to
establish blight as this is just one of numerous blighting
conditions noted in the Project Area as discussed in Section B of
the Report. Mr. Kane also incorrectly states that the Report to
City Council claims that 62% of all Project Area buildings suffer
from deterioration and dilapidation. Rather, the Report to City
Council states that 62% of the buildings in the Project Area are
in need of maintenance ranging from deferred maintenance to
extensive rehabilitation. The breakdown of the number of
buildings and parcels within this range is provided on Table B-1
of the Report to City Council. As cited in Section B, structures
in the Project Area were observed to exhibit more significant
condtions than simply requiring a coat of paint. Many of these
6211 of buildings also suffer from other physical and/or economic
blighting conditions.
In citing the percentage of buildings which do not suffer
from a particular blighting condition (e.g., 760 of buildings
have standard design), Mr. Kane fails to recognize that the
Community Redevelopment Law does not require every building or
parcel in the Project Area to be characterized by each condition
of physical blight set forth in the Community Redevelopment Law.
In fact, the Community Redevelopment Law only requires that a
project area to be characterized by one of the conditions of
physical blight set forth in the Community Redevelopment Law. In
addition, Mr. Kane fails to recognize that buildings which are of
standard design suffer from other physical and/or economic
blighting conditions. overall, 65.20 of the buildings and 58.07%
of the parcels in the Project Area suffer from one or more
physical blighting conditions.
With respect to the buildings identified as suffering from
substandard design, the Report to City Council documents that the
Project Area contains strip retail centers and shopping centers
which are obsolete, and, as a result, suffer from high vacancies.
9"70530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-4-4
Mr. Kane's statement that the buildings observed to exhibit
substandard design are "simply buildings built under older codes
and are fully lawful" has no significance with reagrd to the
information presented in Section B of the Report to City Council.
The blighting condition in which substandard design is included
is "factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically
viable use or capacity of buildings or lots." The legal status
of structures does not influence the economic use of the
structures.
With respect to hazardous waste, the Report to City Council
contains a discussion of the manner in which the presence of
hazardous materials negatively affects potential private
investment in the Project Area in Section B of the Report. The
Report also includes a full discussion of geotechnical problems.
With respect to Mr. Kane's contentions regarding economic
blight, the decline in assessed values is not the only factor
justifying the establishment of the Project Area. In addition,
the Report to City Council indicates that the Project Area
experienced an 11% decline while the City experienced a 3%
increase and the County only experienced a 2% decline.
With respect to the allegation that the figures in the
Report to City Council are in error, this was addressed by the
City Council in the City Council's written response contained in
B-2 and is incorporated.
With respect to the allegation regarding unsecured values,
unsecured valuation information for any fiscal years was not
available prior to the receipt of the base year report in late
March 1997. Secondly, analyzing changes in unsecured assessed
value is often extremely misleading due to the fact that these
values can increase and decrease significantly (unrelated to
value changes on an annual basis). These dramatic changes often
result from the movement of fixtures and equipment in and out of
an area, and from the practices of the assessor's office in the
assignment of values between the secured and unsecured rolls.
For example, the assessor's office may initially assign the value
of a long term lease to the unsecured assessment roll, and then
subsequently transfer the value in the next year to the secured
assessment roll based upon the assessor's determination that the
leasee has a vested interest in the property.
With respect to Mr. Kane's allegation that the Report to
City Council does not support the statement that "The majority of
the retail properties in the Project Area [are] obsolete . and
are no longer economically viable," the Report to City Council in
Section B cites real estate trade and business journal articles,
statements made by representatives of Koll Development and CB
Commercial, real estate professionals, an economic study prepared
by ERA, taxable retail sales per capita as provided by the
California State Board of Equalization and a consumer preferences
survey of residences in Diamond Bar by PRS as support for this
970530 10572-00001 rdh/ap/sas 1672881 2 3-4-5
statement. Appendix 1 to the Report to City Council lists
information sources relied on by RSG. Mr. Kane gives no other
examples of what he deems to be unsupported statements.
With respect to Mr. Kane's third contention that the Project
Area fails to meet other eligibility requirements, this was
addressed in the City Council's written response set forth in B-2
and is incorporated. Mr. Kane's assertion that blight conditions
do not exist in any significant way in the Project Area is
contradicted by the evidence contained in the Report to City
Council. The Report indicates that 65.21 of the buildings and
58.070 of the parcels in the Project Area suffer from one or more
physical blighting conditions; 49.20 of the buildings and 38.511
of the parcels suffer from one or more economic blighting
conditions; and 89.616 of the buildings and 71.1216 of the parcels
suffer from one or more physical and/or economic blighting
conditions.
With respect to Mr. Kane's assertion that the lack of proper
utilization of the Project Area has not been shown, the Report
documents that blighting conditions predominate the Project Area
and injuriously affect the entire Project Area. For example, the
Project Area is characterized by high business vacancies,
declining property values, low per capita sales tax revenues,
sales tax leakage, and declining building permit value. This has
led to a reduction of and lack of proper utilization of the
Project Area and a serious burden on the City. In addition, the
Project Area is characterized by traffic circulation
deficiencies.
Mr. Kane's characterization of retail and commercial
properties as thriving ignores evidence in the Report to City
Council of abnormally high business vacancies in the Project
Area. Of the 250 buildings in the Project Area, a total of 67
buildings (or 27% of.all buildings) and over 150 tenant spaces,
are partially or 100 percent vacant. The Ranch Center has a
vacancy rate of 56°k. The Golden Springs Plaza has a vacancy rate
of 50% and the County Hills. Town Center has a vacancy rate of
44k. Overall, the average vacancy rate for all Project Area
retail centers is 24%.
Mr. Kane's assertion that private enterprise will do just
fine is discussed in the City Council's written response set
forth in B-3 and is incorporated.
With respect to Mr. Kane's allegation that the vacant
parcels in the Gateway Corporate Center will be built out when it
makes economic sense and that, in the meantime, they are not a
burden, as referenced on page B-19 of the Report to City Council,
the vacant property in Gateway Center suffers from depreciated
property values, as indicated by a representative of the Seeley
Company, a real estate firm representing vacant property in the
Gateway Center. This representative recently confirmed that land
prices for all of the vacant land in Gateway Center have dropped
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672981 2 3-4-6
by 50% per square foot in the last year alone. Additionally,
given the freeway visibility and the grading of the lots (which
translate into minimal preparation costs by a potential
developer), the lack of interest in the area appears to be caused
by the negative economic climate which covers the Project Area.
Section B-1 of the Report to City Council provides information
regarding the sources of this negative climate. The fact that
there is private sector interest and significant building permit
activity occurring in cities as close as a few miles away (see
page B-20 and 3-21 of the Report to City Council) provides a
strong indicator that investment in the Project Area is impaired.
The lack of development in this commercial area has also
contributed to the stagnation and decline in retail sales tax
revenues, which has resulted in a financial burden on the City,
despite their efforts to attract investment and businesses to the
Project Area.
With respect to Mr. Kane's allegations regarding the Report
to City Council, the final Report to City Council accompanied the
submission of the proposed Redevelopment Plan to the City
Council. Prior to opening the joint public hearing on the
Redevelopment Plan, the Agency adopted its Resolution No. R-97-09
approving the Report to the City Council and authorizing its
transmittal, all in accordance with Health and Safety Code
Section 33352. In addition, prior to its approval of the Report
to City Council, the Agency made the draft report available for
public inspection.
With respect to the Owner Participation Rules, the Agency by
its Resolution No. R-97-02, adopted on March 18, 1997, approved
draft Owner Participation Rules and made such Rules available for
public inspection. On May 20, 1997, the City Council finally
approved the Owner Participation Rules with no changes. The
public was provided with ample opportunity to review the Owner
Participation Rules.
With respect to the notice of the joint public hearing, Mr.
Kane alleges that the notice did not clearly explain the Agency's
power of eminent domain, but does not provide any specific
criticisms of the notice. Therefore, the City Council is unable
to respond to Mr. Kane's comment further because of the
nonspecific nature of Mr. Kane's comments: he failed to identify
any ambiguities, misleading statements or lack of facts. The
Agency followed all notice procedures required by the Community
Redevelopment Law in connection with the joint public hearing of
the City Council and the Agency on the proposed Redevelopment
Plan. Each notice of the joint public hearing was accompanied by
a statement that property in the Project Area would be subject to
acquisition by eminent domain in accordance with Health and
Safety Code Section 33350 and the Agency and City Council fully
complied with Section 33350.
With respect to Mr. Kane's concern regarding the negative
balance in the first three years of the project, the negative
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-4-7
balance shown in the Implementation Plan (Section C of the Report
to City Council) is indicated to reflect the Agency's desire to
embark upon improvement projects prior to the receipt of tax
increment (estimated in fiscal year 1998-99). This action would
be accomplished through an advance of necessary funds from the
City.
With respect to Mr. Kane's assertion that the proposed
method of financing in the Report does not comply with Health and
Safety Code Section 33352(e), this Section does not require a
year by year comparison of revenues and expenditures. Section E
of the Report to City Council establishes a reasonable match
between project costs and revenues over the life of the
Redevelopment Plan and discusses bonding capacity. The
Implementation Plan in Section C of the Report includes a year by
year comparison of revenues and expenditures for the first five
years of the Redevelopment Plan. The Report to City Council
fully complies with Health and Safety Code Section 33352.
With respect to Mr. Kane's allegations regarding the
Implementation Plan, the Implementation Plan contains a
discussion of the blighting conditions in the Project Area, the
proposed projects and the blighting conditions addressed by the
projects. Page C-5 of the Report to City Council states that the
"specific projects and programs contained in Section C are
designed to alleviate and/or eliminate conditions pursuant to
Section 33031 and lists those conditions found in the Project
Area". Pages C-8 and C-9 state the programs to be implemented,
and the specific actions to be carried out as part of the
redevelopment program including: rehabilitation of commercial
and industrial buildings, improvements to business facilities,
investment into Project Area businesses, the attraction of
businesses to the Project Area and needed improvements to public
facilities. Page C-9 states that site improvements, property
rehabilitation, economic incentive programs and business
attraction activities will be implemented. Page C-11 lists the
conditions pursuant to Section 33031 which will be addressed by
the programs. Page C-12 states that the Agency will implement a
housing program to rehabilitate and improve housing stock city-
wide and to implement Objective 3.2 of the Housing Element of the
General Plan to provide for the elimination of substandard
housing. Page C-13 lists all conditions pursuant to Section.
33031 which will be addressed by this program.
Mr. Kane's allegations regarding private enterprise have
been addressed in the City Council's written response contained
in 3-3 and incorporated.
Mr. Kane alleges that the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan
is harmful because the power of eminent domain will be a threat
to every business person for 12 years with no reason; the City
will lose millions of dollars of general funds it would have
otherwise received in the absence of a redevelopment project; 20%
of all tax increment must be spent on very low, low and moderate
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 9-4-8
income housing in the City; and Diamond Bar will be known to the
State Legislature as a "rogue city" ready, willing and able to
break the law.
With respect to the Agency's power of eminent domain, the
Agency intends to accomplish all redevelopment with as little
displacement as possible and will make every effort to accomplish
the redevelopment of the Project Area without the use of eminent
domain. A goal of the Agency and the City Council is to
accomplish the retention and expansion of as many existing
businesses as possible. There are no current plans to condemn
any property. Contrary to Mr. Kane's assertion, there are valid
reasons for including the power of eminent domain in the
Redevelopment Plan. These reasons are discussed in Section D of
the Report to City Council. Further, the Agency may not exercise
the power of eminent domain for no reason; the taking of property
by eminent domain must be for a public use.
With respect to Mr. Kane's allegation that the City will
lose millions of dollars of general funds it would have otherwise
received in the absence of a redevelopment project, the financial
analysis and projections contained in Section E of the Report to
City Council estimate future growth and new development under the
scenario in which a redevelopment project area is in place. It
is inappropriate to use any part of this analysis when attempting
to analyze revenues if no redevelopment project is in place.
This is due to the fact that the Agency would not have the tools
required for revitalization activities, the conditions in the
Project Area would continue to worsen, and property values in the
Project Area would likely continue to decrease.
It is difficult to predict the revenues the City would
receive without redevelopment. A review of the analysis of
secured property values contained in Section B of the Report to
City Council indicates that property values in the Project Area
have decreased by 1115 during the last five years. Given this
decline, it is likely that that property values will continue to
decline or, at best, bottom out and remain stagnant. This
situation would result in the continuation of historically low
levels of property tax revenue for the City's general fund. If
property values continue to decline, it is likely that the City
will collect less of the local property tax revenues for its
General Fund without redevelopment.
Additionally, it is important to note that the City is
eligible to receive a pass through payment of tax increment in
each year that tax increment is collected.
Finally, adoption of the Redevelopment Plan would not lead
to the Agency "capturing" what belongs to other taxing agencies,
including the City. On the contrary, the Redevelopment Plan will
not affect the property tax revenue currently available to the
City from the Project Area because only the incremental tax which
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-4-9
results from an increase in assessed valuation above the present
level can be allocated to the Agency.
With respect to affordable housing, the Community
Redevelopment Law requires that twenty percent of all tax
increment revenues derived from the Project Area be spent on very
low, low and moderate income housing in the City, unless certain
findings can be made. Mr. Kane fails to specify how this will
harm the City.
Mr. Kane provided the City with a copy of his resume, which
was attached to his letter to the City and Agency. His resume
indicates that he specializes in the practice of redevelopment
law and represents a number of redevelopment agencies. His
resume also indicates that he "[d]rafted redevelopment plan
language as the basis for redevelopment affordable housing set
aside legislation." Thus, it appears that Mr. Kane was
instrumental in helping to draft the provisions of the Community
Redevelopment Law which require redevelopment agencies to spend
20 percent of tax increment revenues on affordable housing and
which he now claims would harm the City to comply with. With his
claimed experience, Mr. Kane surely must be aware that the State
Legislature has found that decent housing for all the people of
California is vital to the State's future peace and prosperity
(Health and Safety Code Section 33070) and that a fundamental
purpose of redevelopment is to expand the supply of low and
moderate income housing (Health and Safety Code Section 33071).
In fact, the State Legislature has declared that the provision of
housing is a fundamental purpose of the Community Redevelopment
Law, that an inadequate statewide supply of decent, safe and
sanitary affordable housing threatens the accomplishment of the
primary purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law (including
job creation, attracting new private investments and creating
physical, economic, social and environmental conditions to remove
and prevent the recurrence of blight); and that the provision of
affordable housing by redevelopment agencies is of statewide
benefit and of particular benefit and assistance to all local
governmental agencies in the areas where the housing is being
provided (Health and Safety Code Section 33334.6).
The Agency may use housing fund moneys for a variety of
purposes, including rehabilitating existing housing and assisting
first time home buyers with financial assistance, all to the
benefit of the health, safety and welfare of residents of the
City.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-4-10
Mr. Kane's allegation that Diamond Bar will be known to the
State Legislature as a "rogue city" ready, willing and able to
break the law is pure speculation on Mr. Kane's part.
The following are questions posed by Mr. Kane and the City
Council's answers to such questions.
1. Are any crops planted or grown anywhere in the Project
Area?
Answer: City staff has verified that no crops are planted
or grown anywhere in the Project Area.
2. What is the breakdown of land uses in the Project Area
by acreage, with a separate calculation for each category?
Answer: This information is not available.
3. Exactly how many dwelling units are located in the
Project Area and how many people reside in those dwelling units?
Answer: Two dwelling units are located in the Project Area.
The exact number of people residing in those units is not known.
However, based on an average of 3.28 persons per household,
obtained from the State of California Department of Finance for
Diamond Bar, the total number of persons residing in the Project
Area could be estimated at 6.56.
4. How much and what land in the Project Area is owned by
the City of Industry?
Answer: According to the County Assessor's records for
1996-97, no land in the Project Area is owned by the City of
Industry.
5. Is a copy of the redevelopment plan, resolutions and
adopting ordinance available?
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 3-4-11
Answer: The proposed Redevelopment Plan is on file in the
office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection.
Mr. Kane does not specify which resolutions he is inquiring
about. Nonetheless, all resolutions adopted by the City Council,
the Agency or the Planning Commission in connection with the
proposed Redevelopment Plan are on file in the office of the City
Clerk and available for public inspection. An adopting ordinance
has not been considered by the City Council.
With respect to videotapes, the City Council and Agency do
not make videotapes of their meetings part of the record of the
proceedings of the City Council and Agency. It is the policy of
the Agency and the City Council to tape over videotapes. Under
the Ralph M. Brown Act, if Mr. Kane requests to view or purchase
a videotape of any meeting of the Agency or City Council within
30 days of the meeting, he is welcome to do so.
The City Council finds that on the basis of information in
the record and the foregoing specific responses, the objections
of Mr. Kane to the proposed Redevelopment Plan are hereby
overruled and his suggestions are not accepted.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-4-12
The preceding Exhibit "A-5," which is incorporated herein by
reference, is a written communication from Mr. Steven Lustig,
Esq., of the Law offices of Trainum, Snowdon & Deane, on behalf
of Speciality Equipment Market Association ("SEMA"), 1575 South
Valley Vista Drive, Diamond Bar, Inc., addressed to the City
Manager of the City , dated May 13, 1997, in connection with the
proposed adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area.
In such communication, Mr. Lustig expresses a concern that
SEMA may be required to make costly improvements to its property
even though SMEA's building is a modern, fully -utilized,
attractive structure.
The following is the written findings of the City Council in
response to such communication:
The City Council is satisfied that following a dialouge
between Mr. Lustig and the City Manager, Mr. Lustig's fears have
been allayed.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 3 - 5- 1
EXHIBIT C
WRITTEN FINDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR IN RESPONSE TO ORAL TESTIMONY IN CONNECTION WITH THE
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA
Mr. Clvde Hennessy, 22702 Sunset Crossing Road Diamond Bar
Question: Who repays advances from the City's General Fund
for redevelopment purposes in the event that insufficient tax
increment is generated?
Answer: Advances from the City's General Fund will be repaid
from tax increment revenues as they become available.
Mr. Murray Kane
Testimony: Mr. Kane alleges that the Agency failed to adopt
the owner participation rules a reasonable time before its
consideration of the Redevelopment Plan and the joint public
hearing on the Redevelopment Plan.
Response: Mr. Kane raised this issue in his letter to the
City and the City Council's response is set forth in B-4 and is
incorporated.
Question: Mr. Kane asks how the Agency can transmit the
Report to City Council if the public has not had a chance to see
the final version. Mr. Kane also alleges that the Assistant City
Manager refused to give Mr. Kane a copy of the Report to City
Council the afternoon of May 20, 1997 or to tell Mr. Kane which
parcels were proposed to be excluded.
Response: Mr. Kane raised the issue issue in his letter to
the City and the City Council's written response is set forth in
B-4 and is incorporated. The Assistant City Manager has
indicated that, to his knowledge, Mr. Kane never requested a copy
of the Report to City Council from him. In addition, the
Assistant City Manager was informed by City staff that Mr. Kane
wished to obtain a copy of the Agency resolution proposing the
deletion of land from the Project Area and he instructed staff
that copies should be made for purchase by Mr. Kane. On the
afternoon of May 20, 1997, the Assistant City Manager observed
Mr. Kane looking at a binder which contains a map of the parcels
deleted from the Project Area and the Report to City Council and
he pointed out to Mr. Kane that the map shows properties which
staff was recommending for deletion from the Project Area.
Testimony: Mr. Kane suggests that additional parcels should
be excluded from the Project Area, as evidenced by Mr. Kane's
videotape.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 C —1
Response: Pursuant to Section 33352 of the Community
Redevelopment Law, the Report to City Council provides
information regarding the inclusion of properties within the
Project Area. It should be noted that many of the properties
shown on Mr. Kane's 28 minute tape were excluded from the Project
Area, including all of the parks within the Project Area and the
property commonly referred to as Sun -cal.
Testimony: Mr. Kane alleges that the Agency will have $450
million to use to take people's property by eminent domain for no
reason.
Response: Mr. Kane raised this issue in his letter to the
City and the City Council's response is set forth in B-4 and is
incorporated.
Testimony: Mr. Kane alleges adoption of the Redevelopment
Plan is illegal and will harm the City for various reasons.
Response: Mr. Kane raised these issues in his letter to the
City and the City Council's responses are set forth in B-4 and
are incorporated.
Mr. Richard Tonnes 760 North Golden S rin s No. D
Testimony: Mr. Toones indicates that he is upset with the
elimination of the parks from the Project Area because the City
of Diamond Bar does not have a dog park. He suggests that the
City have a dog park.
Response: The City Council appreciates Mr. Toones input.
Ms. Burrell
Testimony: Ms. Burrell suggests that Sandstone Canyon be
deleted from the Project Area and that parks are not urbanized.
Response: The City Council has deleted parks from the
Project Area.
Testimony: Ms. Burrell alleges the Project Area includes
large tracks of land which have never been developed and
therefore cannot be redeveloped and also large areas of land
which are in perfectly good condition. She suggests excluding
parcels which are up to standard.
Response: The Community Redevelopment Law provides that the
Project Area may contain some vacant land. The Report to Council
documents that the Project Area is predominately urbanized as
required by the Community Redevelopment Law. Ms. Burrell does
not specify which parcels she is discussing so a specific
response is not possible. However, it should be noted that the
Community Redevelopment Law provides that parcels which are not
blighted may be included in the Project Area if their inclusion
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 C -2
is necessary for effective redevelopment. Further, while certain
parcels in the Project Area may appear to be in good condition,
they may suffer from blighting conditions such as substandard
design or depreciated values.
Testimony: Ms. Burrell alleges that Via Sorrello is the
only evidence of physical deterioration.
Response: As stated in Section B of the Report to City
Council, 62 percent of all buildings and 46 percent of all
parcels in the Project Area are in need of some form of
maintenance ranging from deferred maintenance to extensive
rehabilitation. It is important to note that it is unclear what
Ms. Burrell means by "physical deterioration". While all of the
parcels and buildings which need moderate rehabilitation to
extensive rehabilitation (nearly 10 percent of buildings and over
6 percent of parcels, as shown on Table B-1 of the Report), many
of the properties designated as in need of deferred maintenance
(53 percent of all structures and 39 percent of all parcels) were
also observed with conditions of damaged exterior building
material, deteriorated roofing material, and non-structural
damage, which are also conditions which contribute to the
deteriorated appearance of properties. Map 2-2 in Appendix 2 of
the Report indicates the location of properties were observed
with deteriorated conditions during the field survey.
The results of the field survey indicate that the properties
located along Via Sorrella do contain a large concentration of
structures and parcels which are in need of moderate to extensive
rehabilitation and exhibit a number of other conditions
identified in the Report.
Testimony: Ms. Burrell alleges that the Golden Springs
Plaza has been significantly upgraded since RSG's survey and that
the real problem with that property is that the corner site was
developed and blocked the view to all the rest of the center and
that the center does not have a major anchor to draw in traffic.
Response: The only upgrade to Golden Springs Plaza known at
this time is that the center has been repainted. However, this
property exhibits a number of conditions including deferred
maintenance, moderate rehabilitation, defective design, business
vacancies, and declining property values.
Testimony: Ms. Burrell appears to object to the power of
eminent domain and appears to request the Agency to identify the
sites proposed to be acquired by eminent domain.
Response: As set forth in the City Council's responses to
written objections included in Exhibit B and incorporated, there
are valid reasons to include the power of eminent domain in the
Redevelopment Plan. As the Agency has no current plans to
acquire any properties by eminent domain, it is not possible to
identify particular sites.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 C -3
Question: Ms. Burrell asks whether the Agency is going to
pay to paint everybody's building in the City.
Response: The Agency does not intend to paint all the
buildings in the City.
Testimony: Ms. Burrell alleges that the Agency will
mishandle funds.
Response: This allegation is not supported.
Mr. Eric Stone Darrin Drive
Testimony: Mr. Stone alleges that the Project Area
boundaries divide his parcel.
Response: Mr. Stone owns two adjacent, but separate parcels
and one of these two has been included in the proposed Project
Area. Mr. Stone only wanted to know why one parcel was included
and one was not. Agency staff and consultants spoke with Mr.
Stone immediately following the joint public hearing and
addressed his questions and concerns. In response to his
concerns, he was told that the physical and economic conditions
on his property determined inclusion in the Project Area, not
ownership. Mr. Stone appeared to be satisfied with the
information provided to him and did not raise any other questions
or concerns.
Mr. Louis Marslin 850 Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar
Testimony: Mr. Marslin wishes the Agency would eliminate
the power of eminent domain from the Redevelopment Plan.
Response: As set forth in the City Council's responses to
written objections included in Exhibit B and incorpated, there
are valid reasons to include the power of eminent domain in the
Redevelopment Plan.
Mr. Wilbur Smith citizen of Diamond Bar
Testimony: Mr. Smith alleges the Agency only intends to
make insufficient cosmetic changes and that it is probably not
within the Agency's ability to change the identified conditions.
Response: The Report to City Council discusses the programs
and projects the Agency proposes to undertake to alleviate and
reverse the conditions of blight in the Project Area. These
include much more than cosmetic changes, such as traffic and
circulation improvements.
Testimony: Mr. Smith contends that putting facades on
buildings will not change the pattern of purchasing of Diamond
Bar citizens
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 C -4
Response: As discussed in the City Council's written
responses set forth in Exhibit B and incorporated, Diamond Bar
residents have indicated that the shopping areas in Diamond Bar
do not provide an attractive environment in which to shop and a
number of residents suggested that the appearance of retail
businesses should be improved. The Agency's hope is that
improvements will encourage people to shop in Diamond Bar.
The City Council finds that on the basis of information in
the record and the foregoing specific responses, the objections
set forth in Exhibit C are hereby overruled and the suggestions
set forth in Exhibit C are not accepted.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672681 2 C -S
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA; ADOPTING THE MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM; ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HEREBY FINDS,
DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency (the
"Agency") and the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar ("City
Council") have proposed to adopt a redevelopment plan (the
"Project") for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the
"Project Area"). The Project Area is proposed to include
approximately 1,300 acres of publicly and privately owned land.
While many existing uses in the Project Area will be retained,
the Agency proposes to facilitate redevelopment and
rehabilitation of underutilized and blighted properties with
light industrial, office, and retail uses, and through the
improvement of public infrastructure including streets, public
service facilities, parks, utilities, drainage facilities and
landscape to improve the economic health of the Project Area.
All anticipated development in connection with the Project will
be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Diamond Bar.
Section 2. The City and Agency prepared an Initial
Environmental Study for the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of
the State Guidelines for implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Initial Study concluded
that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a
significant environmental impact in certain specifically
identified categories.
Section 3. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15064 and 15081, and based upon the information
contained in the Initial Study, a decision was made to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project. A Notice of
Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") was
prepared for the Project on November 18, 1996 and sent to the
State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for
the State of California and to other responsible, trustee, and/or
interested agencies and persons. The City and Agency contracted
with an independent consultant for the preparation of the EIR.
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796
Section 4. The DEIR was circulated to interested
persons and agencies for public comment pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15087(c). In response to the circulation of
the DEIR, the City and Agency received written and oral comments
regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. The City and Agency prepared
written responses to all comments which raised significant
environmental issues. The City and Agency incorporated the
comments and the Agency's written responses to those comments
which raised comments relating to CEQA into the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Project ("FEIR") and returned
responses to commenting agencies at least ten (10) days prior to
the Certification of the FEIR, pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21092.5.
Section 5. The FEIR is comprised of the DEIR,
including any revisions and/or addenda thereto; the list of
persons, organizations and public agencies which commented on the
DEIR; the comments which were received by the City and Agency
regarding the DEIR; and the written responses to significant
environmental points raised in the review and consultation
process, each of which is incorporated herein and made a part
hereof by this reference.
Section 6. The City Council and Agency held a duly -
noticed public hearing on the Project and the EIR on May 20,
1997. At the hearing, interested persons presented both written
and oral comments regarding the adequacy of the FEIR.
Section 7. The findings made in this Resolution are
based upon the information and evidence set forth in the FEIR and
upon other substantial evidence which has been presented in the
record of this proceeding. The documents, staff reports, plans,
specifications, technical studies and other materials that
constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is
based and the FEIR for the Project are on file and available for
public examination during normal business hours in the Office of
the Community Development Director of the City of Diamond Bar,
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100,'Diamond Bar, California
91765. The custodian of said records is the Community
Development Director of the City of Diamond Bar.
Section 8. The Agency finds that the public and
government agencies have been afforded ample notice and
opportunity to comment on the Initial Study, DEIR, and FEIR.
Section 9. The Agency finds, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15084(e), that the EIR has been independently
analyzed by the Agency and its Staff, and that the EIR represents
the independent judgment of the lead agency with respect to the
Project. The Agency further finds that the additional
information provided in the staff reports accompanying the
Project description and the FEIR, the corrections and
modifications to the DEIR made in response to comments, and the
evidence presented in written and oral testimony presented at the
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 2
above -referenced hearing does not represent significant new
information so as to require recirculation of any section of the
EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1.
Section 10. The Agency finds that the. comments
regarding the DEIR and the responses to those comments have been
received by the Agency; that the Agency has received public
testimony regarding the adequacy of the FEIR; and that the
Agency, as the final decision-making body for the lead agency,
has reviewed and considered all such documents and testimony
prior to acting on the Project. Pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15090, the Agency, on the basis of the
foregoing and the record of the proceeding, certifies that the
FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.
Section 11. Based upon the Initial Study, the DEIR,
the FEIR, public and agency comments and the record before the
Agency, the Agency hereby finds that the Project will not cause
significant environmental impacts in the areas of Land Use and
Planning, Geology, Water, Transportation and Circulation,
Biological Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, Cultural
Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities and Service
Systems, Aesthetics, and Recreation. Explanations for why the
foregoing impacts were found to be insignificant are contained in
the Initial Study in Appendix A of the DEIR. Any reduction in
the size of the Project Area will further reduce the
environmental impacts identified in the FEIR by reducing the area
subject to development pursuant to the Project.
Section 12. The Initial Study identified some of the
Project's effects as "potentially significant." However, based
upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and the FEIR, and upon
public and agency comments and the record before the Agency, the
Agency hereby finds that the Project will not cause significant
environmental impacts in the following areas identified as
"potentially significant" in the Initial Study:
a. Land Use and Planning: The Project will not substantially
conflict with the City's long range land use plans, or
conflict with existing uses in the vicinity. The Economic
Revitalization Area Redevelopment Plan does not propose any
change in land use policy or permitted intensity of
development for the Project Area. The intent of the Project
is to revitalize the Project Area in conformance with the
City's General Plan land use designation and policies.
Future development in the Project Area will be required to
be consistent with the General Plan and existing zoning.
Further explanation for this finding can be found in Section
3.1 and 7.0 of the FEIR.
b. Population and Housing. The Project will not induce
substantial growth or concentration of population through
provision of employment or housing that is inconsistent with
regional growth management plans or create demand for
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 3
housing which exceeds available supply on either a project -
related or cumulative basis. The EIR indicates that the
employment, housing and population needs generated by the
project are well within applicable regional and local
projections. The Southern California Association of
Governments ("SCAG"), in a letter dated March 25, 1997,
found in Section 9 of the FEIR, also indicates that the
Project is consistent with regional policies within SCAG's
jurisdiction, to the extent such consistency can be
determined. Further explanation for this determination may
be found in Sections 3.2, 7.0, and 9 of the FEIR.
C. Schools. The proposed project will not result in a project -
related or cumulative increase in current student enrollment
beyond school districts' current capacity at a rate that
cannot be accommodated by capital improvements funded by
developer fees or other sources of funds available to the
districts. Fees from residential and non-residential
development anticipated as part of the Project, as well as
other state school funding mechanisms, will generate
sufficient revenue to mitigate new student demand generated
by future development of the Project Area. Further
explanation for these determinations may be found in Section
3.5 and 7.0 of the FEIR.
Section 13. Based upon the initial study, the EIR,
public comments and the record of these proceedings, the Agency
finds that the Project may create significant adverse impacts in
the area of Traffic and Circulation and Air Quality. With regard
to Traffic and Circulation impacts, the FEIR identifies feasible
mitigation measures for each impact that reduce the impact to a
level of insignificance. With regard to Air Quality impacts, the
FEIR identifies mitigation measures that will substantially
lessen, but not eliminate, such impact. Any reduction in the
size of the Project Area will further reduce the environmental
impacts identified in the FEIR by reducing the area subject to
development pursuant to the Project. Further explanation for
these determinations may be found in Sections 2.0, 3.3 and 3.4 of
the FEIR.
Section 14. In response to each significant impact
identified in the EIR, and listed in Section 13 of this
Resolution, changes or alterations are hereby required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental impacts identified. The
changes or alterations required in, or incorporated into, the
Project, and a brief explanation of the rationale for this
finding with regard to each impact, are contained in Exhibit A of
this Resolution and are incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 15. Any reduction in the size of the Project
Area will further reduce the environmental impacts identified in
the FEIR by reducing the area subject to development pursuant to
the Project. Such a reduction still attains the goals and
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201:796 - 4 -
objectives of the Project to a significant extent and the
environmental consequences of reducing the scope of the project
are primarily beneficial in that they reduce the area of
development and thus the environmental consequences of
development.
Section 16. The FEIR describes, and the Agency has
fully considered, a reasonable range of alternatives to the
Project which might fulfill the basic objectives of the Project.
These alternatives include the "No Project" alternative; the
Smaller Project Alternative, which considered a smaller
geographic are for the Project Area; the Lower Traffic -Generating
Alternative, which proposed replacing high -traffic generating
commercial, entertainment and restaurant uses with less traffic -
intense uses such as office, business park, research and
development uses. The alternatives identified in the EIR either
would not sufficiently achieve the basic objectives of the
Project or would do so only with unacceptable adverse
environmental impacts. Accordingly, and for any one of the
reasons set forth herein, in the EIR, or in the "Statement of
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" attached hereto as
Exhibit "A," the Agency finds that specific economic, social, or
other considerations make infeasible each of the Project
alternatives, including the "No Project" alternative, identified
in the EIR and each is hereby rejected. The Agency further finds
that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives
into the preparation of the EIR, and that all reasonable
alternatives were considered in the review process of the EIR and
the ultimate decision on the Projects. An alternative site was
not considered feasible because an alternative site would fail to
fulfill the most basic goal of the Project by not failing to
address conditions of blight in the Project Area.
Section 17. The Agency hereby makes the findings
contained in the "Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of
Findings" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" with respect to each of
the significant impacts defined in the FEIR and the alternatives
analysis. Further, the Agency hereby finds that each fact in
support of finding is true and is based upon substantial evidence
in the record, including the FEIR.
Section 18. The Agency hereby adopts the "Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization
Area" prepared by Cotton/Beland Associates, Inc. This program
will be used to monitor the changes to the project which have
been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as provided
herein and in Exhibit "A."
Section 19. Upon approval of this Resolution, the
Director of Community Development is hereby directed to file a
Notice of Determination with the County Recorder's Office, County
of Los Angeles, and the California State Clearinghouse pursuant
to Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 5
Section 20. A full and fair joint public hearing
regarding the proposed Redevelopment Plan has been duly noticed
and held by the City Council and the Agency pursuant to law and
the Agency and City Council have received written and oral
testimony concerning such proposed Redevelopment Plan. The City
Council has duly considered the recommendations of the Agency;
has evaluated the Agency's Report to the City Council, which is
comprised of the reports and information required by Health and
Safety Code Section 33352, and which report was previously
submitted to the City Council, and all evidence and testimony for
and against adoption of such Redevelopment Plan; and has adopted
written findings in response to each written objection,
communication or suggestion, in accordance with Health and Safety
Code Section 33363. The Agency hereby finds and determines that
the responses made to each written objection, communication or
suggestion are full and complete and have addressed each written
objection, communication or suggestion in detail, giving reasons
for not accepting specified objections, and suggestions and
include good -faith, reasoned analysis which describes the
disposition of the issues raised. All objections to the proposed
Redevelopment Plan were heard and passed upon by the Agency and
the City Council and are hereby overruled by the Agency.
Section 21. The proposed Redevelopment Plan, a copy of
which has been presented to the Agency and which is now on file
in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved subject to
the mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit A hereof.
Section 22. The Agency hereby recommends approval and
adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the City Council and hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the Redevelopment Plan by
ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of June, 1997.
chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 6
I, LYNDA BURGESS, Secretary of the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Agency, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of
the Board of Directors of Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency held on
the day of 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: BOARD MEMBERS:
NOES: BOARD MEMBERS:
ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: BOARD MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Agency
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 — 7 —
EXHIBIT "A"
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
1. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF
INSIGNIFICANCE.
Traffic and Circulation.
Traffic Demands and Level of Service. The Project will
result in increased traffic and will cause or worsen unacceptable
levels of service ("LOS") at certain intersections in the Project
Area. The intersections are specifically identified in Section 3.4
of the FEIR. Cumulative traffic impacts or related projects also
may be created without mitigation.
Finding: For each such intersection, changes or
alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified above.
Facts Supporting Finding: The Project includes the
following traffic and circulation mitigation measures which have
been demonstrated in the FEIR to reduce each Project -related
significant traffic impact to a level of insignificance based on
LOS and intersection volume/capacity ratio, as described more fully
in Section 3.4, Table 13 and Figure 10 in the FEIR. Cumulative
traffic impacts will be mitigated as well through the
implementation of such measures and project -specific mitigation
measures for related projects:
a. Diamond Bar/Golden Springs: Add a left turn lane to each
approach on Golden Springs for a total of two in each
direction. This can be accomplished within the existing
street width but requires elimination of the bicycle lanes at
the intersection.
b. S 60/57 East -Bound Ramps/Grand Avenue: Change the S
60/57 off -ramp approach stripping and operations to prohibit
a through movement (allow left and right turns only). This
will allow a right turn overlap signal phase from Grand Avenue
(northbound) to S 60/57 on-ramp. Modify the S 60/57 off -ramp
approach to provide a free right turn from off -ramp to
south -bound Grand Avenue. Three southbound lanes presently
exist on Grand, south of the freeway ramp.
C. S 60/57 West -Bound Ramps/Grand Avenue: Restripe the
north Grand Avenue approach to provide a left, through,
through/right, and right turn lane.
d. Grand Avenue/Golden Springs: On Golden Springs for what
was identified as the eastbound approach, add a left turn lane
(for a total of two) and improve the eastbound right turn to
a free right turn.
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 12C1796 8
On westbound Golden Springs, add a right turn lane.
e. Diamond Bar Boulevard/Grand Avenue: Implement
improvements to provide three through lanes on the Grand
Avenue approaches and the southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard
approach. The existing southbound right turn lane will be
converted into a through lane.
For the northbound approach, stripe for a through,
through/right, and right turn lane to accommodate the high
number of northbound right turn during the PM peak hour.
These improvements will be implemented as determined
appropriate by the City pending a review of alternate traffic
routes, effects on adjacent residential areas, and other
applicable factors.
f. Brea Canyon Road/Golden Springs -Calami: Add a left turn
lane to the northbound and southbound approaches on Brea
Canyon Road, for a total of two.
Eastbound - make improvements to convert the right turn lane
to a through lane.
Westbound - add a left turn lane to provide a total of two.
g. Pathfinder Road/Diamond Bar Boulevard:
Make
modifications to provide an added northbound through lane at
intersection. This will impact existing bicycle lane at this
location.
2. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS.
Air Quality Impacts. Development in the Project Area will
result in additional mobile and stationary emissions above the
SCAQMD daily thresholds for CO, ROG, and Nox on a project -specific
and cumulative basis.
Finding: Although mitigation measures have been adopted
to address these impacts, project -related air quality impacts
cannot be reduced a level of insignificance and are therefore found
to be significant and unavoidable.
Facts Supporting Finding: A number of mitigation
measures have been proposed to reduce air quality impacts resulting
from development pursuant to the Project, a number of mitigation
measures have been imposed. A full description of those mitigation
measures is found in Table 2 and Section 3.3 of the FEIR. While
these measures will reduce certain aspects of the Project -related
air quality impacts, estimation of the efficacy of these mitigation
measures to reduce vehicular and operational emissions is
difficult.
to reduceunlikely,
ando stationary emissions measures
will
be
below
adequatethe
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 9
SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, mobile and stationary
emissions from the Project are considered significant and
unavoidable. The Agency hereby finds that there are specific
economic, social, legal, technological, and other considerations
that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the EIR and that the benefits of the project outweigh
its potential adverse construction -related impacts. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been prepared, and is set forth
below.
FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The Agency has considered various project alternatives as
analyzed in the EIR and makes the following findings:
i. No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative
considers retaining the Project Area in its existing condition with
no additional development taking place in the framework of the
redevelopment plan. This alternative would permit continuing
development in the Project Area without the guidance and benefits
of the redevelopment plan. Because such development would be
undertaken pursuant to the existing General Plan, this alternative
would create the same environment impacts as the Project.
Finding: Specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative.
Facts in Support of Finding: The No Project Alternative
is infeasible because it does not achieve any of the stated goals
and objectives of the Project including, without limitation, the
elimination of blighted conditions in the Project Area, the
improvement of public facilities and public infrastructure, and the
encouragement of resident and business participation in the
economic revitalization of the Project Area. The Project is
intended, in part, to provide necessary tax increment financing for
public infrastructure and facilities in the Project Area which
would not be supplied under.the No -Project Alternative. Buildout
of the Project Area in the absence of the Project will not have as
beneficial an impact on reducing blighted conditions as would the
Project in that the No -Project alternative would result in the
piecemeal development of the Project Area over a.longer period of
time than that estimated in the FEIR.
The overriding social, economic and other considerations
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide
additional facts in support of this finding.
ii. Smaller Project Area Alternative. The Smaller
Project Area Alternative considers the Project in a smaller
geographic area than the Project Area. Reducing the size of the
Project Area could result in reduced traffic impacts, and air
quality impacts could be reduced, although not to a less -than -
significant level.
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 - 10 -
Finding: Specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the Smaller Project Area
Alternative. The Smaller Project Area Alternative would not meet
the goals and objectives of the Project and would not eliminate the
significant unavoidable environmental impact of the Project.
Facts in Support of Finding: While a reduced level of
development under the Smaller Project Area Alternative would create
less traffic, thereby reducing traffic -related impacts, the Smaller
Project Area Alternative would not produce all of the needed
infrastructure and facility improvements created by the Project.
Partial implementation of such improvements could exacerbate
deficiencies related to traffic and parking that will affect the
City's ability to attract high-quality development into the Project
Area, thereby adversely impacting the goals and objectives of the
Project. In addition, while a reduction in traffic may, to a
certain extent, reduce air quality impacts caused by mobile
emissions, such a reduction is not likely to be in the 400%-8000
range necessary to reduce air quality impacts to a less than
significant level under SCAQMD guidelines. Therefore, the Smaller
Project Area Alternative would not eliminate the significant
unavoidable impact of the Project.
The overriding social, economic and other considerations
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide
additional facts in support of this finding.
iii.Lower Traffic -Generating Alternative: This
alternative considers development of the Project Area with
commercial and industrial uses that would generate less vehicular
trips that those anticipated for the Project. The alternative
would replace "high trip" uses such as retail and entertainment/
restaurant with office, business park, and research and development
uses which generate fewer vehicle trips. The result would be a
reduction in the overall volume of traffic from the Project Area.
As with the Smaller Project Area Alternative, this reduction in
vehicle trips would reduce traffic -related impacts and the need for
traffic improvements as mitigation measures. With less traffic,
mobile air pollutant emissions also would be reduced. However, as
with the Smaller Project Area Alternative, this reduction would not
be sufficient to reduce air quality impacts below a level of
significance. In addition, this Alternative would be inconsistent
with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code, and might require the
imposition of development restrictions not currently in place.
Findinct: Specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the Lower Traffic -Generating
Alternative. This Alternative would not meet the goals and
objectives of the Project and is not environmentally superior to
the Project.
Facts in Support of Finding: This Alternative would not
implement the policies, goals, objectives and strategies of the
General Plan for the City of Diamond Bar to the same extent as the
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 — 11 —
Project would, in that revisions to the General Plan and Zoning
Code would be required to replace retail, restaurant and
entertainment uses with office, research and development and
business park uses. This Alternative also would not meet the goal
of providing opportunities for retail business. Fewer retail and
restaurant /ente'rtainment uses also would result in a significant
reduction in sales tax revenue to the City, by comparison to the
Project, making this Alternative economically infeasible.
The overriding social, economic and other considerations
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide
additional facts in support of this finding.
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The Agency has carefully and independently considered the
significant unavoidable adverse air quality impacts identified
above in deciding whether to approve the Project. Although the
Agency believes that the unavoidable air quality impacts identified
in the FEIR will be substantially lessened by the mitigation
measures incorporated into the project, it recognizes that approval
of the Project will nonetheless result in certain unavoidable and
potentially irreversible effects.
The Agency has weighed the benefits of the Project
against its environmental risks. The Agency specifically finds
that, to the extent that any adverse or potentially adverse impact
set forth above has not been mitigated to a level of
insignificance, that specific economic, social, legal,
environmental, technological or other benefits of the project
outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Furthermore,
the Agency finds that any and each of the following considerations
is sufficient to approve the Project despite any one or more of the
unavoidable impacts identified; that each of the overriding
considerations is adopted with respect to each of the impacts
individually, and that each consideration is severable from any
other consideration should one or more consideration be shown to be
legally insufficient for any reason. The following considerations
support approval of the Project:
a. The Project will implement the City's General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance and other policies, goals, plans, objectives and
strategies for the development of the Project Area in a coordinated
manner that will revitalize existing blighted areas through the
imposition of design and use standards.
b. The Project proposes and will provide tax increment
revenue to finance improvements of public infrastructure, including
streets, public service facilities, parks, utilities, drainage
facilities, and landscape that are necessary to promote the
economic revitalization of the Project Area and attract appropriate
businesses to the area.
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 — 12 —
C. The Project will promote local job opportunities in the
community.
d. The Project will encourage participation by residents,
businesses, business persons, public agencies and community
organizations in the economic revitalization of*the Project Area.
e. The Project will preserve and enhance the unique open
space resources in the community.
f. The Project will increase, improve, or preserve the
supply of housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate income
households.
970530 1D572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 - 13 -
Introduction
This addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area in the City of Diamond Bar was prepared in accordance with Section 15164
of the CEQA OWdelines (California Code of Regulations Section 1500 and following). Under
provisions of CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency may prepare an addendum to an EIR if only
minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make an EIR under consideration adequate
under CEQA, and the changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new
issues about the significant cffects on the environment.
This addendum is hereby included as part of the Final EIR. The City of Diamond Bar will
consider the addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project.
Issues Addressed in this Addendum
This addendum addresses effects of the cbange in the territory to be included within the
boundaries of the Diamond Bat Economic Revitalization Arca. On May 27, 1997, the City of
Diamond Bar Planning Commission recommended the deletion of certain propfieS from the
Revitalization Area, as shown in the attached Exhibit A. The deletion will result in a decrease of
approximately 154 acres in territory comprising the Revitalization Area, from 1,454 acres to
1,300 acres. The teaiwry to be deleted includes parks, public rights of way, and an undeveloped
area designated for residential uses in the City's general Plan. The change to the Revitalization
Area will result in no change in expected commercial or industrial development within the
project area, and a reduction of approximately 130 residential units from Projected development
analyzed in the Final E11L
Environmental Effects Associated with the Reduced Revitalization Area
The Final EIR considered environmental effects of redeveloping a 1,454 -acre Revitalization
Area. Redevelopment of a smaller Project Area is anticipated to reduce the magnitude of most
environmental effects considered in the Final M;R including traffic impact which was found to
be the only siguftant impact of the project. Mitigation measen+es have been included in the
project that reduce traffic impact to a less than significant level. With less territory, most of the
environmental bnpwts analyzed in the Final ER, including traffic, will decrease in rough
proportion to the reduction in the potential foc new development on the teaitory deleted from
the Revitalization Area. 'Thus, the analysis of environmental impacts in the Final OR represents
the ',worst erne' davelopmeat scenario for the project inclusive of impacts that will occur in a
smaller Revitalization Asea. Such environmental impacts are, therefore, fully and adequately
addressed in the Final MR, and the change in the Revitalization Area's territory will not result in
any new or increased AgnOcant environmental impacts.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA;
ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM;' ADOPTING
THE FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS
REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR HEREBY
FINDS, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Diamond Bar Redevelopment
Agency (the "Agency") and the City Council of the City of Diamond
Bar ("City Council") have proposed to adopt a Redevelopment Plan
(the "Project") for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area
(the "Project Area"). The Project Area is proposed to include
approximately 1,300 acres of publicly and privately owned land.
While many existing uses in the Project Area will be retained,
the Agency proposes to facilitate redevelopment and
rehabilitation of underutilized and blighted properties with
light industrial, office, and retail uses, and through the
improvement of public infrastructure including streets, public
service facilities, parks, utilities, drainage facilities and
landscape to improve the economic health of the Project Area.
All anticipated development in connection with the Project will
be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Diamond Bar.
Section 2. The City prepared an Initial Environmental
Study for the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the State
Guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Initial Study concluded that there was
substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant
environmental impact in certain specifically identified
categories.
Section 3. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15064 and 15081, and based upon the information
contained in the Initial Study, a decision was made to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project. A Notice of
Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") was
prepared for the Project on November 18, 1996 and sent to the
State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for
the State of California and to other responsible, trustee, and/or
interested agencies and persons. The City contracted with an
independent consultant for the preparation of the EIR.
Section 4. The DEIR was circulated to interested
persons and agencies for public comment pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15087(c). In response to the circulation of
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795
the DEIR, the City received written and oral comments regarding
the adequacy of the DEIR. Written responses to all comments
which raised significant environmental issues were prepared. The
City incorporated the comments and written responses to those
comments which raised comments relating to CEQA into the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Project ("FEIR") and returned
responses to commenting agencies at least ten (10) days prior to
the Certification of the FEIR, pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21092.5.
Section S. The FEIR is comprised of the DEIR,
including any revisions and/or addenda thereto; the list of
persons, organizations and public agencies which commented on the
DEIR; the comments which were received regarding the DEIR; and
the written responses to significant environmental points raised
in the review and consultation process, each of which is
incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference.
Section 6. The City Council and Agency held a duly -
noticed public hearing on the Project and the EIR on May 20,
1997. At the hearing, interested persons presented both written
and oral comments regarding the adequacy of the FEIR.
Section 7. The findings made in this Resolution are
based upon the information and evidence set forth in the FEIR and
upon other substantial evidence which has been presented in the
record of this proceeding. The documents, staff reports, plans,
specifications, technical studies and other materials that
constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is
based and the FEIR for the Project are on file and available for
public examination during normal business hours in the Office of
the Community Development Director of the City of Diamond Bar,
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100, Diamond Bar, California
91765. The custodian of said records is the Community
Development Director of the City of Diamond Bar.
Section 8. The City Council finds that the public and
government agencies have been afforded ample notice and
opportunity to comment on the Initial Study, DEIR, and FEIR.
Section 9. The City Council finds, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15084(e), that the EIR has been independently
analyzed by the Agency, the City, and its Staff, and that the EIR
represents the independent judgment of the lead agency with
respect to the Project. The City Council further finds that the
additional information provided in the staff reports accompanying
the Project description and the FEIR, the corrections and
modifications to the DEIR made in response to comments, and the
evidence presented in written and oral testimony presented at the
above -referenced hearing does not represent significant new
information so as to require recirculation of any section of the
EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1.
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 2
Section 10. The City Council finds that the comments
regarding the DEIR and the responses to those comments have been
received by the City and Agency; that the City and Agency have
received public testimony regarding the adequacy of the FEIR; and
that the City Council, as the final decision-making body for the
lead agency, has reviewed and considered all such documents and
testimony prior to acting on the Project. Pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15090, the City Council, on the basis of the
foregoing and the record of the proceeding, certifies that the
FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.
Section 11. Based upon the Initial Study, the DEIR,
the FEIR, public and agency comments and the record before the
City Council, the City Council hereby finds that the Project will
not cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Land
Use and Planning, Geology, Water, Transportation and Circulation,
Biological Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, Cultural
Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities and Service
Systems, Aesthetics, and Recreation. Explanations for why the
foregoing impacts were found to be insignificant are contained in
the Initial Study in Appendix A of the DEIR. Any reduction in
the size of the Project Area will further reduce the
environmental impacts identified in the FEIR by reducing the area
subject to development pursuant to the Project.
Section 12. The Initial Study identified some of the
Project's effects as "potentially significant." However, based
upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and the FEIR, and upon
public and agency comments and the record before the City
Council, the City Council hereby finds that the Project will not
cause significant environmental impacts in the following areas
identified as "potentially significant" in the Initial Study:
a. Land Use and Planning: The Project will not substantially
conflict with the City's long range land use plans, or
conflict with existing uses in the vicinity. The Economic
Revitalization Area Redevelopment Plan does not propose any
change in land use policy or permitted intensity of
development for the Project Area. The intent of the Project
is to revitalize the Project Area in conformance with the
City's General Plan land use designation and policies.
Future development in the Project Area will be required to
be consistent with the General Plan and existing Zoning.
Further explanation for this finding can be found in Section
3.1 and 7.0 of the FEIR.
b. Population and Housing. The Project will not induce
substantial growth or concentration of population through
provision of employment or housing that is inconsistent with
regional growth management plans or create demand for
housing which exceeds available supply on either a project -
related or cumulative basis. The EIR indicates that the
employment, housing and population needs generated by the
project are well within applicable regional and local
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 - 3 -
projections. The Southern California Association of
Governments ("SCAG"), in a letter dated March 25, 1997,
found in Section 9 of the FEIR, also indicates that the
Project is consistent with regional policies within SCAG's
jurisdiction, to the extent such consistency can be
determined. Further explanation for this determination may
be found in Sections 3.2, 7.0, and 9 of the FEIR.
C. Schools. The proposed project will not result in a project -
related or cumulative increase in current student enrollment
beyond school districts' current capacity at a rate that
cannot be accommodated by capital improvements funded by
developer fees or other sources of funds available to the
districts. Fees from residential and non-residential
development anticipated as part of the Project, as well as
other state school funding mechanisms, will generate
sufficient revenue to mitigate new student demand generated
by future development of the Project Area. Further
explanation for these determinations may be found in Section
3.5 and 7.0 of the FEIR.
Section 13. Based upon the initial study, the EIR,
public comments and the record of these proceedings, the City
Council finds that the Project may create significant adverse
impacts in the area of Traffic and Circulation and Air Quality.
With regard to Traffic and Circulation impacts, the EIR
identifies feasible mitigation measures for each impact that
reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. With regard to
Air Quality impacts, the EIR identifies mitigation measures that
will substantially lessen, but not eliminate, such impact. Any
reduction in the size of the Project Area will further reduce the
environmental impacts identified in the FEIR by reducing the area
subject to development pursuant to the Project. Further
explanation for these determinations may be found in Sections
2.0, 3.3 and 3.4 of the FEIR.
Section 14. In response to each significant impact
identified in the EIR, and listed in Section 13 of this
Resolution, changes or alterations are hereby required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental impacts identified. The
changes or alterations required in, or incorporated into, the
Project, and a brief explanation of the rationale for this
finding with regard to each impact, are contained in Exhibit A of
this Resolution and are incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 15. Any reduction in the size of the Project
Area will further reduce the environmental impacts identified in
the FEIR by reducing the area subject to development pursuant .to
the Project. Such a reduction still attains the goals and
objectives of the Project to a significant extent and the
environmental consequences of reducing the scope of the project
are primarily beneficial in that they reduce the area of
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 — 4
development and thus the environmental consequences of
development.
Section 16. The FEIR describes, and the City Council
able range of
and Agency Board have fully considered, a reason
ic
alternatives tthe roect. These alternativeslthe includesthe "No
objectives of the Pject Alternative, which
Project" alternative; the Smaller Proj
the
considered a smaller geographic are for the Project Area
Lower Traffic -Generating Alternative, which proposed replacing
high -traffic generating commercial, entertainment and restaurant
a
uses with less traffic -intense uses suThealternativessiness identified
park, research and development uses• achieve the basic
in the EIR either would not sufficiently with unacceptable
objectives of the Project or would do so onlywith
for any one of
adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly,
the reasons set forth herein, in the EIR, or in the "Statement of
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" attached hereto as
Exhibit "A," the City Council finds that specific economic,
social, or other considerations make infeasible each
falternative, e
Project alternatives, including the "No Projected. The City
identified in the EIR and each is good faithyeffort was made to
Council further finds that a g aration of the EIR, and
incorporate alternatives into the prep in the
that all reasonable alternatives
were
cisioneondthe ProjectseW An
process of the EIR and
the alternative site was not considered feasible because an
oal of the
alternative site would toladdressfulfill
conditionso f blst ightic gin the
Project by not failing
Project Area.
il hereby makes the
Section 17. The City Councfindings
contained in the "Statement of Findings
��andtFacts
spin Suopeach f
of
Findings" attached hereto as Exhibit A
the significant impacts defined Councilhe FEIR hereby findsand hthatteachtfact
analysis. Further, the City on substantial
in support of finding is true and is based up
evidence in the record, including the FEIR.
Section 18. The City Council hereby adopts the
"Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Diamond Bar EconomicInc.
Revitalization Area,, prepared by Cotton/Belandsso theeproject
This program will be used to monitor the changes ition of Project approval
which have been adopted or made a cond
as provided herein and in Exhibit "A."
Section 19. Upon approval of this Resolution, the
opment is hereby directed to file a
Director of Community Develcounty
Notice of Determination with
aliforniaoState the Cunty RClearil
Clearinghouse
of Los Angeles, and the C
to Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
Section 20. A full and fair joint public hearing
ed Redevelopment Plan has been duly noticed
regarding the propos
- 5 -
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795
and held by
the City Council and the Agency pursuant to law and
the Agency and City Council have received written and ora
testimony concerning such proposed Redevelopment Plan. The City
Council has duly considered the recommendations of the Agency;
has evaluated the Agency's Report to the City Council, which is
comprised of the reports and information require
Safety by
and
Safety Code Section 33352, and which report was p
submitted to the City Council, and allevidence
aandtestimonyhas for
and against adoption of such Redevelopment
ed
written findings in response to each written objection,
communication or suggestion, in accordance with Health and Safety
Code Section 33363. The City Council hereby finds and determines
objection,en
that the responses madeato eachcompwtetand have addressedmeachation
or suggestion are full
written objection, communication or suggestionin
in detail, givg
and su estioin
s ecified objections, gg
reasons for not accepting P analysis which describes the
ns
and include good -faith, reasoned propos
disposition of the issues raised. All objections to the
Redevelopment Plan were heard and passed upon by the Agency Council.
the City Council and are hereby overruled by the City
Section 21. The proposed Redevelopment Plan, a copy of
which has been presented to the City Council and which is now on
is
file in the office of the City Clerk, hereby approved subject
Exhibit A hereof.
to the mitigation measures set forth in
Section 22. The City may expend funds which may be
in connection with the redevelopment of
necessary or appropriate declares its intention to
the Project Area. The City herebydeclares
necessary to be carried
undertake and complete any p
out by the City under the provisions of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan.
D, AND ADOPTED this day of June, 1997.
PASSED, APPROVE
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
- 6 -
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar,
California do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution as duly
and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar, California, at its regular meeting held on the
day of , 1997, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
California
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 — 7 —
EXHIBIT "A"
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
1. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF
INSIGNIFICANCE.
Traffic and Circulation.
Traffic Demands and Level of Service. The Project will
result in increased traffic and will cause or worsen unacceptable
levels of service ("LOS") at certain intersections in the Project
Area. The intersections are specifically identified in Section 3.4
of the FEIR. Cumulative traffic impacts or related projects also
may be created without mitigation.
Finding: For each such intersection, changes or
alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified above.
Facts Supportinct Finding: The Project includes the
following traffic and circulation mitigation measures which have
been demonstrated in the FEIR to reduce each Project -related
significant traffic impact to a level of insignificance based on
LOS and intersection volume/capacity ratio, as described more fully
in Section 3.4, Table 13 and Figure 10 in the FEIR. Cumulative
traffic impacts will be mitigated as well through the
implementation of such measures and project -specific mitigation
measures for related projects:
a . Diamond Bar/Golden Springs: Add a left turn lane to each
approach on Golden Springs for a total of two in each
direction. This can be accomplished within the existing
street width but requires elimination of the bicycle lanes at
the intersection.
b. S 60/57 East -Bound Ramps/Grand Avenue: Change the S
60/57 off -ramp approach stripping and operations to prohibit
a through movement (allow left and right turns only). This
will allow a right turn overlap signal phase from Grand Avenue
(northbound) to S 60/57 on-ramp. Modify the S 60/57 off -ramp
approach to provide a free right turn from off -ramp to
south -bound Grand Avenue. Three southbound lanes presently
exist on Grand, south of the freeway ramp.
C. S 60/57 West -Bound Ramps/Grand Avenue: Restripe the
north Grand Avenue approach to provide a left, through,
through/right, and right turn lane.
d. Grand Avenue/Golden Springs: On Golden Springs for what
was identified as the eastbound approach, add a left turn lane
(for a total of two) and improve the eastbound right turn to
a free right turn.
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 8
On westbound Golden Springs, add a right turn lane.
e. Diamond Bar Boulevard/Grand Avenue: Implement
improvements to provide three through lanes on the Grand
Avenue approaches and the southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard
approach. The existing southbound right turn lane will be
converted into a through lane.
For the northbound approach, stripe for a through,
through/right, and right turn lane to accommodate the high
number of northbound right turn during the PM peak hour.
These improvements will be implemented as determined
appropriate by the City pending a review of alternate traffic
routes, effects on adjacent residential areas, and other
applicable factors.
f. Brea Canyon Road/Golden Springs -Calami: Add a left turn
lane to the northbound and southbound approaches on Brea
Canyon Road, for a total of two.
Eastbound - make improvements to convert the right turn lane
to a through lane.
westbound - add a left turn lane to provide a total of two.
g. Pathfinder Road/Diamond Bar Boulevard: Make
modifications to provide an added northbound through lane at
intersection. This will impact existing bicycle lane at this
location.
2. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS.
Air Quality Impacts. Development in the Project Area will
result in additional mobile and stationary emissions above the
SCAQMD daily thresholds for CO, ROG, and Nox on a project -specific
and cumulative basis.
Finding: Although mitigation measures have been adopted
to address these impacts, project -related air quality impacts
cannot be reduced a level of insignificance and are therefore found
to be significant and unavoidable.
Facts Supporting Finding: A number of mitigation
measures have been proposed to reduce air quality impacts resulting
from development pursuant to the Project, a number of mitigation
measures have been imposed. A full description of those mitigation
measures is found in Table 2 and Section 3.3 of the FEIR. While
these measures will reduce certain aspects of the Project -related
air quality impacts, estimation of the efficacy of these mitigation
measures to reduce vehicular and operational emissions is
difficult. It is unlikely, however, that these measures will be
adequate to reduce mobile and. stationary emissions to below the
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 9
SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, mobile and stationary
emissions from the Project are considered significant and
unavoidable. The Agency hereby finds that there are specific
economic, social, legal, technological, and other considerations
that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the EIR and that the benefits of the project outweigh
its potential adverse construction -related impacts. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been prepared, and is set forth
below.
3. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The City Council has considered various project
alternatives as analyzed in the EIR and makes the following
findings:
i. No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative
considers retaining the Project Area in its existing condition with
no additional development taking place in the framework of the
Redevelopment Plan. This alternative would permit continuing
development in the Project Area without the guidance and benefits
of the Redevelopment Plan. Because such development would be
undertaken pursuant to the existing General Plan, this alternative
would create the same environment impacts as the Project.
Finding: Specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative.
Facts in Support of Finding: The No Project Alternative
is infeasible because it does not achieve any of the stated goals
and objectives of the Project including, without limitation, the
the
elimination of blighted conditions in the Project Area,
improvement of public facilities and public infrastructure, and the
encouragement of resident and business participation in the
economic revitalization of the Project Area. The Project is
intended, in part, to provide necessary tax increment financing for
public infrastructure and facilities in the Project Area which
would not be supplied under the No -Project Alternative. Buildout
of the Project Area in the absence of the Project will not have as
beneficial an impact on reducing blighted conditions as would the
Project in that the No -Project alternative would result in the
piecemeal development of the Project Area over a longer period of
time than that estimated in the FEIR.
The overriding social, economic and other considerations
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide
additional facts in support of this finding.
ii. Smaller Pro'ect Area Alternative. The Smaller
Project Area Alternative considers the Project in a smaller
geographic area than the Project Area. Reducing the size of the
Project Area could result in reduced traffic impacts, and air
910529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 - 10
-
quality impacts could be reduced, although not to a less -than -
significant level. or other
Fin= q: Specific economic, social
considerations make infeasible the
Smaller Project Area
The Smaller Project Area Alternative would not meet
Alternative. Project
the goals and objectives of the environmental pact of the projinate the
significant unavoidable environ While a reduced level of
Facts in Support of Finding the Smaller
ffic-related impacts, led
development under the Smaller Pr�aect Area Alternative would create
less traffic, thereby reducing t Produce all of the n
the Project.
Project Area Alternative won improvements created by exacerbate
infrastructure and facility suhimprovements could
Partial implementation of parking that will affect the
deficiencies related to trafficualt y development into the Project
City,s ability to attract mpa q the goals and objectives of the
Area, thereby adversely impacting
to a
In addition, while ualituc 1 pacts in tiontcaused by
y�mobile
Project. reduce air quality
certain extent, less than
fissions, such a reduction is nqualityl impacts in
the
less
40
emthe Smaller
range necessary to reduce air guidelines. Therefore, nifiller
significant level under SCAQMD g
cant
Project Area Alternative udnot eliminate the sig
unavoidable impact of the Project.
ial, economic and other considerations
The overriding soc
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations p
additional facts in support of this finding.
Alternative: This
iii. Lower Traffic-Generatin Project Area with
alternative dindustriaers lsusespment of that wouldthe generate less vehicular
ect. The alternative
commercial and industrial l and entertainment/
trips that those h anticipated for
Pretasearch and development
would replace high trip ark, and re
restaurant with office, business p s The result would be a
uses which g
enerate fewer vehicle trip Project Area.
raffic this reduction in
reduction in the overasol e°tu Areaf Alternati.veom the
As with the Smaller Project With less traffic,
or
hicle trips would reduce traffic -related s es Pacts and the need as
-vehicle at i o
traffic improvements as ming
mobile air pollutant emissions also would be reduced. io However,
not
Project Area Alternative, acts below a level of
with the Smaller quality
imp
be sufficient to reduce air q require the
In addition, this Alternative would be inconsistent
significance. and mightlace.
with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code,
imposition of development restrictions not currently in o other
Fin_ nq: Specific economic, social
infeasible the Lower Traffic -Generating
goals and
considerations make superior to
Alternative. This Alternative would not meet the g
objectives of the Project and is not environmentally P
the Project.
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795
Facts in Support of Finding: This Alternative would not
implement the policies, goals, objectives and strategies of the
General Plan for the City of Diamond Bar to the same extent as the
Project would, in that revisions to the General Plan and Zoning
Code would be required to replace retail, restaurant and
entertainment uses with office, research and development and
business park uses. This Alternative also would not meet the goal
of providing opportunities for retail business. Fewer retail and
restaurant/entertainment uses also would result in a significant
reduction in sales tax revenue to the City, by comparison to the
Project, making this Alternative economically infeasible.
The overriding social, economic and other considerations
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide
additional facts in support of this finding.
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Council has carefully and independently
considered the significant unavoidable adverse air quality impacts
identified above in deciding whether to approve the Project.
Although the City Council believes that the unavoidable air quality
impacts identified in the FEIR will be substantially lessened by
the mitigation measures incorporated into the project, it
recognizes that approval of the Project will nonetheless result in
certain unavoidable and potentially irreversible effects.
The City Council has weighed the benefits to the City of
the Project against its environmental risks. The City Council
specifically finds that, to the extent that any adverse or
potentially adverse impact set forth above has not been mitigated
to a level of insignificance, that specific economic; social,
legal, environmental, technological or other benefits of the
project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.
Furthermore, the City Council finds that any and each of the
following considerations is sufficient to approve the Projects
despite any one or more of the unavoidable impacts identified; that
each of the overriding considerations is adopted with respect to
each of the impacts individually, and that each consideration is
severable from any other consideration should one or more
consideration be shown to be legally insufficient for any reason.
The following considerations support approval of the Project:
a. The Project will implement the City's General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance and other policies, goals, plans, objectives and
strategies for the development of the Project Area in a coordinated
manner that will revitalize existing blighted areas through the
imposition of design and use standards.
b. The Project will proposes and will provide tax increment
revenue to finance improvements of public infrastructure, including
streets, public service facilities, parks, utilities, drainage
facilities, and landscape that are necessary to promote the
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 — 12 —
economic revitalization of the Project Area and attract appropriate
businesses to the area.
C. The Project will promote local job opportunities in the
community.
d. The Project will encourage participation by residents,
businesses, business persons, public agencies and community
organizations in the economic revitalization of the Project Area.
e. The Project will preserve and enhance the unique open
space resources in the community.
f. The Project will increase, improve, preserve the supply
of housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate income
households.
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 - 13 -
ADDENDUM
TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA
SCI. NO. 96111047
May 29, 1997
Introduction
This addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Rcport (BIR) for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area io the City of Diamond Bar was prepared in accordance with Section 15164
of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 1500 and following). Under
provisions of CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency may prepare an addendum to an EIR if Only
minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make an EIR under consideration adequate
under CEQA, and the changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new
issues about the significant effects on the environment.
This addendum is hereby included as part of the Final EIR. The City of Diamond Bar will
consider the addendum with the Final OR prior to making a decision on the project.
Issues Addressed in this Addendum
This addendum aiddresees effects of the change m'taL'r�ation Area, � territory to be � 1997 t
within the
boundaries of the Diamond Bar Economic Revs , the City of
from the
Diamond Bar Planning Commission recommended the deletion of certain PrOPOrtics
Revitalization Area, as shown in the attached Exhibit A. The deletion will result in a decrease of
approximately 154 acres in territory comprising the RcviWizadon Area, from 1,454 acres to
1,300 acres. The territory to be deleted includes parks, public rights of way, and Rev undeveloobed
area designated for residential uses in the City's general Plan. The change
Area will result in no change in expected commercial or industrial development within the
project area, and a reduction of approximately 130 residential units from projected development
analyzed in the Final EHL
Environmental Effects Associated with the Reduced RevitaUxation Area
The Final EIR considered environmental effects of redeveloping a 1,454 -acre Revitalization
Area. Redevelopment of a smaller Project Area is anticipated to reduce the magnitude of most
environmental effects considered in the Final EM, including traffic impact which was found to
be the only significant impact of the project. Mitigation measuees have been included in the
project that reduce traffic impact to a less than significant level. With less territory, most of the
environmental impacts analyzed in the Final Ems, including traffic, will decrease in rough
proportion to the reduction in the potential for new development on the territory deleted from
the Revitalization Area. 'Thus, the analysis of environmental impacts in the Final OR represents
the ` " dr
4dopment scenario for the project inclusive of impacts that will occur in a
smaller Revitalization Area. Such environmental impacts are, therefore, fully and adequately
addressed in the Final M and the change in the Revitalization Area's territory will not result in
any new or increased significant environmental impacts.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency (the
"Agency") has prepared a Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment
Plan") for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the
"Project Area") and has recommended approval of the Redevelopment
Plan by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar (the "City
Council").
SECTION 2. The Redevelopment Plan entitled
"Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization
Area," which is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the
City of Diamond Bar, is hereby incorporated by this reference.
SECTION 3. As established in the Redevelopment Plan,
the purposes and intent of the City Council with respect to the
Project Area are to eliminate the conditions of blight existing
in the Project Area and to prevent the recurrence of blighted
conditions within the Project Area by undertaking all appropriate
redevelopment projects pursuant to the Community Redevelopment
Law, California Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et sec-.
(the "Community Redevelopment Law"), including but not limited
to, providing public improvements and community facilities,
providing for the rehabilitation of commercial structures,
encouraging employment opportunities, and increasing, improving
or preserving low and moderate income housing.
SECTION 4. Based upon the record of the joint public
hearing on the Redevelopment Plan, and the various reports and
other information provided.to the City Council, the City Council
hereby finds and determines that:
A. The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of
which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes
declared in the Community Redevelopment Law. The Project
Area is characterized by a combination of conditions that
are so prevalent and so substantial that it causes a
reduction of, and lack of, proper utilization of the area to
such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and
economic burden on the community which cannot be expected to
be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or
governmental action, or both, without redevelopment.
Approximately 65 percent of all buildings and 58 percent of
all parcels suffer from one or more physical blighting
condition. Approximately 49 percent of all buildings and 39
percent of all parcels suffer from one or more economic
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109
blighting condition. Overall, approximately 90 percent of
all buildings and 71 percent of all parcels suffer from one
or more physical and/or economic blighting conditions. In
addition, the Project Area is characterized by economic
blighting conditions which are not site specific, such as
declining building permit activity and retail sales tax
revenues.
Conditions in the Project Area include, but are not limited
to, the following described physical and economic conditions
that cause blight:
Approximately 62 percent of the buildings (46 percent of the
parcels) in the Project Area are in need of maintenance
ranging from deferred maintenance to extensive
rehabilitation. 132 buildings (53 percent) are in need of
deferred maintenance; 21 buildings (over 8 percent) are in
need of moderate rehabilitation, and one building is in need
of extensive rehabilitation. Conditions of deterioration
include damaged exterior building materials, deteriorated
roofing material and eaves, sagging roofs, broken windows,
nonstructural damage, chipped and peeling paint, exposed
wiring and outdoor storage of materials and debris. These
conditions cause the buildings to be unsafe or unhealthy for
persons to live or work and reflect a lack of investment by
property owners to maintain or improve their properties in
standard condition. The process of deterioration can be
self-perpetuating; the presence of properties which exhibit
signs of deterioration deter owners of neighboring
properties from improving or maintaining their properties.
Approximately 27 percent of all buildings (17 percent of all
parcels) in the Project Area exhibit one or more conditions
of defective design, including inadequate vehicular access,
substandard building materials and inadequate loading areas.
Inadequate vehicular access plagues the majority of the
smaller retail centers in the Project Area. Typically,
these centers provide very limited access points for
business patrons. In addition, lack of or inadequate
loading areas results in trucks loading and unloading in
parking lots, often impeding access to businesses and
restricting traffic flow, and resulting in potentially
hazardous situations for business patrons. These conditions
also limit the potential for private sector development and
redevelopment to effectively utilize properties suffering
from high vacancies, deterioration and defective design.
24 percent of the buildings (17 percent of the parcels) in
the Project Area have one or more characteristic of
substandard design, including obsolescence and outdoor
storage and/or production. Commercial retail centers in the
Project Area are isolated, with virtually no freeway or
major right-of-way visibility and limited access. The
obsolete nature of the Project Area's strip retail centers
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109 - 2 -
and shopping centers (which are primarily smaller unanchored
strip centers constructed in the 1970's and 1980's with
little or no improvements or upgrades) has resulted in high
vacancies, high turnovers, profitability problems, and
limited shopping opportunities for Diamond Bar residents.
These limited opportunities have led to residents purchasing
goods and services outside of the City, causing significant
retail sales leakage.
Approximately 20 percent of the buildings (16 percent of
parcels) in the Project Area do not have parking which is
adequate to effectively conduct business and many of the
older commercial buildings are built to the property lines.
In addition to negatively affecting business operations, the
lack of parking interferes with vehicular and pedestrian
circulation. Many of the light industrial and commercial
uses located in the Project Area also lack sufficient off
street parking and, as a result, employees and patrons are
forced to park along the streets, and in some cases
residential streets, adjacent to these uses.
Geotechnical hazards and problems, such as landslides and
critical flood control and drainage deficiencies, have
impeded the adequate utilization of the land. Improvements
are required to mitigate potential landsliding, flooding and
drainage problems, thereby discouraging investment in the
properties.
12 parcels are incompatible to adjoining or nearby uses.
For instance, industrial uses surrounding walnut Elementary
School have resulted in a number of problems such as traffic
.and noise. The large volume of industrial traffic poses
significant safety threats to school children traveling to
and from school.
48 parcels (15 percent) located throughout the Project Area
are irregularly formed and shaped and under multiple
ownership. These parcels are a barrier to development
because they are frequently difficult or impossible to use
without combining with other parcels. 10 of the 15 retail
shopping centers (66 percent) are in multiple ownership.
Because of diversity of ownership, as well as small lots
sizes, it is unlikely that the reuse or private
redevelopment of deteriorated and obsolete properties will
be possible without a land assembly effort.
Secured assessed property values in the Project Area
decreased by 11 percent from 1993-94 to 1996-97, compared to
a 3 percent increase in assessed valuation City-wide and a
two percent decrease County -wide. Approximately 32 percent
of all parcels in the Project Area have experienced
decreases in property values over this same time period.
Land prices throughout the Gateway Corporate Center have
dropped by 50% per square foot in the last year.
970527 10572-00001 oas 1600109 - 3 -
From 1994 through 1996 only two building permits have been
issued for new construction in the Project Area, with a
total value of only $365,000. During this same time period,
9 building permits were issued in the City of San Dimas with
a total value of approximately $16 million, 55 building
permits for new construction were issued in the City of
Pomona with an approximate value of $20 million, and 30
building permits for new construction were issued in the
City of Brea with an approximate value of $26 million.
6 sites in the Project Area have been identified by the
California State Water Resources Control Board as having
leaking underground storage tanks. The high cost of
remediation, particularly if the site is considered for a
change of land use, makes the private development of these
sites costly and problematic.
The majority of the commercial businesses in the City are
located within the boundaries of the Project Area. Taxable
retail sales per capita in the City in 1994 was $3,023,
which is among the lowest in the San Gabriel Valley region.
The retail sales per capita in surrounding cities, such as
Brea, Chino and West Covina were $16,646, $6,895, and
$6,722, respectively, representing per capita taxable sales
that are approximately 100 percent to 500 percent higher.
The City is experiencing significant retail leakage. A
number of surveyed residents of Diamond Bar believe that
existing retail centers require improvements or upgrades.
67 buildings (27 percent), including over 150 tenant spaces,
are partially or 100 percent vacant. Of these, 22 are
commercial office, 13 are light industrial, and 32 are
commercial retail. Retail, industrial and office vacancy
rates in Diamond Bar are higher than in surrounding
communities. Overall, the average vacancy rate for all
Project Area retail centers is 24 percent while office
vacancy rates range from 20 to 40 percent.
The Project Area is characterized by inadequate public
infrastructure, improvements and facilities, which
contributes to the stagnation of the area's development and
limits the use and reuse of existing commercial and
industrial structures. Existing landscaping, streetscaping,
and public facilities are in need of upgrading or expanding
to provide a pedestrian -friendly environment that encourages
business patronage and private sector investment.
The conditions described above are causing and will
increasingly cause a reduction of and lack of proper
utilization of the Project Area to such an extent that it
constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the
community (including decreased property tax revenues and
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109 - 4 -
sales tax revenues) which cannot be expected to be reversed
or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action,
or both, without redevelopment.
B. The Redevelopment Plan would redevelop the Project Area in
conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the
interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare.
The implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will assist in
the elimination of conditions of blight within the Project
Area and prevent their reoccurrence. The Redevelopment Plan
provides for the installation and construction of public
improvements. The Redevelopment Plan also provides for the
rehabilitation of public and private structures. These
improvements are essential to encouraging private investment
and eliminating the conditions of blight in the Project Area
and preventing their reoccurrence.
C. The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is
economically sound and feasible. Under the Redevelopment
Plan, the Agency will be authorized to seek and utilize a
variety of potential financing resources, including property
tax increment revenues; the nature and timing of
redevelopment activities will depend on the amount and
availability of such financing resources, including tax
increment revenue generated in the Project Area; no
redevelopment activity will be undertaken unless the Agency
can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue to finance the
activity; and sufficient public and private financial
resources, when taken together with tax increment revenue,
will be available to carry out the proposed redevelopment
activities of the Agency. The Agency will issue its tax
increment bonds or other obligations payable from tax
increment revenues only when such revenues are projected to
be available to the Agency in amounts sufficient to pay for
the principal of, and interest on, such bonds. In addition,
there are available to the Agency other methods of financing
its redevelopment activities, including,but not limited to
bonds issued pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
33750 or Section 33641(d). The Agency may receive financial
assistance from the County of Los Angeles, State of
California, the federal government, and any other public
agency. As available, other funds also may be used to pay
the costs of the Agency's redevelopment activities,
including, but not limited to, Community Development Block
Grant funds.
D. The Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the General Plan
of the City of Diamond Bar, including, but not limited to
the General Plan's Housing Element, which substantially
complies with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing
with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of
the Government Code, as set forth in the findings of the
Planning Commission in its PC Resolution No. 97-5, adopted
on April 8, 1997 and its PC Resolution No. 97-8, adopted on
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109 - 5 -
May 27, 1997. The Redevelopment Plan proposes land uses and
public improvements contemplated by the General Plan and the
goals and objectives of such Plan.
E. The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan would promote the
public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the City of
Diamond Bar and would effectuate the purposes and policies
of the Community Redevelopment Law. The implementation of
the Redevelopment Plan will assist in the elimination of
conditions of blight within the Project Area. The
Redevelopment Plan provides for the installation and con-
struction of public improvements, the rehabilitation of
public.and private structures, the removal of obsolete and
substandard structures, and the assemblage of land into
parcels suitable for modern, integrated development. Under
the Redevelopment Plan the improvement of the public
infrastructure, including the street and traffic circulation
system improvements will correct existing deficiencies.
F. The condemnation of real property is necessary to the
execution of the Redevelopment Plan, and adequate provisions
have been made for payment for property to be acquired as
provided by law. The assemblage of parcels for development
and the completion of the proposed public improvements may
involve real property acquisition. No real property will be
condemned without the payment of compensation as required by
law. Further, adequate moneys will be budgeted by the
Agency for the acquisition of real property required by the
implementation of the Redevelopment Plan.
G. Although the Agency intends to accomplish all redevelopment
pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan with as little
displacement of families and persons as possible, the Agency
has a feasible method or plan for the relocation of families
and persons displaced from the Project Area if the
Redevelopment Plan may result in the temporary or permanent
displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the
Project Area. The Agency has adopted a method of relocation
for the Project Area which incorporates the California
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Guidelines.
H. If any displacement occurs as the result of implementation
of the Redevelopment Plan, there are, or shall be provided,
in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less
desirable in regard to public utilities and public and
commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the
financial means of the families and persons who may be
displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe, and sanitary
dwellings equal in number to the number of, and available
to, such displaced families and persons and reasonably
accessible to their places of employment.
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109 — 6 —
I. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the
adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33411 and
33411.1 of the Community Redevelopment Law. Dwelling units
housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall
not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a
replacement housing plan pursuant to Sections 33334.5, 33413
and 33413.5 of the Community Redevelopment Law. The Agency
has adopted a method of relocation for the Project Area
which incorporates the California Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Guidelines. The method provides
that no persons or families of low and moderate income shall
be displaced unless and until there is a suitable housing
unit available and ready for occupancy by such displaced
person or family at rents comparable to those at the time of
their displacement. Section 533 of the Redevelopment Plan
provides that whenever dwelling units housing persons and
families of low or moderate income are destroyed or removed
from the low and moderate income housing market as part of a
redevelopment project, the Agency shall, within four years
of such destruction or removal, rehabilitate, develop or
construct, or cause to be rehabilitated, developed or
constructed, for rental or sale to persons and families of
low or moderate income, an equal number of replacement
dwelling units at affordable housing costs within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Agency. 75 percent of the
replacement dwelling units shall replace dwelling units
available at affordable housing cost in the same income
level of very low income households, lower income
households, and persons and families of low and moderate
income, as the persons displaced from those units destroyed.
J. There are no noncontiguous areas of the Project Area.
K. Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are
not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare is
necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of
which they are a part; any such area included is necessary
for effective redevelopment and is not included for the
purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment
revenues from such area pursuant to Section 33670 of the
Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial
justification for its inclusion. Any such lands, buildings
or improvements are an integral part of the Project Area and
their proximity to substandard lands, buildings or
improvements requires their inclusion within the Project
Area to ensure proper and comprehensive planning and
redevelopment. Since conditions of blight are prevalent
throughout the Project Area, it is not feasible to exclude
the lands, buildings, or improvements which are not
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
L. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the
Project Area could not be reasonably expected to be
accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109 - 7 -
aid and assistance of the Agency. Substantial public
improvements must be constructed to assist in the
elimination of the conditions of blight in the Project Area.
The extent of the required public improvements cannot be
accomplished by private enterprise acting alone. The
detrimental conditions of inadequate infrastructure greatly
impede the Project Area's proper utilization and its ability
to develop and address conditions of blight. Further, the
combined effects of the conditions of blight in the Project
Area, such as the deficient buildings, inadequate
infrastructure and the negative, non -motivational investment
environment and lack of economic motivation caused by
excessive costs, all contribute to the conclusion that
conditions of blight will not be eliminated in the Project
Area by private enterprise acting alone. The cost of
rehabilitation is prohibitive, especially when property
values are falling. The existence of irregularly shaped and
inadequately sized parcels in multiple ownership discourages
private investment because new development cannot meet
current zoning, building and design standards and
reparcelization of land by the Agency may be necessary. In
addition, incompatible land uses within the Project Area
cannot be eliminated without the aid and assistance of the
Agency.
M. The Project Area is predominately urbanized, as defined by
subdivision (b) of Section 33320.1 of the Community
Redevelopment Law. Of the approximately 1,300 acres in the
Project Area, approximately 1,225 acres are developed for
urban uses or are an integral part of one or more areas
developed for urban uses which are surrounded or
substantially surrounded by parcels which have been or are
developed for urban uses. Within the Project Area there are
approximately 75 acres of vacant, nonurbanized land, or six
percent of the total area in the Project Area. Therefore,
94 percent of the Project Area is predominantly urbanized.
N. The time limitations that are contained in the Redevelopment
Plan are reasonably related to the proposed projects to be
implemented in the Project Area and to the ability of the
Agency to eliminate blight in the Project Area. The total
estimated cost of the public projects, programs and
improvements needed to redevelop the Project Area is
approximately $181 million. It is estimated that over the
life of the Redevelopment Plan, approximately $405 million
in tax increment revenues will be generated from the Project
Area and up to $183 million will be available after paying
statutory pass-through amounts and depositing 20 percent of
the tax increment into the Low and Moderate Income Housing
Fund. In the event that bonds are issued, up to $174
million of tax increment will remain after paying debt
service on approximately $47 million of bond principal.
This amount could be available to pay for Agency projects
and may provide a hedge against likely cost inflation.
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109 - 8 -
Therefore, the total cumulative revenues available for
projects is estimated to be approximately $183 million. The
30 -year duration of the Redevelopment Plan, the 20 -year
limit on the establishing of loans, advances and
indebtedness, and the 45 -year limit on the repayment of
indebtedness are necessary in order to assure sufficient
time to generate adequate tax increment revenues from the
Project Area to implement the redevelopment activities and
to repay debt, including bonded debt.
O. The City Council is satisfied that permanent housing
facilities will be available within three years from the
time occupants of the Project Area may be displaced and
that, pending the development of such facilities, there will
be available to such occupants who may be displaced adequate
temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in
the City of Diamond Bar at the time of their displacement.
SECTION 5. The Redevelopment Plan is hereby approved
and adopted and is hereby designated as the official
redevelopment plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization
Area of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and
directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City
Council and shall cause it to be published as required by law.
SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, sentence,
clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance
and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase
thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of
1997.
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond
Bar, California do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109 9
as duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar, California, at its regular meeting held
on the day of 1997, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
California
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109 - 10 -
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 - Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
(909) 860.2489 • Fax (909) 861-3117
City Online (885): (909) 860-5463 • Internet: http://www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us
May 20, 1997
Steve Lustig, Esq.
Trainum, Snowdon & Deane
Suite 550
1317 F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Re: Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area
Dear Mr. Lustig:
I am writing in response to your May 13, 1997, correspondence wherein you
inquire about the affects of the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area Plan
upon the Special Equipment Market Association (SEMA) headquarters located at
1575 S. Valley Vista Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. Your correspondence
was a result of a telephone conversation that you and I had earlier in the month of
Robert S. Huff
May.
Mayor
Carol Herrera
The concerns that you expressed, on behalf of SEMA, has to do with the possibility
Mayor Pro Tem
of SEMA having to make costly improvements to it's property in order to comply
with the provisions of the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area Plan. The
Eileen R. Ansari
Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area Plan does not set forth in its provisions a
Council Member
requirement that any property within the revitalization area must make improvements
Clair W. Harmony
to property. The Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area Plan contemplates a
Council Member
cooperative approach of rehabilitation and renovation of properties within, the revi-
talization area. The purpose of the revitalization area is to provide a mechanism for
Gary H. Werner
the City and Agency and the City's commercial and industrial property owners and
Council Member
businesses to cooperatively engage in renovations and rehabilitation activities so that
the overall economic vitality of the individual businesses, and by inference the
community, can be improved. Participation in such renovations and rehabilitation
activities, especially in the case of a property owner such as SEMA, are intended to
be volitional. Neither the City, nor the Agency, would require SEMA to make any
improvements to its property. However, in some point in the future, if SEMA
decided it wanted to make renovations to its property of the kind contemplated in the
Recycled paper
Letter to Mr. Steve Lustig
May 20, 1997
Page Two
Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area Plan, the City and Agency would be open to
a cooperative effort to accomplish SEMA's goals.
It is important to note that the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area Plan is not
intended to "strip the land" and start all over again. The City Council and the Agency
Board believe that renovations and rehabilitation in the Economic Revitalization Area
should be a function of mutual agreement. That is the philosophy and the intent that is
set forth in the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area Plan.
If you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to write
or call, 909/396-5666.
Si cerely,
f
Terrence L. B
City Manager
TLB:nbw
:langer
cc: City Council
JOHN RUSSELL DEANE III
RICHARD W. SNOWDON III
CHARLES A. TRAINUM. JR.
CHRISTOPHER J. KERSTING
COUNSEL
THOMAS A. FRAZIER. JR.
LAW OFFICES
TBAINUM, SNOWDON & DEANE
A PROFE55IONAL CORPORATION
SUITE 550
1317 F STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 200041
(202) 783-5488
FACSIMILE (202) 783-5502
May 13, 1997
Mr. Terrence Belanger
Executive Director
Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
21660 East Copley Drive
Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Re: Obligations of SEMA Pursuant to the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Plan
Dear Mr. Belanger:
VIRGINIA OFFICE
(5 40) 371-9419
MARYLAND OFFICE
(4101 268-9182
7
PQ
E�
I am writing on behalf of the Specialty Equipment Market
Association (SEMA), for which this firm serves as general
counsel. SEMA has its headquarters located at 1575 South Valley
Vista Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. The SEMA building is
located within the "Revitalization Area" identified by the
Preliminary Report for the Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar
Economic Revitalization Area. The SEMA building is a modern,
attractive, fully -utilized structure.
Per our conversation this afternoon I have expressed to you
SEMA's concern that it may have to make costly improvements to
its property in order to comply with the terms of the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Plan, despite the fact that its building is modern
and attractive. You informed me that any action taken by the
Redevelopment Agency must be made pursuant to an agreement
between the Agency and the property owner. You then stated that
SEMA would not have to make any improvements to its property
because of the fact that its building is already in compliance
with the terms of the Redevelopment Plan. You told me that I
could take your statements "to the bank."
Per our conversation, I hereby request that you send me a
letter acknowledging that the above statements are accurate and
true. I intend to advise SEMA that they can rely on your
statements, and that SEMA will not have to make any improvements
to its property.
As you are aware, the hearing for this matter is on May 20,
1997, so I would appreciate it if you could send the letter as
soon as possible.
Thank you very much for your attention to -this matter. If
you have any questions, please call me at the above numbers.
Sincerel ,
Steven Lust' , Esq.
CC: Linda A. Czarkowski
Vice President, Administration
Specialty Equipment Market Association
CALIFORNIA
j P • 1 . A
To: Gary Werner, CALIFORNIA JPIA Director
c/o City Clerk of Diamond Bar
From: William Holt, Executive Director
f
►�lr F�', i,., L q
97MAY30 plfJ2: 26
Subject: Membership Approval for the Cities of La Quinta and Rolling Hills
The CALIFORNIA JPIA Executive Committee at its regular meeting on May 28, 1997
recommended the approval of the Cities of La Quinta and Rolling Hills for
membership in the Authority, subject to the initial primary deposits established at:
City of La Quinta: General Liability: $60,300.00
Workers' Compensation: $37,637.00
City of Rolling Hills: General Liability $6,398.00
Enclosed are Membership Consent Forms for admission of the Cities of La Quinta
and Rolling Hills along with a copy of their individual On-site Evaluations.
We are requesting that each City Clerk deliver the enclosed materials to the
CALIFORNIA JPIA Director appointed by their Council, and expedite returning the
form to this office as soon as possible. If the Director is unavailable, the duly
appointed Alternate may execute the Consent. A stamped, preaddressed return
envelope has been included.
The CALIFORNIA JPIA Bylaws permit the independent judgment and action of the
member's Director (or Alternate) on this matter, so that admissions may be
accomplished in a timely manner. If your City's procedures require Council action
on the matter, please arrange for this item to be given special handling at your next
council meeting.
Thank you in advance for your assistance in expediting the return of the
Membership Consent Form by June 16, 1997. Please call me or Jon Shull if you have
any questions.
Enclosures (5)
CAI.I F(IRN 1A J(71 N POWI P1, INSIIRANCF AUTHORITY
CALIFORNIA JPIA
MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION
REPORT OF PHYSICAL SURVEY
of
CITY OF LA QUINTA
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Date of Survey: April 29, 1997
B. Participants in Survey:
1. For CJPIA: Jon Shull, Assistant Executive Director
Lee Losee, Claims Manager
Patricia France, Senior Risk Manager
Jeff Jones, Risk Manager
2. For City: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager
Mark Weiss, Assistant City Manager
John Falconer, Finance Director
Tom Hartung, Building and Safety Director
Jerry Herman, Community Development Director
Chris Vogt, Public Works Director
Saundra Juhola, Admin. Services Dir./City Clerk
Pamela Li Calsi, Risk Manager
Danny Johnson, Maintenance Manager
Page -1-
II. CURRENT INSURANCE PROGRAM
The city is currently a member of The Coachella Valley Joint Powers
Insurance Authority (CVJPIA). The self-insured general liability and
automobile liability program had an occurrence limit of $10,000,000, at a
retention level of $50,000. The estimated premium for 1997-1998 for claims in
excess of the self-insured retention is $106,873.
The city also participates in the CVJPIA self-insured workers' compensation
program. The estimated premium for 1997-1998 is $83,134.
The city has property coverage through Affiliated FM, with total values
insured in the amount of $24,398,000. The premium for 1996-1997 was
$17,280.
III. EXPERIENCE AND LOSS DATA
General and Automobile Liability
The city has had relatively few liability losses over the past five years,
averaging nine per year. With the exception of one major occurrence, the
cost of the city's losses of this same period has been and average of $38,580
annually.
The one major liability occurrence involved two vehicles driven by teenagers
who rear-ended a contractor -driven street sweeper. One vehicle had minor
damage and injuries, however the passengers in the second vehicle received
extensive injuries. Three of the teenagers are experiencing varying degrees of
paraplegia due to rear -seat lapbelt syndrome. Toyota, and the driver of the
vehicle are also named in the lawsuit. The city's liability appears slim, as it
had appropriately received additional insured status from the contractor's
insurance carrier. However, the contractor's insurer, Golden Eagle, is not
honoring its obligations at this time.
Workers' Compensation
The city has had relatively few workers' compensation losses over the past
few years. Complete, reliable, data is only available for the most recent three
years. The city has averaged eight claims per year with an average cost of
$10,243 per year.
Page -3-
IV.
V.
f
APPLICATION FEE AND DEPOSIT COMPUTATIONS
Q
C.
Application Fee:
The City of La Quinta has paid an application fee of $1,500.
General Liability Deposit:
The initial primary deposit covering the period July 1, 1997 through
June 30, 1998 was established at $60,300. The deposit was established
based upon a pro forma analysis of the City's claims history covering
the period July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1995.
Workers' Compensation Deposit:
The initial deposit for the July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998 coverage
period was established at $37,637 at the $10,000 retention level. The
deposit was established based upon a pro forma analysis of the City's
claims history.
PHYSICAL INSPECTION AND COMMENTS
A.
A
CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX
The Civic Center Complex was constructed in 1993. The building is
well maintained, includes a sufficient number of exits and is accessible
to the disabled. The parking lot is sufficiently lighted and maintained.
CORPORATION YARD
The public works facility is an aging building in need of cosmetic
upgrading. Facilities are provided for vehicle maintenance and storage
of equipment. Though not in exceptional condition, the facility
appears to provide a safe working environment.
SENIOR CENTER
The city owns and operates a senior center located adjacent to the civic
center complex. The building is well maintained and accessible to the
disabled.
Page -4-
D. PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS
The city currently has four parks within city limits. A golf course may
be added at some point in the future.
The city's recreation department and the Coachella Valley Parks and
Recreation District provide all recreational programs.
The Sheriff's Department routinely patrols all parks while open to the
public as well as after the facilities are closed.
Fritz Burns Park
This facility is located adjacent to the city's corporation yard. It houses
several lighted tennis courts, and a large grass play area. A community
pool has also been considered at the park, but has not been constructed
due to budget considerations. Picnic tables and benches are located near
the tennis courts, as is a unique, spray water feature. The parking lot is
adequately sized and well lighted.
Colima Mini Park
This pocket park is located in the "Cove" section of the city. Facilities
include a small play area, drinking fountain, park benches, fencing and
lighting. Although the equipment does not meet current Consumer
Product Safety Commission Guidelines for Head Entrapment, the city
will modify or replace the equipment to meet these standards as soon
as possible.
La Quinta Sports Complex
This well maintained facility is adjacent to La Quinta High School and
has five lighted sports fields. The property is owned by the Desert
Sands Unified School District, and is used by the city under a joint use
agreement.
Adams Street Park
This recently constructed community park provides a tot lot play area
and a play area for older children. In addition there is a large grass play
area and a spray water feature. The park has security lighting.
Page -5-
r it
E. STREETS AND SIDEWALKS as
Streets appeared to be well maintained not cel whereellp apP
signs, pavement markingropr te.
g, and wa pg
During the course of the survey, no us conditions wernotice of e ermining
noted
caused by surface drainage or dangerous
are re -
All pavement markings including
oare restriped annually. schoolsse adjacent to All city
painted on an as -needed basis. Roads uraged to
employees including those in public works are noted while dr�ving in the
immediately report dangerous conditions
city.
y the Public Works
A citizen complaint log is maintained indefinitelyolaints are documented -
Department. Action taken to rectify the complaints
ined roads
em of privately owned
ta
There is an extensive systsare ai�n private housing
within the city. Primarily these road
developments. The city was not involved in the design or construction
of these roads.
The sidewalks, footpaths, curbs and gutters no noticeable uplift other
as in
the parks observed during the survey had
and pothole repair are
dangerous conditions. Seam and crack
Mang repair, maintenance or
performed by city maintenance crew tha
modifications are contracted on a bid btandardssis to l are utilizeda where
requisite expertise. State traffic control
appropriate.
VI. WATER AND OTHER UTILITIES
for the provision Of
The Cit of La Quinta does not have the responsibility alpoweis provided by imperial
Y
any utilities for residents of the city. Electrical power the
Irrigation District. Southern California Gas furnishe
vides water and s natural gewerp cervi es
city. The Coachella Valley Water District pro
for the city residents and Waste Management of the Desert has responsibility
for refuse collection and recycling services.
VII. FIRE DEPARTMENT
FireP rotection and medical -aid services are provided under contract by the
Riverside County Fire Department.
Page -6-
VIII. POLICE DEPARTMENT
Law enforcement services are provided under contract by the Riverside
County Sheriff's Department.
IX. SUMMARY AND EVALUATION
The city leadership understands and is committed to the concept of risk
management and is very aware that hazardous conditions need to be
evaluated and addressed to reduce the city's exposure to risk/loss.
It is the CALIFORNIA JPIA staff's conclusion that the loss experience, physical
inspection, and interest expressed qualify the City of La Quinta for
consideration for membership in the CALIFORNIA JPIA.
We also find that membership will be of advantage to the city by providing
reliable and economical coverage, and it will be advantageous to the
CALIFORNIA JPIA by expanding its ability to spread pooled losses and costs.
X. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City of La Quinta's application for membership in
the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority be approved with an initial
General Liability Program primary deposit of $60,300 and an initial Workers'
Compensation Program deposit of $37,637 for participation in the $10,000
retention pool.
Page -7-
CALIFORNIA JPIA
MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION
REPORT OF ON-SITE EVALUATION
of
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
L GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Date of Evaluation: April 30, 1997
B. Participants in Survey:
1. For SCJPIA: Jon Shull, Assistant Executive Director
Patricia France, Senior Risk Manager
Jeff Jones, Risk Manager
2. For City: Craig Neallis, City Manager
C. Description of Applicant:
Located at the center of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the City of Rolling
Hills is a fully gated community known for its excellent living
conditions. The city was incorporated in 1957 as a general law city. The
city operates under the Council -Manager form of government with a
five -member City Council. Council Members serve four-year
overlapping terms, with the Mayor selected annually from among the
Members of Council.
Page -1-
H.
"11
The city's current permanent population is approximately 1,970. The
three square -mile city is entirely residential but for open spaces
dedicated to equestrian and other passive recreational activity areas.
Residential lot sizes are a minimum of one -acre.
The city's 1995-96 operating budget was $1,326,024 with a current
employment of five full-time employees, and 1995-96 payroll of
$236,858. Most of the city's revenues come from property taxes,
property transfer fees, building permits, and the cable television
franchise.
During the survey, city staff displayed knowledge and concern about
risk management issues. This attitude was reflected in the physical
plant of the city which generally appeared to be well maintained and in
good working order.
CURRENT INSURANCE PROGRAM
The City is a member of the Coachella Valley Joint Powers Insurance
Authority (CVJPIA). The self-insured general liability and automobile
liability program had an occurrence limit of $10,000,000. The premium for
1996-1997 was $4,646.
State Compensation Insurance Fund currently provides workers'
compensation coverage for the City. Premium for 1996-1997 was $6,000.
Property coverage is placed with Penco-West Inc. Covered property value is
$614,300. The premium for 3/1/97 to 3/1/98 is $1,023.
EXPERIENCE AND LOSS DATA
The City of Rolling Hills has had no general liability losses in the past five
years.
The City of Rolling Hills has had no workers' compensation losses in the past
five years.
The City of Rolling Hills has had no property losses in the past five years.
Page -2-
f f.
IV. APPLICATION FEE AND DEPOSIT COMPUTATIONS
A. Application Fee:
The City of Rolling Hills has paid an application fee of $1,500.
B. General Liability Deposit:
The initial primary deposit covering the period July 1, 1997 through
June 30, 1998 was established at $6,398. The deposit was established
based upon a pro forma analysis of the city's claims history.
V. PHYSICAL INSPECTION AND COMMENTS
A. CITY HALL
The City of Rolling Hills owns its city hall facilities, and leases a 4,600
sq. ft. office space to the Community Association. The buildings are
well maintained, include a sufficient number of exits and are accessible
to the disabled. The parking lot is sufficiently lighted and maintained.
B. TENNIS COURTS AND RIDING RINGS
The city owns and leases to the Community Association a tennis court
facility and two riding rings. Maintenance is provided by the
Association. Appropriate risk transfer agreements are provided in the
lease agreements.
C. STREETS AND SIDEWALKS
The streets within the city are maintained by the Community
Association. The city is responsible for striping and pavement marking
and signage. These activities are carried -out under contract. There are
no sidewalks.
VI. WATER AND OTHER UTILITIES
The City of Rolling Hills does not have the responsibility for the provision of
any utilities for residents of the city. Electrical power is provided by the
Edison Company. Southern California Gas furnishes natural gas within the
city. The California Water provides water services for the city residents and
BFI has responsibility for refuse collection and recycling services.
Page -3-
C C
VII. FIRE DEPARTMENT
Fire protection and medical -aid services are provided under contract by the
County of Los Angeles.
VIII. POLICE DEPARTMENT
Law enforcement services are provided under contract by the County of Los
Angeles.
VI. SUMMARY AND EVALUATION
The City's leadership understands and is committed to the concept of risk
management and is aware that hazardous conditions need to be evaluated
and addressed to reduce exposure to loss.
It is the CALIFORNIA JPIA staff's conclusion that the loss experience, physical
inspection, and interest expressed qualify the City of Rolling Hills for
consideration for membership in the CALIFORNIA JPIA.
We also find that membership will be of advantage to the city by providing
reliable and economical coverage, and it will be advantageous to the
CALIFORNIA JPIA by expanding its ability to spread pooled losses and costs.
VII. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City of Rolling Hills' application for membership
in the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority be approved with an
initial General Liability Program primary deposit of $6,398.
Page -4-