HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/4/1998Cit 01A11C tf
AGENDA
Tuesday, August 4,199 8
5:00 p.m., Study Session CC 3&5
6:00 p.m., Closed Session
6:30 p.m. Regular Meeting
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Auditorium
21865 East Copley Drive
DiamondBar, California 91765
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
City Manager
City .Attorney
City Clerk
Carol Herrera
Wen Chang
Eileen Ansari
Bob Huff
Debby O'Connor
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 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or
accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk
a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking
in the Council Chambers.
The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper
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.
1.
�MI'SSIGN TO IBE TELEVISED. THIS MEETING
i THE SATURDAY FOLLOWING THE COUNCIL MEE'
:HANNEL 12.
Next Resolution No. 98-46
Next Ordinance No. 04(1998)
STUDY SESSION: 5:00 p.m., Room CC -3&5
Communications & Marketing
CLOSED SESSION: 6:00 p.m., Room CC -3&5
Conference with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation
pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(b).
2. CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m., August 4, 1998
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor
3.
INVOCATION: Pastor Larry Grigsby, Calvary Chapel
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Huff,
O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Chang, Mayor
Herrera
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
3.2 Presentation by Pam Williams, representing Congressman
Jay Kim, relating to the Grand Opening of Pantera Park.
3.2 Proclaiming Tuesday, August 4, 1998 as "National Night
Out."
4. PUBLIC CMTS: "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 S,jeaker'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 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - Bobby Cochran & the Rock Around
the Clock Show (501s) - August 5, 1998 - 6:30 p.m.,
Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 E. Golden Spgs. Dr.
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 2
5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION - August 11, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - Alturas (Latin Jazz) - August
12, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 E.
Golden Spgs. Dr.
5.4 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - August 13, 1998 -
AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - August 18, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
6.1.1 Regular Meeting of July 7, 1998 - Approve as
submitted. Continued from July 21, 1998.
6.1.2 Special Joint Meeting of July 17, 1998 -
Approve as submitted.
6.1.3 Regular Meeting of July 21, 1998 - Approve as
submitted.
Requested by: City Clerk
6.2 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular
Meeting of June 11, 1998 - Receive and File.
Requested by: Engineering Division
6.3 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated August
4, 1998 in the amount of $1,063,838.26.
Requested by: City Manager
6.4 TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of June, 1998.
Recommended Action: Review and approve.
Requested by: City Manager
6.5 EXTENSION OF CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH J. MICHAEL HULS,
R.E.A., FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES - The City
has retained the services J. Michael Huls, R.E.A., a
consulting firm with experience in solid waste planning
and integrated environmental management program
implementation. The agreement will expire on August 15,
1998; however, an option for extension is available.
Consequently, the City has prepared to extend the
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 3
contract for one year. This extension will represent the
third year of contract extensions.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council (1) find that it is in the City's best interest
to extend the existing contract and (2) approve and
authorize the Mayor to extend the Consulting Services
Agreement with J. Michael Huls, R.E.A., in an amount not -
to -exceed $43,276 for services relating to administration
of the City's solid waste permit system, coordination of
AB 939 and program activities, and implementation of
NPDES permit requirements.
Requested by: Engineering Division
6.6 RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE INSTALLATION AT
THE INTERSECTING LEG OF GOLDEN PRADOS DRIVE AND BRIDLE
DRIVE - On July 9, 1998, the Traffic & Transportation
Commission discussed and recommended to Council that a
stop sign be installed at the intersecting leg of Golden
Prados Dr. at Bridle Dr. The intent is to ensure that
motorists on Golden Prados Dr. come to a complete stop at
Bridle Dr.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution. No. 98 -XX entitled: A Resolution
of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar Approving
the Installation of a Stop Sign at the Intersecting Leg
of Golden Prados Dr. at Bridle Dr.
Requested by: Engineering Division
6.7 EXTENSION OF VENDOR SERVICES FOR BUS EXCURSION RECREATION
PROGRAM - Under the purchasing guidelines, awards for
services to a single vendor may not exceed $10,000
without prior authorization from Council. The City
offers 24 bus excursions for adults and seniors as a part
of the recreation program each year. Requests for bids
for providing these services are obtained from vendors
prior to each excursion. Two vendors, Inland Empire
Stages, Ltd. and Main Street Tours consistently submit
the low bids for these services. Expected use of these
vendors for FY 98/99 will result in the $10,000 ceiling
being exceeded. In order to utilize the most qualified
vendors at the lowest possible price, it is necessary to
extend the $10,000 ceiling for these two vendors. Funds
to provide bus excursion services are already included in
the FY 98/99 budget and will have no financial impact on
the budget.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 4
Council authorize additional work to be performed by
Inland Empire Stages, Ltd. and Main Street Tours
(consistently the two low bidders for this service) for
the provision of bus excursion services for FY 98/99.
The total amount to be awarded to these vendors for
services rendered this FY year shall not exceed $11,000
for Inland Empire Stages, Ltd. and $49,000 for Main
Street Tours.
Requested by: Community Services Division
6.8 RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT
NO. 002 TO THE STATE -LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP
AGREEMENT NO. SLTPP 5455 FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE STATE -
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FOR THE DIAMOND
BAR BOULEVARD STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT - The State -
Local Transportation Partnership Program (SLTPP) was
implemented in 1989 to encourage local agencies to fund
and construct transportation improvement projects both on
and off the State Highway System. On December 4, 1994,
Council adopted Resolution No. 94-57 approving the State -
Local Entity Master Agreement No. 07-5455 for grant funds
for the SLTPP under Section 2600 et seq. of the Street
and Highways Code. In March of 1997, a grant was applied
for and approved by the State for Cycle 8 of the SLTPP
Program. The City will receive $153,192.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX approving Program
Supplement No. 002 to the State -Local Transportation
Partnership Agreement No. SLTPP 5455 and direct the City
Clerk to forward the two originals to the State of
California Department of Transportation for final
execution.
Requested by: Engineering Division
6.9 RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE DESTRUCTION BY
THE CITY CLERK OF CITY RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NO
LONGER REQUIRED AS PROVIDED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
34090 - Government Code Section 34090 provides that,
"with the approval of the legislative body by resolution
and the written consent of the city attorney the head of
a city department may destroy any city record, document,
instrument, book or paper, under his charge, without
making a copy thereof, after the same is no longer
required." Destruction of the materials referenced in
Exhibit "A" attached to the proposed resolution is
determined necessary in order to conserve storage space,
reduce staff time, expense and confusion in handling
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 5
information and informing the public.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX approving the
destruction of certain records which are no longer
required as provided by Government Code Section 34090.
Requested by: City Clerk
6.10 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH STANDARD PACIFIC
CORPORATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON BREA CANYON ROAD AT
DIAMOND CREST LANE - Standard Pacific Corporation has
requested approval of an agreement granting permission to
construct and maintain landscaping, decorative walls and
a water element on City -owned property adjacent to their
107 -home development currently under construction.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the city
Council authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement
with Standard Pacific Corporation for Landscape
Maintenance.
Requested by: Planning Division
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters
can be heard. None
8. OLD BUSINESS:
8.1 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 03(1998): AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING CHAPTER 8.24 OF TITLE
8 OF THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 8 AND DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 11 OF THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AND REVISING THE CITY HEALTH
CODE - L.A. County has adopted an ordinance enhancing
current public health requirements for operation of food
establishments. The City is considering adoption to
ensure continuity with County regulations and effective
enforcement. On July 21, 1998, Council concluded its
public hearing and requested amendments to the Ordinance
relating the posting of inspection grades.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council review the proposed amendments, waive further
reading and approve for 2nd reading Ordinance No.
03(1998) revising the City Health Code.
Requested by: Planning Division
8.2 STAFF REPORT ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DIAMOND BAR SOLID
WASTE STANDARDS TASK FORCE - The final report of the
Solid Waste Standards Task Force (SWSTF) was presented to
AUGUST 4, 1998
PAGE 6
Council on July 21, 1998. Council then requested staff
to evaluate the recommendations and bring back their
assessment of the time and resources required to fully
evaluate the SWSTF recommendations. Staff found that f
SWSTF recommendations require additional study, while the
rest are already planned for implementation as dictated
by the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE).
The items requiring further study include: variable
rates, automated collection featuring a three barrel
system, yard waste collection, selecting a single hauler
for the single-family residence sector, and extending
mandatory service to multi -family residences. The time
schedule, if all studies are selected, is estimated at
six months with a combined staff and consultant time of
approximately 158 hours.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council review the staff report and provide direction
concerning the key findings of the SWSTF.
Requested by: Engineering Division
8.3 SELECTION OF RECREATION SERVICES PROVIDER - Items (A) and
(B) relate to the selection of the recreation services
provider. If staff's recommendation for item (A) is
approved by Council, item (B) will not be necessary. If
Council approves another option available for item (A),
then it becomes necessary to take action on item (B).
Approval of item (B) will extend the existing contract
with the City of Brea for four (4) additional months,
through December 31, 1998, and provide the time necessary
to implement the action approved by Council on item (a).
(A) The extended contract with the City of Brea to
provide recreation services in D.B. expires on August 31,
1998. In response to a Request for Proposals (RFP), the
City has received proposals from the Cities of Brea and
Chino Hills. D.B. staff also developed an in-house
proposal as an alternative to contracting with another
city for this service. Staff has interviewed each of the
proposers and presented the results of the review process
to Council at a study session on June 16, 1998. Based on
the need to provide high quality service at a reasonable
cost, staff believes that the City of Brea should
continue as the recreation services provider. Brea has
provided this service to the community for the past seven
years and continues to provide a quality program. Brea
is responsive to the City's needs and has a well
developed system established in Brea that provides the
necessary staff support to operate this contract
successfully.
AUGUST 4, 1998
PAGE 7
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council select the City of Brea as provider of recreation
services in D.B. for the period September 1, 1998 through
June 30, 2001 (3 years). It is further recommended that
the City Council direct staff to bring back the proposed
contract with the City of Brea to the next City Council
meeting for approval.
(B) This agenda item will not be necessary if staff's
recommendation for Agenda Item (A )is approved by the
City Council. If City Council approves an alternative
available in Item (A), it will be necessary to contract
with the City of Brea until December 31, 1998 (four
additional months), as a transition period for the method
of providing recreation services. The proposed four
month contract extension with Brea will cost $160,297 and
generate $107,947 in revenue. The four-month extension
will be added to an existing 12 month contract that
already has a four-month extension. Approval of a new
four-month extension to this contract will result in a
twenty -month contract (May 1, 1997 through December 31,
1998) for total expenditures of $737,255 and revenues of
$516,311, resulting in a net cost of $220,944.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council authorize a contract extension with the City of
Brea to provide recreation services in Diamond Bar
through December 31, 1998, for a total contract amount of
$737,255 (May 1, 1997 through December 31, 1998 - a total
period of 20 months).
Requested by: Community Services Division
9. NEN BUSINESS: None
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Next Resolution No. 98-07
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Huff
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera, O'Connor,
VC/Ansari, C/Huff
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
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 8
im-03 i I
at
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
3.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of July 21, 1998 -
Approve as submitted.
Requested by: Agency Secretary
3.2 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated August
4, 1998 in the amount of $144,682.12.
Requested by: City Manager
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEN BUSINESS: None
7. AGENCY SER COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Agency
Members are for agency discussion. Direction may be given at
this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a
future meeting.
AGENCY ADJOUR14MENT :
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
10. COUNCIL SUB-COW41TTEE REPORTS:
11. COUNCIL NUMBER. COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Council
Members are for Council discussion. Direction may be given at
this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a
future meeting.
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 Study Session at
5:00 p.m., CC -3&5 and a Regular Meeting in the AQMD Auditorium,
located at 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California at 6:30
p.m. on August 4, 1998.
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 Study Session and Regular Meeting of the
Diamond Bar City Council, to be held on August 4, 1998 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 31st day of
July, 1998, at Diamond Bar, California.
/s/ Lynda Buraess
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
'TO CITY CLERK
FR, )M;
,4D TRESS:
OR, aANIZATION:
AGE=NDA #/SUBJECT:
DATE:
PHONE:
Ue
I expect to address the Council on a subject agenda item. Please have the Council inutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
f ` Signature
TO
FR )M:
AD )RESS:
OR aAVIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
G L. �1 Z-� /-/,C A clf� DATE: f �
�' /1'�Ci✓� 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.
l
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: (�_ l'� DATE:
ADDRESS: �7,`CL iT L�e_�c`�t (� t�"�� EIL ✓ ��'PHONE:�,CC%'
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.
Skgnaturqf
NA
TO
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
ir F` �/Y2c,�C
DATE:
PHONE:
,4,G; -::NDA #/SUBJECT: _/L%�- R/rrI
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
L ,1
FROM: Iz I� 1 5 DATE:
ADDRESS: 2 "Z' C . e l U F �` _ PHONE:
ORGANIZATION: ,�_ �_-- -- -- _ --- ---
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: 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
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: `t.-�rr.g DATE:—
ADDRESS: c/� i1�i:f/�. 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.
-11)011r�7 - J.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO CITY CLERK J
FROM: DATE:
ADDRESS: PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: Q' s-- 1 111A /A ;
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
2.
1.
G=TY OF 1D122aIiO1?D HTSt
"QUICK CAP" MINUTES
AUGUST 4, 1998
STUDY SESSION: 5:10 p.m., Room CC -3&5
Communications & Marketing
Present: Council Members Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Chang,
M/Herrera. Council Member Ansari absent.
Also Present: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael
Jenkins, City Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager;
David Liu, Deputy Public Works Director; Mike Nelson,
Communications and Marketing Director; Bob Rose, Community
Services Director; Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant; Anne
Haraksin, Administrative Asst.; Laurie Kajiwara, Marketing
Coordinator; Steve Tamaya, Marketing Coordinator; and Tommye
Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk.
CMD/Nelson introduced Laurie Kajiwara and Steve Tamaya, both
Marketing Coordinators. He then made a presentation regarding
the City's Communications and Marketing Team and discussion of
strategies for marketing in the City. He gave a Handout
entitled Communications and Marketing Division FY 198-199
Overview and Objectives.
Prior to Adjournment to Closed Session, CA/Jenkins requested
that the City Council add one item to the Closed Session
Agenda. This item came to his attention this afternoon and
therefore qualified under the two prong test of adding items
to the Agenda and there is a need to take action by tomorrow.
C/Huff moved, C/O'Connor seconded to add the item on the
Agenda. Motion approved by 4-0. C/Ansari absent.
M/Herrera adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 6:14 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: 6:53 p.m., August 4, 1998
CLOSED SESSION: 6:00 p.m., Room CC -3&5
Conference with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation
pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(b).
CA/Jenkins stated that before adjourning to Closed Session, by
a 4/0 vote it added one item to the Closed Session. That item
was a threat of litigation from a Law Firm representing
Nextel. In the letter there was a threat of litigation that
was received by him late this afternoon and required action by
the City Council before tomorrow. Consequently, it met the
standard for adding an item to the Agenda, under the Brown
Act.
No reportable Action was taken by the Council during Closed
Session.
AUGUST 4,1998
3.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
INVOCATION:
ROLL CALL:
PAGE 2
C/Huff
Pastor Dennis Morales, Calvary
Chapel
Council Members Huff, O'Connor, Mayor
Pro Tem Chang, Mayor Herrera.
C/Ansari arrived at 7:25 p.m.
Also Present: Also Present: Terrence L. Belanger, City
Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; James DeStefano,
Deputy City Manager; David Liu, Deputy Public Works Director;
Mike Nelson, Communications and Marketing Director; Bob Rose,
Community Services Director; Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant;
Anne Haraksin, Administrative Asst.;and Tommye Cribbins,
Deputy City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
3.1 Pam Williams, representing Congressman Jay Kim, presented
the City Council with a Congressional Recognition for the
Grand Opening of Pantera Park.
3.2 Presented Capt. Richard Martinez, Walnut Sheriff's
Station with a Proclamation, proclaiming Tuesday, August
4, 1998 as "National Night Out."
Both Dr. Ron Hockwalt, representing the Walnut Valley
Rotary Club and Pam Williams, representing Congressman
Jay Kim's Office also presented Capt. Martinez with
Recognitions acknowledging "National Night Out."
Capt. Martinez, stated that at the Concert in the Park
being held on August 5, 1998, the Walnut Sheriff's
Station will have booths, including "Kids Print",
McGruff, the Bike Patrol, Sane Deputies, to mention a
few, beginning at 5:30 p.m., and invited the community to
come and participate.
M/Herrera also proclaimed the week of August 10 - 16,
1998 as Bicycle Safety Awareness Week.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Clyde Hennessee - Felt that since he did not participate in
the Parking Task Force, that he should return the Certificate
of Recognition.
Alan Wilson, 22809 Hilton Head Dr. Unit 7, spoke regarding the
various law suits that have been brought against the City and
AUGUST 4,1998 PAGE 3
felt that the money could be used more wisely then having to
defend the City against certain individuals.
Art O'Daly, President of D.B. Chamber of Commerce,
congratulated the City Council and Staff for the opening of
Pantera Park. He then introduced Jeff Kuntz, Interim
Executive Director.
Jeff Kuntz, spoke briefly of his qualifications and what he
brings to the Chamber.
M/Herrera asked CMD/Nelson to introduce his new staff.
CMD/Nelson introduced Laurie Kajiwara and Steve Tamaya.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - Bobby Cochran & the Rock Around
the Clock Show (501s) - August 5, 1998 - 6:30 p.m.,
Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 E. Golden Spgs. Dr. -
"National Night Out" Activities beginning at 5:30 p.m. at
Sycamore Canyon Park.
5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION - August 11, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - Alturas (Latin Jazz) - August
12, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 E.
Golden Spgs. Dr.
5.4 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - August 13, 1998 -
AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.5 REDEDICATION OF DIAMOND BAR LIBRARY - Saturday, August
15, 1998 - 10:00 a.m., 1061 S. Grand Ave.
5.5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - August 18, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.6 "DIAMOND BAR NIGHT AT QUAKES" - August 26, 1998 - 7:15
p.m. "Food Fair Package" is available for $5.00 which
includes, transportation, admission to the game, hot dog
and drink. Tickets will be available at the Concerts in
the Park and at City Hall.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Ansari moved, MPT/Chang seconded to
approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item No.
6.10. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote.
6.1 MINUTES:
6.1.1 Regular Meeting of July 7, 1998 - Approved as
AUGUST 4,1998
PAGE 4
amended.
6.1.2 Special Joint Meeting of July 17, 1998 -
Approved as submitted.
6.1.3 Regular Meeting of July 21, 1998 - Approved as
submitted.
6.2 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular
Meeting of June 11, 1998 - Received and Filed.
6.3 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - Dated August 4, 1998 in the
amount of $1,063,838.26.
6.4 APPROVED AND REVIEWED TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of June,
1998.
6.5 APPROVED EXTENSION OF CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH J.
MICHAEL HULS, R.E.A., FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES - Approved and authorized the Mayor to extend
the Consulting Services Agreement with J. Michael Huls,
R.E.A., in an amount not -to -exceed $43,276 for services
relating to administration of the City's solid waste
permit system, coordination of AB 939 and program
activities, and implementation of NPDES permit
requirements.
6.6 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-46: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE
INSTALLATION AT THE INTERSECTING LEG OF GOLDEN PRADOS
DRIVE AND BRIDLE DRIVE.
6.7 APPROVED EXTENSION OF VENDOR SERVICES FOR BUS EXCURSION
RECREATION PROGRAM - Authorized additional work to be
performed by Inland Empire Stages, Ltd. and Main Street
Tours for providing bus excursion services for FY 98/99.
The total amount to be awarded to these vendors for
services rendered this FY year shall not exceed $11,000
for Inland Empire Stages, Ltd. and $49,000 for Main
Street Tours.
6.8 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-47: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PROGRAM
SUPPLEMENT NO. 002 TO THE STATE -LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT NO. SLTPP 5455 FOR GRANT FUNDS
UNDER THE STATE -LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
FOR THE DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD STREET REHABILITATION
PROJECT - Appointing the City Manager as agent for the
City to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all
documents, and directing the City Clerk to forward the
two originals to the State of California Department of
Transportation for final execution.
6.9 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-48: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
AUGUST 4,1998 PAGE 5
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE
DESTRUCTION BY THE CITY CLERK OF CITY RECORDS AND
DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS PROVIDED UNDER
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34090 -
MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.10 APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH STANDARD
PACIFIC CORPORATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON BREA CANYON
ROAD AT DIAMOND CREST LANE - Authorize the Mayor to enter
into an agreement with Standard Pacific Corporation for
Landscape Maintenance.
Following presentation by DCM/DeStefano, C/O'Connor
moved, MPT/Chang seconded to approve. Motion carried 5-0
by Roll Call vote.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
8. OLD BUSINESS:
8.1 APPROVED FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 03(1998): AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING CHAPTER
8.24 OF TITLE 8 OF THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 8 AND DIVISION 1 OF TITLE
11 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AND REVISING THE CITY
HEALTH CODE - CM/Belanger advised that although the item
has been advertised as a second reading, the City
Attorney has indicated that since the changes that were
made are substantive and under the law, substantive
changes made to ordinances require a first reading.
DCM/DeStefano went on to go over the changes made to the
Ordinance.
Following discussion, MPT/Chang moved, C/Huff seconded to
approve for first reading by title only, and waive full
reading of Ordinance No. 03(1998). Motion carried 5-0 by
Roll Call vote.
8.2 STAFF REPORT ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DIAMOND BAR SOLID
WASTE STANDARDS TASK FORCE - CM/Belanger gave a
presentation regarding recommendations offered by staff.
Following Council discussion and public comments,
C/O'Connor moved, C/Ansari seconded to look at all five
recommendations and directed staff and the consultant to
proceed with the schedule as presented. Motion carried
5-0 by Roll Call vote.
8.3 SELECTION OF RECREATION SERVICES PROVIDER - CM/Belanger
made a presentation stating that it is staff's
AUGUST 4,1998
PAGE 6
recommendation to select the City of Brea as provider of
recreation services for the period of September 1, 1998
through August 30, 2001. It amounts to three one-year
contracts, giving the City, as well as the City of Brea
the opportunity to terminate the contract at each of
those year milestones with a 90 -day notice, which is how
the City has operated to date.
Following discussion C/O'Connor moved, C/Ansari seconded
to award a contract to the City of Brea as the City's
recreation services provider for the period September 1,
1998 through August 31, 2001 (3 years) and directed staff
to bring back the proposed contract. Motion carried 5-0
by Roll Call vote.
9. NEW BUSINESS: None
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING 9:04 p.m.
Next Resolution No. 98-07
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Huff
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera, O'Connor,
VC/Ansari, C/Huff
Also Present: Also Present: Terrence L. Belanger, Executive
Director; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; James DeStefano,
Deputy City Manager; David Liu, Deputy Public Works Director;
Mike Nelson, Communications and Marketing Director; Bob Rose,
Community Services Director; Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant;
Anne Haraksin, Administrative Asst.; and Tommye Cribbins,
Deputy Agency Secretary.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
3. CONSENT CALENDAR: VC/Ansari moved, AG/Chang seconded to
approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried 4-1
by Roll Call vote (AG/Herrera absent).
3.1 APPROVED OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of July 21, 1998 -
3.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated August 4, 1998 in the
amount of $144,682.12.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
AUGUST 4,1998 PAGE 7
7. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS:
AGENCY ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct Chair/Huff
adjourned the meeting to August 18, 1998 at 4:00 p.m.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 9:10 P.M.
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS:
11. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
12. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Herrera
adjourned the meeting to August 18, 1998 at 4:00 p.m., and in
memory of Colleen Fritzal.
JI__� L�) -) - - -
Communications and Marketing Division
FY '98-'99 Overview and Objectives
Communications - Public Information - Public Education
Ongoing projects/programs
s Media advisories and story placement; media relations
Press releases; story pitches, etc.
♦ Community Newsletter and Recreation Guide (quarterly)
♦ Administration of city's web site
♦ Community Calendar (quarterly)
♦ Public requests for information
Telephone inquiries; e-mail; information packets, etc.
♦ Coordination of public information activities for community events
City anniversary celebration, etc.
♦ Community information bulletin boards
Coordination and placement of public notices and related city information
♦ Interdepartmental communications support
Planned projects/programs
♦ Procurement, planning and implementation of the Automated Citizen's Information
System (4-6 month project)
♦ Web site enhancement project (e.g., audio/video/photography)
♦ Development of Communications and Marketing Strategic Plan and Standard
Operating Procedures
♦ Development of monthly internal employee communications media
"E -news "
♦ Development of specialty publication piece for grade school students
Introduction to city government/city services/departments, etc.
♦ Development of 10`x' Anniversary promotional piece (e.g., commemorative T-shirt)
♦ Ongoing development and enhancement of city information pieces
City Council profiles, etc.
Marketing and Business development
Ongoing projects/programs
♦ Coordination and implementation of Business Visitation Program
Site visit scheduling, follow-up, etc.
♦ Continued response to business-related requests for information
Developer packets, etc.
♦ Development of marketing materials and advertising content
Developer packets; property spec sheets; print/electronic advertisements and
advertorials
♦ Continued research of business and economic trends, financing mechanisms, and
business assistance resources for local business community
♦ Continued development of commercial/retail tenant database
♦ Continued development and promotion of city's Business Marketplace Program
♦ Continued participation, preparation and involvement in economic development trade
shows, expositions and events.
♦ Continued marketing support for economic development/redevelopment projects and
programs, as required.
Planned projects/programs
• Coordination and assistance in the development of the City's Economic Development
Strategic Plan
♦ Development of Economic Development contact database
♦ Development of "Business Brief"hot hot sheet
♦ Development and implementation of business registration program
♦ Development of quarterly business seminar program for local business community
♦ Development of commercial brokers information tour and incentive program
♦ Enhanced marketing effort for local Business Marketplace Program
Information Technology I
Ongoing projects/programs
♦ Continued maintenance of city's local area network, computer hardware and software
Diagnostics, troubleshooting, hardware/software upgrades
♦ Continued support for off-site systems, as needed
Library, Heritage Park, etc.
♦ Continued assistance and end-user support (Council and staff)
♦ Continued maintenance and monitoring of City Online BBS
Planned projects/programs
♦ Development, coordination, and implementation of citywide management
information system upgrade
Assessment, selection, and procurement of end-user systems and software, and
assurance of Y2K compliance
♦ Coordination and hardware/software surplus effort for outdated equipment
♦ Development and coordination of in-house software training (`just the basics')
program for Council/staff-, coordination of supplemental software training
("advanced') with outside consultants, as needed
♦ Development of long-range MIS plan for incorporation into Communications and
Marketing Strategic Plan and Standard Operating Procedures
'rocla
,,
K2�'IIJTA,�' l /' -iIVA'
WYKI MS, the "15th Annual National Night Out"provides a unique opportunity
Diamond Bar to join forces with thousands of other communities across the count
cooperative, police -community crime prevention efforts; and
WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar plays a vital role in assisting the Los Ange
Department through joint crime, drug and violence prevention efforts in the City
and is supporting "National Night Out 1998" locally; and
WHEREAS, it is essential that all citizens of the City of Diamond Bar be aware
of crime prevention programs and the impact that their participation can have f
drugs and violence in the City of Diamond Bar; and
WHEREAS, police -community partnerships, neighborhood safety, awareness op �e ''
important themes of the "National Night Out"program; `
NOW, THEREFOR& BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of the City o is d
hereby proclaim Tuesday, August 4, 1998 as "National Night Out" in the Ci D d`
calls upon all citizens of the City of Diamond Bar to support the "15th Annu =N naa ig ut".
DATED: August 4, 1998
Carol Herrera
-nple" Proclamation
UTIONAL NIGHT OUT 1998
- -, none! - -on of isunique,
nation a olence p tion program on'1998 call dation
Night Out
WHEREAS, the "15th Annual National Night Out" provides a unique opportunity foi
[YOUR CITY/COUNTY] to join forces with thousands of other communities across the
country in promoting cooperative, police -community crime prevention efforts; and
WHEREAS, [YOUR ORGANIZATION] plays a vital role in assisting the [LOCAL
POLICE/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT] through joint mime, drug and violence prevention
efforts in [YOUR CITY/COUNTYJ and is supporting "National Night Out 1998" locally;
and
WHEREAS, it is essential that all citizens of [YOUR CITY/COUNT`Y] be aware of the
importance of crime prevention programs and the impact that their participation can have on
reducing crime, drugs and violence in [YOUR CITY/COUNTY]; and
WHEREAS, police -community partnerships, neighborhood safety, awareness and coop-
eration are important themes of the "National Night Out" program;
NOW, THEREFORE I/WE, [MAYOR/COMMISSIONERS], do hereby call upon all
citizens of [YOUR CITY/COUNTY])and - W
rd-" 15th Annual National Night Out" on August 4,
1998.
FURTHER, LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT, I/WE, [MAYOR/COMMISSIONERS] , do
hereby proclaim Tuesday, August 4, 1998 as "NATIONAL NIGHT OUT"'in (YOUR CITY/
COUNTY].
Mayor / President
Secretary / Clerk
Carol Herrera
Mayor
Wen Chang
Mayor Pro Tem
Eileen R. Ansari
Council Member
Robert S. Huff
Council Member
Deborah H. O'Connor
Council Member
Recyded paper
July 29, 1998
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 • Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
(909) 860-2489 • Fax (909) 861-3117
Internet: http://www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us • City Online (885): (909) 860-5463
Pastor Larry Grigsby
Calvary Chapel - Golden Springs
22342 Golden Springs
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Pastor Grigsby.-
This
rigsby:
This is to confirm your participation to provide the invocation at the
Diamond Bar City Council Meeting on Tuesday, August 4, 1998, at 6:30
p.m. The meeting will be held in the Air Quality Management District
Auditorium located at 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar. In that we
have many cultures and religions within our community, an ecumenical
invocation would be appreciated.
It is a pleasure to have representation from various churches within
Diamond Bar participate at the City Council Meetings.
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to share with us.
Sincerely,
Lynda Burgess, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
LB/ms
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JULY 7, 1998"R41%r
CLOSED SESSION: None
2. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the meeting to order
at 6:35 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium,
21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Captain Martinez, Walnut Sheriffs
Department
INVOCATION:
Christian Church
Dr. James Price, Diamond Canyon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Chang, Mayor Herrera
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Jenkins,
City Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Liu, Deputy
Director of Public Works; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Mike
Nelson, Communications & Marketing Director; Joann Gitmed, Senior
Accountant and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented.
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: None
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Clyde Hennessee said he did not receive
the July 6, 1998 Special Council meeting agenda until that afternoon. He felt
that the personnel matters could have been continued to tonight's meeting.
He expressed concern that street sweeping is taking place every other week
instead of weekly and certain areas such as alleyways are not maintained.
He questioned how Concerts in the Park benefit the community.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - July 8, 1998 - 6:30 p.m. - Doo Wah
Riders (Country Western/Bluegrass), Sycamore Canyon Park
5.2 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - July 9, 1998 -
7:00 p.m., SCAQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3 PLANNING COMMISSION - July 14, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., SCAQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.4 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - July 14, 1998 - 6:30 p.m. - Film at
Eleven and the Late Breaking Horns - (Classic 60's), Sycamore
Canyon Park
5.5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - July 21, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., SCAQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
5.6 CONCERTS IN THE PARK -July 22, 1998 - 6:30 p.m. -Mid West
Coast Band (Top 40 Contemporary), Sycamore Canyon Park
5.7 PANTERA PARK GRAND OPENING -July 25, 1998 - 10:00 a.m. -
738 Pantera Dr.
5.8 DIAMOND BAR LIBRARY GRAND RE -OPENING - August 15, 1998 -
10:00 a.m., 1061 S. Grand Ave.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by MPT/Chang, seconded by
ClAnsari to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by
the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Chang,
M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6.1 APPROVED MINUTES:
6.1.1 Study Session of June 16, 1998 -As submitted.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of June 16, 1998 - As submitted.
6.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated July 7, 1998 in the
amount of $489,584.73 for Fiscal Year 1997-1998 and $189,854.31
for Fiscal Year 1998-1999, for a total amount of $679,439.04.
6.3 REVIEWED AND APPROVED TREASURER'S REPORT - for month
of May, 1998.
6.4 DENIED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by Leslie Bellegia on June
3, 1998 and referred the matter for further action to Carl Warren &
Co., the City's Risk Manager.
8. OLD BUSINESS:
8.1 ACCEPTANCE OF WORK COMPLETED IN ENVIRONMENTAL
ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION (E.E.M.) TREE PLANTING
PROJECT - The E.E.M. Tree Planting Project along the 57 Fwy. and
at the 60 Fwy./Brea Canyon Rd. Interchange has been completed.
A total of 421 trees were planted and a drip irrigation system utilizing
reclaimed water was installed. Total cost of the project is $154,757,
which is within the contract amount of $158,405. All costs will be
reimbursed to the City by the State and ongoing maintenance is the
responsibility of CalTrans.
JULY 7, 1998
PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
In response to C/Ansari, CSD/Rose stated that 15 gal. walnut, oak
and sycamore trees were planted.
In response to M/Herrera, CSD/Rose indicated that all of the funding
for this project will be reimbursed by the State.
MPT/Chang moved, C/Huff seconded, to accept work completed in
the E.E.M. Tree Planting Project, direct the City Clerk to file the
Notice of Completion and authorize release of the retention in the
amount of $15,475.71 (10%) 35 days after recordation of said notice.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING: 6:58 p.m.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 7:00 p.m.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 98-03, OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 98-01 AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 97-02 (SCH 97031005) -
Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership and SunCal Companies are
requesting approval to subdivide 65 acres of a 339.3 acre site into
141 lots for development of 130 detached single family residence, 10
open space lots and one lot reserved for the W.V. Water District;
remove and replace oak and walnut trees; and remove map
restrictions on a portion of the 65 acres. The balance of the 339.3
acre site (274.3 acres) and all of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479 would be
dedicated to the City as open space. The project site is generally
located east of D.B. Blvd. and north of Grand Ave. at the extension of
Highcrest Dr. The Planning Commission concluded its review on May
12, 1998 and recommended approval.
M/Herrera opened the Public Hearing.
Tom Jones, Bonterra Consulting, the City's Environmental
Consultant, presented an overview of the Environmental Impact
Report.
In response to C/O'Connor, CM/Belanger explained that a map
restriction is a condition that says the City has a right to prohibit
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
residential construction. It is not a prohibition of residential
development, it is a right to prohibit residential development and,
therefore, in this instance, Council retains the right to prohibit or allow
residential construction. Deed restrictions, which do not apply to the
proposed project, are generally restrictions that are placed in deeds
that are conveyed to property owners. The most common types of
deed restriction in D.B. is the kind that occur as a result of CC&R's
that are promises to do or not do certain things in relationship to the
use of private property and are between private property owners.
The City is not a party to private property deed restrictions and no
action that the City takes changes deed restrictions.
CM/Belanger stated that the City received two letters from the law firm
of Johnson & McCarthy, LLP regarding the proposed project, one
dated June 19, 1998 and one dated July 7, 1998. He recommended
that these letters be entered into the record.
Applicant Todd Kurtin, Diamond Hills Ranch Partners and SunCal
companies, stated that over the past two years, SunCal has analyzed
all of the various elements to design the best and safest land use
plan for the site and for the community in general. During the same
period of time, the City's staff and outside consultants have reviewed,
analyzed and critiqued the plans. Once staff completed its review
and the EIR was made available for public comment, the project was
forwarded to the Planning Commission, which recommended
approval. He believed the controversy surrounding this project is
centered around two issues - property rights and achieving the
highest quality development for this property. His company's right to
develop the property is clearly stated in the City's General Plan under
Planning Area II. The General Plan describes the basic parameters
for this development: A maximum of 130 single family detached
residential dwelling units to be connected along the extension of
Highcrest Dr. and that 75% of the total acreage be set aside and
preserved as Open Space. There is no discussion in the General
Plan which restricts the development to Lot 6. The framework behind
this land use plan of Planning Area II was a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the City and the previous owner,
Bramalea. In the MOU, the City and Bramalea agreed to allow for the
development of not less than 110 and not more than 135 homes on
Lots 5, 6 and 7 - what is referred to as the retained property. The
basic understanding agreed to in the MOU has withstood three
revisions of the General Pian. 213 of D.B. voters showed support for
the General Plan by voting down Measure D. He explained that the
County had placed map restrictions on hundreds of properties in So.
Calif. prior to the areas becoming cities. Many of these cities have
removed the restrictions and allowed development to occur. The
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
proposed project offers the following significant benefits to the City:
360 acres of vacant land dedicated to the City and preserved as
Open Space (an increase of approximately 2 1/2 times what the City
presently holds as Open Space); $250,000 contribution to the City's
Parks Development Fund; consistency with the General Plan's Vision
Statement; preservation of Sycamore Canyon, and design of a
neighborhood that offers safety and enjoyment.
Lex Williman, Planning Director for Hunsaker & Associates, the
applicant's engineer, explained the proposed project.
Dean Armstrong, Engineering Geologist for Pacific Soils, explained
the geotechnical considerations for the proposed project.
James Anderson, 23342 Stirrup Dr.: I have been in development for
about 15 years - not in this area. The presentation was absolutely
professional. I think the people did a magnificent job - a beautiful
project. No question about it, but not in my backyard. I feel we have
enough traffic right now on D.B. Blvd. I have a feeling that at some
point in time our schools who (which) are crowded again which, of
course, means more expense to the City. I feel very strongly that
many of us came here for the beauty of this area. I feel,
unfortunately, that the Planning Commission, which approved this,
perhaps doesn't live here or are possibly thinking about moving. I
want to say I love this city. I like it the way it is. Thank you.
Rosie Bern, 1010 S. Park Spring Ln.: I have been a citizen and a
taxpayer of D.B. since 1980. We had a population when I first moved
in of 29,000 roughly. I think we're now, the latest figures are like
53,000 or so. I don't believe them. I think its more like 60,000. That
was our maximum capacity at one time. Our density. I don't know if
that's been reached or not, but I have a suspicion that it has been
because 1 haven't seen those signs changed for a very long time.
And my point is also that my quality of life has diminished due to the
traffic congestion along D.B. Blvd. I go on D.B. Blvd. during the
morning rush hour and I come back every evening and its a total
mess between 57 and 60 or 71 and up Grand Ave. since it's been
opened. And that needs to be addressed, maybe in the
Transportation meeting I'll have to go to on Thursday night. Also,
because, before we do any further development I simply have to look
into our traffic problems. I'm also concerned that we're over
populated and I think we've done as much development as we should
have between three long miles - D.B. is only three miles long - and
also, there's 130 houses that they're planning to put up on those hills
and that's not one car per family. There's probably going to be two
cars per family - that's another 260 cars going down to D.B. Blvd. and
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
clogging it up even more. So I'd like to know the environmental
impact and the traffic report. Even during construction, what that
impact is going to have with the construction going on up there
because I think it's really going to make it impossible to go on D.B.
Blvd. I've also got other concerns about devastating the natural
landscaping of our area. I came here because I like the hills and the
canyons and I'm seeing more and more of them torn down. I like the
open spaces. I don't want to see any further development. And, I
have a problem thinking about, you're talking about there's landslides,
possible landslides and who's going to be here after those landslides
happen if we have another bad rainstorm like we did this year in
February and March - who's going to be here to pay the damages. Is
it going to be left to the city and the taxpayers? Who's going to
accept the liability? That's what I would like to know. I don't want it
to be on my tax bill, let's put it that way. And I'd like to see - I'm more
concerned also, about the type of barriers that are going to be put up
- if it's going to be sufficient to withhold rainstorms because it's a
heavy hill. I've seen a lot of damage along D.B. Blvd. where the
landscaping hasn't been too good. And they're not even as steep as
the area that you're talking about. And I guess that's about all of my
concerns if that could be addressed. I'm going to stay here until the
end of the meeting to see if those questions could be answered.
Stan Granger, 23800 Gold Nugget Ave.: I've lived here since 1980.
At that time, the developer assured me that the large open area
presently under discussion was map and deed restricted and it would
never be developed, purposely to leave it as an open area. This
present developer, Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership is only the most
recent of several owners of this property. In other words, they
purchased the property knowing full well that they could not develop
it. So you do not have to concern yourself about restricting their
rights as property owners or bailing them out of a known bad deal.
You, the City Council, need only concern yourselves with the rights
and wishes of the residents of D.B. This is the reason you are here -
to represent us, the residents, not the developer. And why would you
want to look after the developer's interest instead of the citizens of
D.B. anyway? Judging from the disgusting performance of the
Planning Committee in recent months where they rudely interrupted
speakers, left the room while people were speaking and declaring
themselves impartial and undecided in this matter, and then minutes
later voting in favor of this project, virtually without full discussion,
flying in the face of substantial opposition. Also, the city's
management policy of notifying only those residents within 500 feet
of development when this matter concerns all residents of D.B. makes
one wonder what stake the city managers have in this development
when they should be concerned with the desires of the residents who
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
pay their salaries. So it seems that the Planning Commission doesn't
want to represent the residents of D.B. And the City Manager doesn't
want to represent the residents of D.B. It is now up to the City
Council to make the right decision even though it should never have
gone this far. So let's do the right thing and stop this ridiculous
project here and now and put an end to something that should never
have been started in the first place. You cannot build on this deed
and map restricted property period.
Sam Saffari, 24075 Highcrest Dr.: Thank you Mayor. Mayor, Council
Members, people of D.B. - I'm going to go through this fast because
I'm on a time clock of five minutes. I live at 24075 Highcrest in D.B.
and I've been a resident for 11 years. I also want to thank SunCal
project for allowing me to borrow their board. I'm against this project.
I've been attending Planning Commission meeting for the past nine
months. In that nine months and the number of meetings that I went
to I've asked a number of questions and none of them were answered
or none of the major ones answered. I'd like to address one and
allow my fellow residents to get the others. The main question that
we asked the City Commission was this project was never offered to
the Commission within Lot 6 and as you can see from this plan that
we have here, the green line represents Lot 6 where everything is
supposed to be built and what is the houses that are going outside of
Lot 6 are the ones that are in orange. And the rest of the plan
produced - I would call it a mickey mouse plan because it lacked a lot
of the necessary things such as the water tank inside, so on and so
forth, and it was just talked about over the microphone. No actual
plan has ever been presented for actual intelligent decision-making
by the City Commission to see these two plans, one within Lot 6
which they are allowed to build. And I would like to, at this point,
make a strong point that I believe that SunCal has a right, has a
property right, but within parameters of what our General Plan has
given them and they cannot come out of that right and allow us to
believe that the land they are giving us in return is a favor. As Mr.
Kurtin or SunCal was stating, the General Plan itself says they have
a right to build on this land if they give us a 75% return - so they're
not giving us anything, they have to give it to us. Point number two -
I'm going to go through this real fast because I have other things to
mention - this land that they give us, there is no guarantee that the
City Council will not use for other purposes such as a financial
disaster happening because of what ever project you have,
revitalization program or your current Redevelopment Agency makes
a mistake and oops - $ 20 million - now, we need to not become
Orange County, we need to sell this land to a developer just like all
the promises that we've heard over the years that this land is not
going to be built - now its smaller - we'll take a bit more and we go
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
forward. The guarantee in writing - a guarantee that a conservancy
has taken it over prior to anything said over a microphone or that can
be taken back and say no, we now have changed our minds. Those
are my only two - I would like to mention at this point that there are
many people in attendance who are not going to speak. These
people have understandable problem with public speaking. They are
here and I understand what you just mentioned, but I do not see any
other way but to ask them to clap at this time to show how many
residents are here to show their support that they are against this
project.
M/Herrera: They don't need to clap, but if they would raise their
hands.
Mr. Saffari: I would like to ask all the people who are against this
project to please stand up if you are a D.B. resident. Thank you,
ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. I would like to, any D.B.
resident who is for this project to stand up. I would like to know if you
drive a car. Thank you. Please sit down. I would like to take this
time - we have collected over this past nine months 2,000 signatures.
I would like to thank all the people who walked the streets of D.B.
collecting signatures - at this time many of them are in attendance -
and I hope you have access to those signatures to see their names.
And at this time also I would like to mention that a lawyer
representing the residents of D.B. is in attendance but he's limited to
five minutes. We asked both the commission's members to donate
some of the speaker's time and write on your card that you would
donate their time to the lawyer and please hand it in. A number of
people already have handed in their cards with their time donated to
the lawyer. And last, I would like to just mention real fast some of the
points that Mr. Kurtin and his engineer brought up...
M/Herrera: I'm sorry but you're out of time. Perhaps other residents
could make the points that you were about to make.
Thom Pruitt, 24242 Breckenridge Court: I'm President of Pop Warner
Football and Cheerleading Association. This year, we're celebrating
our 20th Anniversary of incorporation. But actually, we've been
involved in providing programs for the City of D.B., the families here,
for 30 years. And obviously, during that time, the organization could
not possibly have survived without the strong support of civic leaders
including current City Council and governmental officials. And we
appreciate that very much. At the same time, we currently don't have
a home field - a place that we can call home - to play our games and
our other activities to have as a base. The reason for that obviously,
is that there is an increasing scarcity of recreational facilities here in
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
the City of D.B. and that's directly attributed to the lack of open space
available for development of those recreational facilities. We have
spoken with many of you to varying degrees about our concerns and
have received quite a positive response. We've also spoken with
leading officials of other organizations here within the city as well as,
with Todd Kurtin of SunCal. And we have received very positive
responses in all cases. We feel certain that as you continue to
consider the issue before you that you will take into consideration as
a priority the need to establish some sort of a sports and recreational
complex here in the city. This is in addition to the about to open
Pantera Park facility. Each year, including this year, approximately
two weeks ago, when we try to allocate space for athletic facilities,
recreational facilities for organizations within the city, there's always
a conflict, a mild conflict, and that we try in a cooperative manner to
divide up the facilities that are available. But they are far from
adequate. Probably the loan exception within the city is the Little
League which has a property that was provided by Transamerica
Corp. some years ago and has been further developed by the families
that utilize that particular facility. We're hoping that as you go forward
with your consideration on this project before you that you will
consider for open space use, whether you approve it or not, a sports
facility - there are many models for this in surrounding municipalities.
This would address the needs of citizens of various ages, the youth,
a teen center, a senior citizen's center as well as, a complex that
would include a playing field that could be used by various
organizations. Soccer for example, has approximately 100-120 teams
and maybe 1500 participants. We have almost 500 participants. And
so forth, and so on. Thank you very much.
Wendy Ann Goin, 809 Bridle Dr.: Thank you. Madam Mayor, City
Council Members. Not to be redundant, I just want to reiterate
something that someone said before about the aesthetics of the city
that we live in. And I am a very recent member of D.B. I just moved
here last month. And the reason being that I liked the city the way it
is. If I wanted to have live in a concrete jungle type of home then I
would not have moved to D.B. Maybe live in LA. But I chose D.B.
because of the way it looks and I hope that you choose to leave it that
way. The second point I'd like to make is that overcrowding of our
schools which has a direct correlation to the quality of education that
our children receive. I don't need to tell anybody here how we hear
complaints about the poor level of education in California in general.
This all has to do with overcrowded schools. And we have a
development such as this. We have a hundred more kids coming into
our schools. Where do we plan to put them? What type of education
plans are we going to enforce? Do the children in our current
schools, will they be suffering as a result? Third point I'd like to make
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL
is that everything should not be about dollars and cents.
Unfortunately, in today's society, it is. It should be about quality of
life. And just walking outside your home and seeing some beautiful
green hills and not having a concrete jungle. It shouldn't be about
dollars and cents and I'm wondering if the developers and the
planners if that's maybe their focus since they don't live here.
Another point I'd like to make is that it was stated before, I think by
Mr. Belanger, that the City Council has a right to prohibit or not
prohibit the residential building but someone thought it was important
enough to keep that space and not to build on it. So they had that
statement - that clause put in so that it could be hopefully not lifted
because it was important enough for somebody to see this is a
beautiful place. Let's not mess it up. Let's leave it as it is. And I
think we should just take a step back and look and think about what
that person maybe had in mind when they put that statement there.
And also, a final point I'd like to address is - I don't know the
gentleman's name. He made a point about there were five or more
problems but the only two problems or three problems that were
remaining that were not of any significance were the aesthetics, the
air quality and the noise. I'm wondering, not of importance to whom.
I mean these are exactly the points that we're all talking about - the
aesthetics, the air quality, the noise - and I think if we just simply
brush it aside and say well, these are the only three things that we
haven't dealt with or we haven't taken care of. But those are the
things that we should take care of if we're going to, you know, really
address this entire project. Final point I'd like to make - final point, is
that when does it end? You know, we build now and we say we're
going to leave this much space and then the next 10 years, oops, we
need some more land. And then another 20 years, ooh, yeah, we
need to take a little more, you know, and when does it end. That's all.
Thank you for your time.
John Forbing: I moved here in 1975 and got involved on the D.B.
Improvement Association Board and was President. I'm now the
President of the D.B. Historical Society, so I do have some knowledge
of the background of this community. When Transamerica originally
planned this community in 1957, it was planned for 110,000 people.
The D.B.I.A. for years fought the original zoning and got the zoning
downgraded from multiples all along D.B. Blvd. to single family
residences. It was a constant battle against the County. The only
reason that the County ever put a map restriction on was because
they wanted the developer to come back and stand in front of them
and give them something to get it removed. Map restrictions were
strictly done to get the property owner back in front of the Board of
Supervisors. It had nothing to do with aesthetics or the feeling for the
community by the Board of Supervisors at any time. The education
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL
comments that have been made by several people has absolutely
nothing to do with the City Council. There is a school board that
handles both ends of the community. They are the ones that are
responsible for the schools. The state legislature has set up a way
that the school districts collect money from every builder. Whenever
they build a house they have to give so many dollars per square feet
of that house to the school district to improve the schools. The
community now has about 58,000 population. That includes the area
that is west of the 57 freeway that was never included in the original
Transamerica map of D.B. The 110,000 population did not include
the area west of the 57 freeway. So, when you take into account that
area the 58,000 is a lot less than what was originally planned. I think
that this project is well thought out and well designed. I feel it will be
an asset to the community and it's the responsibility of the City
Council to work with the property owners of any property that has
rights in the community and make sure that they do the best possible
job of developing their property so that the community will benefit
from it. I think that the open space that is being given by this property
owner is going to be an asset and it's something that the City Council
in the future can work on to add recreation areas. It's really a shame
that a previous proposal that came to the community at a different
part of town and a lot of people signed petitions just like they've done
on this one without understanding what it was they were signing and
fighting. The property is building homes right now on his original
approved property. The same is that there is now a hill there where
there could have been a park with room for soccer fields, baseball
fields, an amphitheater, an extension of all of the recreation facilities
from the middle school that was contiguous with that plus 1.2 million
dollars a year forever of income to the City of D.B. from a retail area.
The people that signed those petitions that stopped that project are
also the people that when the alternative General Plan was on the
ballot, soundly defeated it. The General Plan that was proposed by
the City Council was approved, is in effect right now, and I think that
this Council is doing a good job of requiring this developer to make
sure that they have mitigated all of the problems and they should
continue to work with the developer and approve the project.
Don Gravdahl: Yes. Good evening. My name is Don Gravdahl. I
know we've heard various times of living in the city. I think the wife
and I bought our first homes here in 1967 when the County had a sign
posted between the golf course and D.B. Blvd. on Golden Springs Rd.
that was 3600 and some population. That 3600 and some population
stayed there for quite a long time until probably the early part of the
70's when building started off. Most of the people, if we're going to
Gose the door on property rights and say we love that beautiful hill up
there, I loved that beautiful hill when the population was 3600 too, but
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL
I didn't have the money to buy that beautiful hill. Somebody else has
paid property taxes on it over all of these years. I realize this
particular property has changed hands several times, and I also
realize that there are property rights to build on one parcel of about
130 homes. If this developer builds on that property - if he crams or
goes in and does a screwy job of a development that you probably
can't drive two cars down the street and meet each other and do all
of the other things that we have in some parts of our city in the early
60's, maybe he can fit them in there. But if he does that, do you get
360 acres that he's talking about? Do you have the right to ask him
for that? Because that's in that MOU that was signed in the early 90's
if this was carried out so that this development could be a decent
development. I've sat in the audience and to be very frank with you,
this is the first presentation I've seen on it. Here you have a gate -
guarded community. Everything back of that gate belongs to the
homeowners. They're going to pay for the maintenance on those
streets. They pay for everything once they pass through that gate.
And yes, were going to collect taxes on those pieces of property even
though they are maintaining the streets and everything else that's in
it. As I understand, there's about 30 acres of green area that is also
going to be the responsibility and ownership of these property
owners. They're going to be paying for that as well, the maintenance
and everything else on that. That's a real plus for our community. As
far as the schools are concerned, I believe this falls in Pomona
Unified School District and I'm sure the proper officials down there
have got their hands out and they've figured out just exactly what to
do with the money from the 130 homes. Yes, this builder has rights
on it. And yes, he has proposed a project that does slop into some
of the other ones that did have the Board of Supervisor's map
restrictions on. But let's get the best possible project out of this. At
least you will have something that the homeowners who will be living
in that development with will have pride of ownership when they're
done. You're going to eventually get 130 homes some way on this
property. The rest of the property that is there will still be hanging
and if it's in private ownership will still be coming back to this Council
time after time after time. At least, if the city owns that property, if
some of it is used for parks or recreation or whatever else, we know
where it's at. We know that all of the residents from the very south tip
of the city, the very west tip of the city and the very north tip of the city
will benefit from this development and that land when the city has it.
I realize that this City Council's got kind of a hard job and I'm sure that
if you've looked over this project you're probably wondering why you
were out there carrying your signs around asking for that job. Do
your job. Give this developer his part and get all you can from him.
Thank you.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL
Dave Kersey, 23403 E. Wagon Trail Dr.: Thank you Madam Mayor,
Council Members. I've been going to Planning Commission meetings
since last September. And at the very first meeting when this project
came up I asked questions of the Commission that have not been
answered. The developer gave us facts - I'm not sure where the
figures came from - stating that of these 130 homes, there will be 96
trips made in the morning between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00
a.m. and 131 trips in the evening between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and
6:00 p.m. If there's 130 homes and only 96 trips being made in the
morning, somebody's not working. How did they buy the homes. And
why is there 131 trips being made between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00
p.m. when the majority of people work until 5:00 p.m. So let's look at
that traffic issue closely. I don't know if you've come down D.B. Blvd.
in the evening towards north D.B., but it took me 25 minutes when I
turned onto D.B. Blvd. from Brea Canyon Rd. to get to the post office
this evening and that's between 6:00 p.m. and 6:25 p.m. We don't
need any more cars. They also had facts and figures about the oak
trees and walnut trees. There were 820 oak trees that are going to
be preserved and exactly 410 that are going to be destroyed. And I
asked how is that? Was it chance? Because in the other project that
the developer pulled sometime earlier in this year which was Tract
No. 52308 there were 20 oak trees and 10 were going to be
destroyed. In each instance, exactly 50%of the trees, or I'm sorry -
1/3 of the total was going to be destroyed. And the same figure held
for walnut trees. And this to me sounds like a figment of somebody's
imagination. Carey Garza of SunCal looked into it and claims that its
just pure chance. Please, let's check this out. These trees, these
410 oak trees, basically fall in one canyon. The 1230 oak trees total
fall in the entire project - the lots that go from D.B. Blvd. all the way
back to Sumn*ridge Park. And we're going to take exactly 1/3 of
them out on D.B. Blvd. I don't know why we have to take them all out.
It seems to me we should be able to preserve some. With regard to
the water issues - hydrologic issues, there was one gentleman that
came up at one Planning Commission meeting who was responsible
for San Diego State project and he stated that they ran into some
severe problems with water runoff that's a real issue when you get
into slopes. Now, all of us have seen the water that accumulates in
front of Sycamore Canyon Park there on D.B. Blvd. There's an area
there that says be careful extra water and they stick signs out there.
Tin Dr. is going to come down very steep and that water's only got
one place to go that I can see and that's toward Sycamore Canyon
Park. We'd better get our liability insurance increased to cover the
accidents. The development impacts air quality. I've heard Mr.
DeStefano say that several times. We cannot get around it. We
exceed the environmental impact allowances. Let's not do that. And
I've heard that they're not going to allow dynamiting. But even at that,
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL
we're still going to have slevere impact with dust. The noise is going
to be something that we're going to deal with for several years. The
aesthetics obviously are going to change the community. This is our
last virgin hill. This is the last hill that D.B. residents have that are
commuting up and down D.B. Blvd. to look at. Sand Canyon is gone.
Lets save the last one. And getting back to the water issue, we had
our hundred year rain this year. The slopes held real well. I hate to
think what might happen. I do recall Gold Rush Dr. and I remember
that that mud rushed all the way down Gold Rush, down D.B. Blvd. all
the way to Golden Springs. We have enough trouble keeping our
cars clean with these meridians that have water out in the street more
than in the grass areas. And that, as I recall, was a project that the
D.B. voters told the City we do not want. And yet they came back and
it was put in against our wishes.
George Davidson, 23426 E. Wagon Trail Rd.: First, I just wanted to
mention that the speaker before Dave, I echo his thoughts that I want
to find out what is the best possible project for this area. How can we
possibly do that if there's never been a development proposal before
you that is wholly contained within Lot 6? That is his legal right. If we
don't have that to compare to, 1 just don't think we can find out what
really the significant benefits are of allowing to lift the deed
restrictions so that he can develop that additional land. The crux of
my issues are around the liffing of the restrictions. I've talked to many
of the Council Members, and it seems that in order to lift the
restrictions, the issue here is that there has to be a significant benefit
to the city. And the fact that we would be obtaining 360 acres of
restricted land could possibly be a significant enough benefit to lift
those restrictions, and I wanted to address that. The developer came
up and said there's four significant benefits that he claims he's giving
to the city:. The open space, the $250,000, following our Vision
Statement, and safe neighborhoods. The safe neighborhoods I think
we all understand. That's D.B. So that's not significant to me. I don't
think that's a real significant benefit. And following our Vision
Statement, I think that's what you're supposed to do. So as far as
significant benefits its really just the land and the money. For the city
to own restricted land, and I asked many of you Council Members,
what is the significant advantage to the city owning it if its restricted
land. And every Council Member that I talked to, and I believe the
other Council Members up there in their campaigns talked about the
preservation of open space. We want to preserve the open space.
If we own that land, then we can preserve that open space. To me a
significant benefit is, after you add up the pluses and you take away
the minuses, there's enough pluses left over that it becomes
significant. I want to remind the Council that we don't get this for free.
This is not something that we are being given by the developer. In
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL
order to get our name on the dotted line of restricted land, we have
to give this developer the right to destroy almost 19 additional acres
of our precious open space. And I want to expound on that issue.
This developer isn't coming to the Council and saying hey, I need a
few extra square feet over here to make a little bit better
configuration, or I need a couple of percentage extra to make a nicer
layout in the land. This developer is asking you to lift restrictions on
an additional 40%. This is not a developer who is trying to make a
better plan. This is a developer, in my opinion, that is trying to take
advantage of the system. 40%. The other point I want to make is,
this is restricted land. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way you
can develop restricted land is if you City Council Members lift those
restrictions. So if your concern is to protect the open space, then
what I say to you now is, please - we're talking about 19 additional
acres of open space that you're going to allow this developer - you're
considering to let this developer develop. Stay true. Stay consistent.
Do not allow him to take that open space. Say no to the development
and lifting of those restrictions. The second point that I wanted to
make real quick because I know I'm on a time constraint, is an issue,
like I said before, I talked with many of you Council Members. And
one of the issues that I brought up to everybody was the amount of
signatures that we got. We really didn't even try and we got close to
2,000 signatures. And I asked some of the Council Members, you
know, I asked one in particular, how many signatures would it take for
you to not lift the deed restrictions and the answer I got - it shocked
me. And I'm going to quote. The quote was, George, you're probably
not going to like the answer I'm going to give you, but it wouldn't
matter to me if there was 10 million signatures. Now I'm not going to
take it out of context because the Council Member explained that the
fact that we got 2,000 signatures meant something, but that this
individual had to look at the project as a whole and determine
whether this was a significant benefit for the city and that was what
they were going to base their decision on. I believe that we are a city,
not because of the land that we stand on, not because of the streets
we drive on or the houses that we live in, I believe we're a city
because of everybody that's in this room - the people. And you
people were elected by us to represent us. And for a Council
Member to tell me that it wouldn't matter if 10 million signatures had
been obtained, he was still going to base that decision on what he or
she felt was best for the city, it tells me that you're not representing
me. And I just want to say that please, keep that in mind.
Randy Nayudu, 24059 Highcrest Dr.: Good evening. My name is
Randy Nayudu. 1 live on 24059 Highcrest Dr. and I thank you City
Council Members and Madam Mayor for the opportunity to speak
before you. I would like to take up Madam Mayor's suggestion to the
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL
city staff here that they will answer in writing some of the questions
that will be raised here today. I have three specific questions. And
they are relating to issues that I think are of great concern to
everybody and what this whole meeting is about. The first one is
about open land. The second one is about traffic and congestion.
And the third is about the safety of my property which happens to lie
right adjacent to the SunCal development. I asked a very pointed
question to staff and I would like to have written answer from them.
Approximately 500 acres of open land in D.B. transferred from the
hands of Bramalea to SunCal somewhere in the period of the last
couple of years for a price of $2.7 million. The question I ask is, $2.7
million is peanuts for 500 acres in the heart of D.B. Why did not
somebody in the City of D.B. make a bid to buy this land instead for
maybe $3 million. Because if they did, we would not be having this
issue today. $3 million for the City of D.B. on a 10 year bond with
approximately 70,000 residents amounts to less than $350,000 a year
on a mortgage payment which is approximately $5.00 to $6.00 per
resident. So, I would like to know who dropped the ball on this one.
I work for the private sector and I know that my job would be in
jeopardy if I did not pick up an opportunity that is available to buy
some property for next to nothing. 500 acres in the heart of D.B. I
would like an answer to that. The second issue is regarding traffic
and congestion. I think your duty as the City Council and the people
who were here prior to you in several meetings, namely the Planning
Commission, need to look at not just the project for SunCal, but the
problems in D.B. as a whole as an entity. I want to ask you folks, and
I would like a written response to this one, how many members of the
Planning Commission - name by name - and how many members
sitting up there right now drive between Pathfinder and Grand Ave.
between 5:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. every evening? Because I do and
I would like to see if you are really seeing the world from my
perspective or are you seeing it from the top of an ivory tower. The
third issue is the safety of my property. I live right adjacent to the
SunCal property. I open my LA Times and I see landslides in several
parts of the state. And I see SunCal's name there. Has anybody
here, or are they willing to come back and give us a detailed repur i u
what the investigations at these other landslides have shown?
Maybe it is not SunCal's problem. Maybe it is SunCal's problem. We
need to know that. I think it was very quickly glossed over here about
of the gentlemen showing you this map and he talked about well,
you know, this area, you know, potential, if water seeped in it. That's
exactly what we're talking about. I'm an engineer. And I have a real
concern about these issues. Another item I would just like to r:entlon
is as elected members of this city, I've attended several Planning
Commission meetings and I tell you, they rode rough -shod ov
people of D.B. The last meeting was frankly, a disgrace. The people
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 17 CITY COUNCIL
of D.B. were insulted, were shouted at, and 1, for the first time in my
life, I got up to speak at a meeting here because I felt somebody had
to say enough. And after all of these discussions and all of the soft
voices and all the sweet talk in the last five minutes of this meeting,
three key issues were passed so fast which were never brought up
earlier. One was that the bulldozers were moved from D.B. Blvd. up
to a launching pad on Highcrest Dr. The second was Mr. Todd, as a
gentleman had given me his word as a gentleman that the gate on
Highcrest will be strictly for fire. And in those last five minutes they
passed another resolution that that gate will be open because the
people in this development will use Pantera Park. And the third was,
they got a waiver to start the grading prior to the deed being
recorded. So, my question is, whose side are you on? That's all I
want to know. I see the only benefit to this whole deal is everybody's
talking about the free land coming to the city. I do not accept
anything for free. Do you? I think we are not poverty stricken. I don't
think were some hard up little city somewhere. I think SunCal is very
smart. I respect them. I admire them. They saw a deal, they went
out and got it, okay. I'm a fair man. I don't think we should take
anything away from SunCal for nothing. They were smart enough to
buy 500 acmes for $2.7 million. I say the City of D.B. should have the
guts to tell SunCal look, we respect you and admire you...
Sandy Erickson, 22806 Ridge Line Rd.: Thank you, Madam
Chairman and City Council Members. I currently live at 22806 Ridge
Line Dr. but we will be relocating to Highcrest. We purchased a piece
of property there. And as this gentleman stated, my property is going
to butt up right next to this SunCal project. At one of the Planning
Commission meetings I got up and raised the question, since one of
the gentleman touched on the issue of safety several times alluding
to the fact that he did not want to create another Gold Rush, I got up
and said, well, it doesn't seem like you're going to be doing much to
mitigate what is happening on Gold Rush by opening up a gate right
there that's going to dump right on to Gold Rush down the street into
D.B. Blvd. You're increasing the amount of traffic going in and out of
Gold Rush down an already crowded busy dangerous street. That's
the only place if they come out Highcrest that they will be able to
access D.B. Blvd. is off of Gold Rush. So the safety issue is critical.
Gold Rush is a mess and we're just going to make it worse by
allowing him to develop the way he wants to develop. I brought up
the issue about the large building machinery being brought up Gold
Rush up Highcrest, highly densely populated areas, and using
Highcrest as the staging area. Well, someone over here said the
Planning Corrxnission has the right to restrict that. They can say you
cannot start building, you have to use staging off of Tin Dr. Build Tin
Dr. first, then use that area which is not populated currently for your
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL
staging. Well, like this gentleman says, in the last five minutes that
was changed. They were allowed to use Highcrest as their staging
area. That means they're going to be moving heavy equipment and
machinery up highly densely populated areas with children who play
out in the street. To me, its just welcoming disaster. I too read the
article about the sliding in Orange County, the homes that slide down
the hill recently, and SunCal's name was mentioned in it. I would like
to ask the question, is the same geological firm doing the research for
this project that did the research for that project, and if so, how much
credence can we put on a geological study done by a firm who
couldn't foresee that. The gentleman said well, he's going to be here
at least until the end of the project. Well, that's great. The sliding's
not going to take place right at the end of the project. It's going to
happen maybe one, two, three years down the road when we have
another EI Nino. Who's going to get stuck with the liability issues
when that happens? It's going to be the City. Because, if SunCal
comes out of the mess down in Orange County whole, then if it is
perceived that this will happen here, then it's very common for these
developers to declare bankruptcy once they're done - out - declare
bankruptcy, they're no longer responsible. If the geological firm goes
out of business and opens up shop in another name, you can't go
after them. Guess who the citizens are going to go after that
purchase those homes that may slide down the hill at a future date.
Its going to be the city. We're the city. We're going to be stuck with
the bill down the road. None of us are saying that the developer does
not have rights to build in the lot that he purchased to build on. None
of us are saying that. But, by the same token, we as citizens certainly
can't just arbitrarily say we're going to take over open land that's deed
restricted and build on it. I don't think you would allow me to do that
and all we're asking as citizens is that you not allow them to do it
either - that they stay within the parameters of Lot 6, they don't bleed
over. The open space is restricted. They're not giving us anything.
They can't build on it anyway unless you lift those restrictions at some
particular point in time. So, they're basically giving us open land
that's restricted as open land anyway. Not a big shake. They're not
giving us a whole lot.
Dr. Christina Goode, 624 Hoss Su My name is Dr. Christina Goode.
I reside at 624 Hoss St., D.B., and thank you Council for giving us the
opportunity to address you. I previously attended the Planning
Commission meetings and was extremely disappointed that the
Commission ultimately approved this project to come to you. And it
was by a 4-1 vote, not a 5-0 vote as indicated by Mr. Kurtin. So there
was one person on there who listened to the comments. Tonight it
appears that you are now being asked to vote again for this
development due to the "significant benefit to the city of the donated
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL
open space and the sum of $250,000" which I think is approximately
half of the cost of one of the 130 houses that they're going to build,
so it is not a particularly significant sum. In doing this, in voting for
this project, you are being asked to ignore the three factors already
mentioned by the environmental consultant that will have a significant
detriment to the city. There are the aesthetics, the noise and the air
pollution. And several people have spoken already about the
aesthetics and the noise. I would like to discuss the air pollution. As
a resident of D.B. for 11 years, the mother of two small children and
a PhD lab chemist doing research into biochemistry and the effects
on our environment, 1 am horrified by the Environmental Impact
Report which seems to have been somewhat brushed over in this
thing. As determined by the Environmental Impact Report, the levels
of pollution during the ensuing years of the construction will exceed
the prescribed levels of health by at least three times, probably closer
to 10 times, the level determined for health. And this is both for
particulant matter - that would be dust generated by the construction
and also nitrous oxides and pollution from the construction traffic.
And the people that are severely impacted by that would of course be
butting on to the development. Given that there is now an extensive
scientific literature that directly correlates even small increases in
these particulant matters with significant increases asthmatics, in
infant mortality, in mortality amongst the aged, the body of evidence
that is out there that correlates these two things is overwhelming.
And I have plenty if you would like to see it. I'm wondering and I find
myself wondering why the committee of the Council can accept this
development given the Environmental Impact Report. It would seem
to me that that reporting is in itself, regardless of everything else that
is being discussed is in and of itself reason for not allowing this
development. We are going to be subjecting the citizens of D.B., our
children and our aged population, to severe health effects during the
period of development and because of the increased traffic, after the
development. But certainly during the development the levels of
pollutants are enormous. And my question is, and I hope it can be
answered - and I too, would like to have it answered in writing by the
Council or the Council's staff - is what good is an Environmental
Impact Report if we just say, oh well, these three factors are
significant but we accept the project? Thank you.
Martha Bruske: I wish to say that I don't live in the proposed project
area but I support the people who are here concerned about the
quality of their life. You've heard me talk about quality of life and the
deterioration that I observe in the city and, most notably, noise, and
the messes around the school and things like that. I agree with
what's been said. I'm concerned that you don't know how to accept
land from a developer. I frankly don't trust you not to turn around and
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL
sell it to another developer. But here's what I want to talk about. I
want to talk about Sandstone Canyon. Seems to me I've heard this
song before. We had the same issues. We had map and deed
restrictions which the Council lifted. I believe everybody who lived in
this town and voted for cityhood had no idea that one of the things
that was going to happen was that the Council could then lift these
map and deed restrictions. We had loss of open space. We had the
purchase and the resale of water district property. The Council did
that and it allowed the developer to progress. We lost a park. You
tell me its coming back, but it will probably be behind guarded gate.
It won't be available to me. We lost animal habitat. We moved some
oak trees which were going to be saved. As is, then I think we talked
about replanting saplings and then I think we lost track of what trees
we had saved. I think you really need to give some answers to all of
us about that business of oak tree saving. Finally, of course, we lost
the whole hill didn't we. And the people who live behind that hill lost
the natural sound barrier. So I support these people who are
concerned. I am also concerned that when you have a public
hearing, city staff are here to work with the developer for the
developer's posture on things and there is no one in the city who
helps the residents get organized or helps to speak for the residents.
You are the ones who are suppose to do that. Thank you.
Ron Tehran, 745 View Ln.: Good evening, Council Members, ladies
and gentlemen in audience. I want to talk about map or deed
restriction. As you can see, I have a copy of the grant deed that talks
about a restriction. It is not a map restriction. This is a deed
restriction and it talks about restricting building on this property. The
restriction that was placed by LA County was for a reason - to
preserve open space because of all the other development. This
deed restriction is not for public and should not be used for
negotiation. The project is a hillside development. This project, as
you can see, is a very steep grade - 2:1, 3:1 - very steep grade.
Normally, all the other jurisdictions, including us, that have two to five
acres, have one building in those areas. When you look at Lot 6, it
has only 40 acres. Based on that, you only can build eight to 16 lots
in this property. They cannot negotiate the rest of the land. They
only have right to build in Lot 6. Based on hillside development, they
can only build every five acres, 8 lot to 16 lot maximum. I can't see
how they negotiate for anything more than that. The city cannot use
other lots area to transfer density or to combine map restriction. The
intention is to leave open space for public. No matter how you look
at it, if you remove this restriction, you're betraying public trust. You
can only trade Lot 6 acre per acre or even more. If they want to get
something more, they have to dedicate more from Lot 6. Nothing
else. We heard from the engineer. He talked about damages, he
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 21 CITY COUNCIL
talked about soil and he talked about safe. They intend to do what
the developer is asking him. Safe. They can make less houses. It
would be safer. They don't need to make 130. If they build 16 they
can fit it a lot easier in Lot 6. They don't have to go to other lots.
Why do you have to push 130? If they want to make a nice grade,
okay, go to the other lot but dedicate some other portion of Lot 6 one
to one for the area that they are going out. Why are they building
everything on Lot 6 and they're also going out? I don't see it to be
safer. There is no document. They don't show any cross-section.
There's no engineering. Just talking. At least let's substantiate what
they claim based on engineering, cross-section document. Not just
wording. It is not safer to be 130. It's safer to make less. In addition,
I would like to ask if they have a chance to come back up and talk, I'd
like to have the public have the same chance so when they come in
here they have more time - a team of citizens can also have more
time in response to their answers. Because they come here and they
answer something totally different and the Planning Commission used
to take it and they say okay, okay, that's fine. Their plan has to be
justified based upon engineering, not just wording. Based on the
geotechnical report that they stated that everything can be built, they
can minimize the project to any size. These hills are visible from a
long distance away. Even people driving can see these and having
been located in the heart of the city, everyone will pass a few times
a day and enjoy the natural beauty and serenity of them. This project
mass grading with cut and fill will reconfigure the whole area with
millions of cubic yard which will impact all surrounding neighborhoods
and in fact, the whole city. The aesthetic impact cannot be mitigated
and the natural beauty cannot be replaced. The visual impact cannot
be mitigated. The amount of dust, exhaust and noise of grading of
two million cubic yards of cut and fill created will adversely impact the
neighborhood and the city. Each cub yards is 2000 pounds - that's
one ton. Then they talk about two million cubic yards. That's two
million of cars. Imagine if you have two million cubic cars of moving
to just give you an idea. Everyone in the area of the project will be
impacted.
Henry Pourzand, 1008 Quiet Creek Ln.: Good evening, Council
Members. My name is Henry Pourzand. I live at 1008 Quiet Creek
Ln. I've been a resident of D.B. for over nine years and I've worked
in the field of air pollution control for almost 10 years. One of the
previous speakers has said a lot of what I was going to say so I won't
repeat it. I just did want to reemphasize that your own EIR statement
as adopted into the record states that the mitigated effects of air
pollution from this project are going to exceed 10 the healthful
threshold level. And one thing that she didn't mention is that the
latest study - I believe its out of Kaiser, I would have to check -
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 22 CITY COUNCIL
indicate that the group that's most affected now in California, children.
The chronic illness there is asthma. And I know one of the other
speakers talked about recreational facilities for younger citizens so
I see some contradiction there. And I just wanted to bring that to your
attention. And just to let you know for the record, I am opposed to
this project. I won't take any more time. Thank you.
Marty Torres, 24832 Highcrest Dr.: Good evening, Council. I'm a
D.B. resident but I also live on Highcrest and I came here with an
open mind and I really respect the comments of all of the speakers
before me. Just a couple of issues. I don't have $250,000 to give the
city. 1 wish I did. Then I would be on a little more equal ground. I
don't have any open space to offer you tonight. But I do have as
many other people in the audience, really a 15 year history of civic
involvement in the city. And I am a taxpayer. And I do agree with
having some open space but I'm a little bit concerned about at what
cost. We've heard a lot about a lot of technical issues by the
developer and the other technical people and I respect their opinions
and I'm sure they're well founded. Unfortunately, just because you
can engineer something doesn't mean its the right thing to do. That's
opinionated and it can be emotional and I do understand that. I'm a
pharmacist by training so the quality of life issue means something to
me both in the emotional aspect but even on a technical aspect and
I really want you to weigh that very heavily. But not so much
emotionally but really with respect to what the Environmental Impact
Report had to say about that because I think that's really critical. And
some of the speakers before me addressed that. As a representative
of my community, I do respect that the developer wants us to play by
the rules. I do believe he has rights just as we do. And in playing by
those rules, I would respectfully request that you do not remove any
of the map restrictions because that's playing by the rules and I feel
that we should be above board. Do not waive the EIR. Though six
out of nine points seem to meet the appropriate thresholds, three of
nine didn't and I hope you weigh that very heavily in your assessment
of this project. I don't want you to downgrade those because the
majority did meet. The bottom line is we hear the word mitigate over
and over again, but in three of the nine points in the EIR the
mitigation efforts were not effective enough. And that's based on the
people you had put that together. Those consultants, please respect
their opinion and let's not downgrade their efforts on the city's behalf.
And then lastly, based on all this I hope you exercise your right on my
behalf and many of the members of the community to prohibit this
development exactly as it is. And if there are other alternatives then
we can go there when that happens. But as presented to the
community and to you I hope that you, on our behalf, will prohibit what
they're presenting.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 23 CITY COUNCIL
Nick Anis: Good evening. My name is Nick Anis. I'm a D.B. resident.
My wife and I are active community volunteers. I wish we could get
so many people to tum out for some of the community events in town.
You know, the different fundraising for youth sports in the schools.
But I guess that's just the nature of things. I want to start out by
congratulating people who've taken the time to come here tonight and
express their concerns. I bought my first home with my wife in 1977.
We were very thrilled. We both worked two jobs to save the money
to buy our home and we did care about our home and about our
neighborhood. And one of the most thrilling times in our life was
when we moved to D.B. We did see open spaces but to be honest
with you we did move here because it seemed you got more for the
money and the overall community was nice. It seemed to be a safer
community. There already was traffic when we moved here and that
was before the homes were built around this proposed project. I'm a
little confused. I'd like to start by saying 1 don't blame anyone who
lives on a certain street or in a certain neighborhood. They have
every right not to want other things in their neighborhood. Not to want
a new, I don't know, an office building or even another home. If you
have someone who lives on Elm St. and there's 10 houses on that
street, if you say to them would you like another house built on your
street, who's going to say yes? Why would you want more houses?
You already have your house. You don't need a house. But maybe
that's not the right question. Ask them if they would want to pay a
$1,000 per year assessment so that the city can pay for land that
they've taken away from a property owner. And 1 don't think most
people are willing to do that. That question was asked right here in
this room. It was proposed that we buy the land at Southpointe. The
Middle School. And no one in this city was willing to pay the tax
money for us to buy that land. And that's a shame. I would have
been in favor of that. But there were very few people that expressed
interest in that. I've heard some things tonight and I think a lot of
people aren't familiar with EIR's and how they work or with how the
Planning Commission meeting works or a Council meeting and the
comment period. But it seems to me, I just want to remind everyone,
the Council, to my knowledge, you don't have the authority to turn
down any building what -so -ever. They are entitled to approval of a
project. So the question really is, are you going to approve this
project that's on this board? I can't believe there are people in this
audience - you want them to say no to this and then SunCal comes
back - you don't even know what they're going to come back with.
Maybe you won't like what they come back with. Have you thought
about that? What if you hate what they come back with but it's on
that one lot. Then they must - I can talk to anyone I want - they must
approve it. If it's on that one lot, they must approve it. And how do
you know you're going to like it? Maybe you should take another look
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 24 CITY COUNCIL
at this project. Is that 10% in those other two lots - that's going to
make more dust or more traffic? I mean, I'm on your side. You
deserve a break. You deserve every consideration. But do you really
believe that if intruding on another couple of lots that makes it better
or worse? And if so, please explain it to me and I'll help you. I'll chip
in for the lawyer. I'll fight it. I care about this community. I've worked
here as a volunteer six months full time on community projects and so
has my wife. I care about D.B. I live in the Summitridge area. My
front yard overlooks the largest open space in the City of D.B. The
City of Industry has building rights and one day they're going to build
on it. And I'm not going to like it either. But I don't know if I'm going
to be able to come here and tell the Council to ignore the law or to
take people's building rights away. So if you really don't want them
to build on those other two lots, and I don't think they have to lift the
restriction. The restriction does not say you cannot build. It says
they have the power to say yes or to say no. If they say yes, they
don't have to lift anything, they just say yes.
Albert Perez, 703 Pantera Dr.: I've heard a lot of comments today -
good evening, first of all - anyhow, about the traffic and the noise and
all the elements that go into building and I won't go into that because
we've heard a lot of it. My comments will be based basically on
whether - I think the issue's going to come down to as whether this
project should be approved and if its not approved, what are the
consequences for the City of D.B. You have a City Attorney from
Richards,. Watson & Gershon who would probably give you legal
advice one way or another. I think you would know well enough that
if you deny a project, is it a taking from SunCal? Can they come back
and tell the city is it a taking? If you weigh the totality of the
circumstances of what everyone is telling the City Council on how the
residents feel and I feel the same way because this is in my backyard.
I'm opposed to the project the way it is. I don't want to take the. man's
or SunCal's right to develop. I oppose the lifting of the deed
restrictions. You don't have to do that. That's what's in the deed and
you can follow the law. Now you've heard a gentleman that came up
and said you have to approve it. That's not true. He should probably
read some law books and understand a little what's going on here.
Now, this project can be limited. It goes on with what the General
Plan is. What constitutes a taking? As far as if you would limit the
project that's here, would it be a taking? Well, if you limit it to
conform with D.B. standards, what the people of D.B. want, what's
good for D.B., taking into consideration the Environmental Impact
Report. And that's what its for, to take into consideration so you can
make an unbiased opinion of what you have. You can limit the
project to the point where the man can still develop on his project
where it doesn't effect the residents. It doesn't effect the community
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 25 CITY COUNCIL
as a whole. And that's the way the decision should be brought on
this. You should seek the legal advise that you have here that you're
paying good money for and he should be able to tell you that you can
limit the project, you don't have to lift the deed restrictions, and if
SunCal says well, I'm going litigate this, which they probably will tell
you, not to be afraid because when they lose, and they will lose if you
base on a rational decision, you will be able to collect your attorney's
fees back from SunCal. So D.B. will be in a win-win situation. Our
community will get a project that's not going to be disturbing to
everyone, you're still going to have the open space, and we're going
to have a peaceful community. Thank you very much.
M/Herrera stated that Mr. Johnson would have 30 minutes in which
to make his comments.
Kevin Johnson, Attorney, 550 West "C" Street, San Diego, CA 92101:
Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I'll do my best
to take less time than that. I know you've all been sitting here for
awhile. My business address is 550 West "C" Street, Suite 1150, San
Diego, California. I'm with the firm of Johnson -McCarthy. I have
previously submitted to you a couple of letters based on my review of
your EiR, your General Plan and some other documents that had
been given to me and I understand now with the recommendation
from Mr. DeStefano that those are part of your record. Is that
correct? Allright, very good. I want to try and go somewhat in order.
I've been taking notes during the course of the evening here, and
touch on some high points. I think it's very wise of you to take some
extra time to get some questions answered in writing and continue
this to another date for a decision. I wanted to start off on the subject
of deed restrictions. I have attempted to get some further
documentation about the city's legal rights in connection with the
lifting of the restrictions. I've reviewed the language in the General
Plan and I have looked at title documents that were generated as part
of the study for the project. 1 have referenced in rry letter of July 7 to
you a deed which deals with a number of the lots in question. And at
the very back of that deed it refers to restrictions on building for Lots
4, 5, 7 and 9. This document has been submitted to the City Clerk.
I have extra copies here which I can hand out to you if you'd like at a
later point. But in any event, this is a deed. It was developed by
Chicago Title when they did a deed search and on the deed it says
that there are restrictions on buildings. So, we need some full
clarification on this because this is not a map, its a deed - its a
restriction on a deed. And as I note in my letter, in several places in
the EIR the consultants refer consistently to map restrictions and
deed restrictions. And as Mr. DeStefano said, if it is a deed
restriction, that is a restriction that is put on by private parties and the
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 26 CITY COUNCIL
city unilaterally can't lift it. So that needs to be looked at very
carefully. Now that raises another issue. Your General Plan talks
about the requirement that you develop an open space plan for the
entire community. It's my understanding that an open space plan for
the entire community has not been done. We don't have, or you don't
have a thorough plan comprehensive inventory in terms of what
you're doing with open space. And so, therefore, to sit down and say
well, we're going to try to assess the significance of giving up 19
acres of open space in the context of the whole city and its future, you
just simply can't do it. You have incomplete information. Your
General Plan dictates that you have an open space element; it
dictates that before you build on this project that you have a specific
plan for this planning area; it dictates that you have a master plan for
this planning area. None of those things are done. And I respectfully
submit to you, based on my understanding of General Plan law, that
this project cannot be authorized without your General Plan being
complete in those areas and without you proceeding within the
context of a specific plan and a master plan and having an open
space plan for your entire city. I had hoped to have some dialogue
with the city prior to the meeting tonight to get some clarification on
the thinking on this because I had raised these basic questions in my
letter of June 19. For various reasons, perhaps some
misunderstandings, I did not have those conversations. I do expect
that there are going to be some semi -articulate explanations in that
regard. I look forward to hearing those because as I have seen it
played out over the years, these types of problems just simply prohibit
you from legally approving this project because the project is not
consistent with the General Plan. There are specific features of the
project that are proposed that are not consistent with specific
provisions of the General Plan. You have, for example, under
Planning Area 11 in your Land Use Element a statement that the lot
sizes shall be between 6,000 and 10,000 square feet. Shall be
between. That is mandatory language. You can't get around that.
So, you have a project before you which is bigger. It has a number
of lots that are much bigger than that. It is inconsistent with your
General Plan. If you want to approve this project you have to go
through a General Plan amendment process on that particular issue.
You have maps in your General Plan which reflect this area as Open
Space. If you want to change area from open space to residential
you have to amend your map. You have to make the General Plan
amendment. These are things that have to be done procedurally.
And I get very concerned when there appears to be - and again I say
appears because I stand to be educated on these subjects - when
there appears to be a rush to get something through when there are
lots of procedural matters that are being ignored. One of the other
things I get very concerned about is when I start hearing about great
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 27 CITY COUNCIL
benefits of a project. The City of L.A., that wonderful planning model
for all of us, was not built on people coming in and saying well, we've
got an okay project here and we hope you'll just sort of like us and
let's go ahead and build it. They come in and they promise you the
world. And then they deliver something less. This project will deliver
traffic; it will deliver air pollution; it will deliver additional students to
your schools. It will cause all kinds of problems. Now. What are the
real benefits? People have talked about this issue of this other open
space. And I call it open space because it is functionally open space.
Its restricted land. They knew it when they bought it. Now, I ask you.
If you have several hundred acres of land that you can't build on,
what do you want to do with that? You want to get rid of it because
you're holding it. It's a liability. There could be a landslide. There
could be a mudslide. It could go down on D.B. Blvd. You've got to
pay property taxes on it. It's a pure liability. I run into this issue a lot
of times when I get involved in negotiating deals between private
donors and land trusts. Because the private owners say well, gee, we
want you to support our project and we'll dedicate this hillside to you.
Well, the response to that is, look, you want to dedicate this hillside
to us more than we want it. They want to get rid of the liability. They
want to get rid of the expenses. In this particular case, you need to
look at what they're trying to give you. They've got land that's deed
restricted, or map restricted. Its General Plan restricted. However
you want to call it, its restricted. You can't build on it. So they want
to give it to you anyway. So what's the value to you. Now, if you
want to make this land have value, really make this land have value
and other land that is restricted in the city have value, what you need
to do is you need to say we're going to barter away 19 acres of open
space for $250,000 and set the precedent for every other builder and
developer in this city to look at every other parcel and say now what
can we come up with to go to the city to try to barter so we can try and
take some more open space. Go ahead and, you know, you set a
precedent here by doing this, and this is going to come back to haunt
you. Somebody said - a gentleman who was speaking in favor of the
project, I thought it was ironic - he says if this land doesn't go into
public ownership they're going to come back over and over and over
again. Well, I think its exactly the opposite. If you take the stand
now and you say this is deed restricted - this is open space and you
don't touch it and nobody touches it anywhere in this city, then the
message is clear. And people aren't going to come back. It's the
basic lesson I have to deal with my nine year old daughter on all of
the time. Kelsey, this is the rule. Quit coming back and bugging me.
I'm not changing my mind. You need to set that precedent here.
Your General Plan dictates it and good planning dictates it - that you
can't buy this stuff. This is too precious a resource. I might also add
that this whole bugaboo of takings is something that just sort of
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 28 CITY COUNCIL
rhetorically gets overworn in these types of settings. A couple of the
gentlemen that spoke earlier were quite right that you have more than
ample grounds to turn this whole project down. I've given you
references probably to 30 or 40 General Plan provisions which you
could site and reliably and I'd be a 100% sure that you could turn this
project down because its inconsistent with your General Plan. You
have the ability to do that and any threats to come after you because
you're not giving them what they want which they're not entitled to are
simply idle and they should be interpreted, I think, in a general sense,
as reflecting more of a position of weakness than a position of
strength. The rights of the community are here in front of you and
when they talk about private property rights, they're talking about
developer private property rights. Now, those are very important
rights, but there are also neighbor private property rights and citizen
private property rights and community private property rights and city
private property rights and you hold them right now because you
control the restrictions on the property as open space. On the issue
of safety there has been a lot of discussion about fill and I think that
there are a couple of basic observations that could be made and I can
put it in the form of a question, really. Would you rather have your
home built on a cut lot, a lot with one foot of fill or a lot with 80' of fill?
I think the answer is pretty obvious. Also, what security do you have
in the fact that soil is compacted to a level of 90% when there's 80' of
it underneath your house? I don't think you'd have a whole lot of
security. Anytime you build up a massive artificial structure you are
creating something that could fail. It's a question of risk. What type
of risk do you want to take? Your General Plan says you're suppose
to minimize fill in your projects. That makes sense from an
environmental standpoint, from an aesthetics standpoint, from a
planning standpoint, from a public safety standpoint. I live currently
in San Diego. I was raised in this area. I can tell you that San Diego
is the construction defect capitol of the world. And we have more
problems because we have naturally hilly terrain like you guys do in
this particular area. Everybody is cutting down hillsides historically
and filling in and all this and boy, we've got projects over the last two
decades that have been cracking up all over the place. And the
engineers carne in and they had great credentials and they had all
the right things to say and they said these projects are going to work.
Folks, there are risks involved. That's all there is to it. Anytime
you're talking about 1.4 million cubic yards of dirt, there are risks.
And you'd best avoid it. Now, I pointed out in the paperwork that I've
submitted to you that there are a number of problems with the EIR.
I do commend to you the Section 5 on Project Alternatives because
they have a number of little jewels that are hidden in there in terms of
their observations of this particular project in terms of alternative
designs. And they say how they can do certain things and they can
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 29 CITY COUNCIL
avoid a million cubic yards of fill. They can avoid building two huge
fill slopes. They can protect an extra 80 trees. They can do lots of
things if you get around to redesigning thisproject. And,
coincidentally, if you redesign the project and fit it within Lot 6 which
you are required to do, so many of these impacts are dramatically
reduced. That there is really a compelling case that the project needs
to be within Lot 6. Now, the developer may say, I don't know whether
they've said it or not, we can't afford to do this project unless we can
do it this way because the economics don't work out. That, ladies
and gentlemen, is not your problem. The economy of So. Calif. is not
going to fail because they fail to build this project. And I don't know
whether the economic consideration is a big one that they have
pushed in this context. I do know from experience that that is often
something they say. We have to have this many lots. Well, they can
get 130 lots. The EIR says that. All you got to do is have smaller lots
and then they'll all fit in Lot 6 which the EIR says, your laws your
General Plan and your map restrictions and your deed restrictions
dictate. On the subject of traffic, it always pains me because I live in
a highly trafficked area too, to hear people sharing the same
frustrations. And a lot of times, people aren't quite sure who to blame
and how to deal with the problem and I give a lot of leeway to folks
who do get up and say, look, I live in this traffic, it's terrible and I
know something's wrong and I can't really put my finger on it. Those
people instinctively know something is wrong and they know that this
project has something to do with it, they don't necessarily make all of
the right connections. But they shouldn't be criticized by other people
who come up and suggest that they don't know what they're talking
about. On the subject of traffic I will say that I was very surprised that
the EIR simply dispenses with impacts by saying that under certain
standards there's a less than 2% increase in the over capacity of
intersections that were analyzed. What does that mean? You have
failed intersections. You need to do something about it. These
people should be paying good money into your traffic mitigation plan,
not just building a traffic signal cause that's all I read. They were
going to put a traffic signal on the road that they were going to build
at the intersection of D.B. Blvd. They should be paying good money
into your coffers as part - that has a plan to actually deal with the
traffic problem on D.B. and I didn't see that anywhere in the
documents that I read. Perhaps I missed something. This is an
opportune time to say look, you're going to make a bad situation
worse and have no doubt about it, traffic is often a classic example of
that old phenomenon of the straw that breaks the camels back
because you can have a situation where you can sort of live with the
traffic and you add a hundred more car trips and all of a sudden, all
heck breaks loose. The traffic engineers can confirm that. That's
good science and we all know it from our own observations. In terms
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 30 CITY COUNCIL
of how you proceed from here, I was going to suggest that you might
consider doing a workshop. I know that things need to be moved
along. My experience is that when you have tons of questions like
this and issues that need to be answered, sometimes actually having
a workshop that is maybe a little bit more informal allows for a little bit
more exchange. It can be very helpful in terms of working through
this with the citizens and the experts and the applicant and the
planning people. So I just threw that out idea for your consideration.
And I guess finally, to the extent that I have any time left, I'd like to
reserve that to respond to any further presentation made by the
applicant. Thank you very much. Any questions, I'm happy to field
them at this time. Thank you.
Lex Williman explained that he had not read Kevin Johnson's letters
and could not, therefore, respond to his comments about the General
Plan issues at this time. He said the applicants' feel that findings can
be made that the proposed project is in conformance with the General
Plan. One can make findings for or against any project. With respect
to traffic, the report points out that D.B. suffers from existing traffic
problems that are not directly related to any one local project and are,
in fact, related to regional issues. The proposed project's impact to
existing traffic patters is minimal. Any kind of grading operation will
create dust for a certain period of time. There is a significant impact
with respect to the dust, however, it is a temporary situation. The
noise impacts occur during construction. He explained that because
of the current economy, construction will take place at a rapid pace
in order for sales to proceed. There was a study presented for
retaining the construction within Lot 6 which would place the access
road to Highcrest Dr. an additional 20' higher which would create
more of a visual impact than the proposed project. In addition, the
grading would be pushed out to D.B. Blvd. The proposed project
attempts to push the grading back from D.B. Blvd. as much as
possible. He explained why a project wholly contained within Lot 6
may be aesthetically less pleasing than the proposed project. He
stated there will be impacts with respect to aesthetics. However, the
project proposes natural looking slopes and natural looking
landscaping in accordance with the City's wishes. With respect to
hydrology, studies have determined that there is adequate capacity
in all of the pipes and the velocities are within acceptable limits.
There will be no runoff onto D.B. Blvd. and down into Sycamore
Canyon. All of the drainage will be picked up by pipes.
Todd Kurtin explained that the project has been designed to be
developed on approximately 38 acres. Lot 6 consists of 40-45 acres.
The proposed project does not propose construction that would
exceed the acreage of Lot 6. 25 acres of the development will be
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 31 CITY COUNCIL
open space manufactured slopes. The applicant is not asking to
develop on more acreage than was contemplated in Lot 6. He said
he believes that by containing the development wholly within Lot 6
and reducing the lot sizes, the values of the project homes as well as
the surrounding homes would be reduced. SunCal has no desire to
enter into litigation with the City and the subject has never been
discussed. The soils engineer for the proposed project is not the
same soils engineer that was used for the San Juan Capistrano
project. The San Juan Capistrano landslide did not occur on the
applicant's property and was most likely caused by EI Nino.
Jim Castles of Pacific Soils explained why SunCal's project in San
Juan Capistrano and the proposed D.B. project are not comparable.
With respect to Mr. Johnson's statement implying that it would be
better to place houses on cut rather than fill, the Pacific Soils report
recommends that fills greater than 50 feet in depth be placed on the
project site at a 93 percent compaction standard. This is not
mandated by the City. He said he disagrees with the implication that
cut is better than fill. A properly engineered fill will generally perform
as well if not better than cut lots.
M/Herrera closed the public comments portion of the meeting and
opened Council deliberation. She requested that staff present its
response to questions by the public and by Council in writing at the
August 4, 1998 meeting.
C/O'Connor: I'm not planning to ask all of the questions that I have
because I know that other Council Members have some, too. I do
want the audience to know that all of the Council were given audio
tapes of all of the Planning Commission meetings and the public
hearings. I have listened to those and taken notes so hopefully, I am
up to speed as to what your concerns have been. And I must say that
I agree with many of you that in reviewing everything, I don't
understand why the developer has never presented a plan wholly
inside Lot 6 with no grading on restricted property. They knew when
they bought (the property) that there were restrictions on Lot 4, 5, 7
and 9. So 1, too, would like to see a plan on Lot 6 alone with no
grading outside of those lots. I have looked at the petitions that were
signed by the residents. As a matter of fact, I computerized them so
that the Council could take a look at what streets were involved. I
don't guarantee that I could read all the writing of all the numbers and
all the streets as well as, peoples names, but I think its given us a
good indication of where the residents live. I do have a question on
map restricted property. I know that we've received information that
they cannot build residential property on map restricted property, but
does that prevent them from grading on the other lots?
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 33 CITY COUNCIL
would make it available to the City Clerk we would appreciate it.
C/O'Connor: That was the one I was referring to. I was able to read
it but 1 couldn't write down fast enough to put that down. Another
concern i have is the water tank locations that whether they are
mandatory to be on Lot 6 or whether they would be allowed to be put
off Lot 6. 1 assume that since they are not a residential building that
they would be allowed to relocate those water tanks onto the map
restricted property? Is that a true assumption?
CM/Belanger: The property that is restricted by the map provides the
City Council the right to prohibit residential construction. I don't
believe that extends to the construction of water facilities.
CA/Jenkins: Ah, right. But to carry that thought forward I think we
would have to take a further look at whether a water tank would be a
permitted use as a primary and sole use on a piece of property under
our Zoning Ordinance which is a separate question.
C/O'Connor: There's been a lot of talk tonight about the particulant
matter and the construction pollution. During grading, how far does
the dust flow? How far - does it go a mile? Does it go 10'? Does it
go...
CM/Belanger: It depends. It depends on wind currents.
C/O'Connor: Now, I believe I read in there that if the wind was more
than 5 mph that they could not do grading. Is that correct?
CM/Belanger: That's correct.
C/O'Connor: I don't know how comparable the Standard Pacific
project is. Did we have any grading problems with that site as far as
neighbors having health problems with the dust that we know of?
CM/Belanger: Not that we know of.
DCM/DeStefano: There was one house at the end of Rapidview Dr.
which is the only house for a long stretch of Rapidview that had some
concerns about the amount of dust that was corning into their property
with respect to the dust that was going into their pool, specifically.
And Standard Pacific took charge of that issue and during that time
where construction was in that area, regularly cleaned and
maintained that property for the particular resident. And that's the
only one that we're aware of, but that wasn't necessarily a health-
related issue.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 34 CITY COUNCIL
C/O'Connor: I'll just ask one more question and then pass this on. Is this
property geotechnically similar to the property that Diamond Ranch High
School graded? And has anybody talked to Diamond Ranch High School,
the PUSD, about grading problems that they had to see if there could be
some potential problems with this site that Diamond Ranch had?
CM/Belanger: I don't believe that question was asked unless the applicant
independently analyzed that. That would be the kind of question we would
research and get you an answer but I don't know that anybody is prepared
this evening unless they correct me, that would be able to answer that
question for you and that would be one of the written responses that you
would get - is whether the geomorphology of the high school site is
comparable to the project site.
C/O'Connor: Has there ever been a development that the dust has been
under the AQMD standards when there's grading involved?
DCM/DeStefano: Madam Mayor and Council Members. My recollection is
that the Piermarini project was under the threshold at that time. The
standards have been modified. It would not likely have been under the
standard today. But at the time it was approved, I believe that project was.
C/O'Connor: There's been questions asked about having the City potentially
buy this property and setting up a bond or assessment district to have
residents pay. I would just like to state that when I was involved with the
Parks Master Plan, we did a questionnaire. And it was a random
questionnaire of 500 residents of D.B. And the question was asked whether
they would be willing to pay for increased park improvements. And it started
- unfortunately, I don't remember the exact numbers - but it started with, let's
say, $36 per year and dropped on down. And the overwhelming response
was "no" that they were not willing to even pay $24 a year toward park
improvements. So those of you that say that you think the citizens of D.B.
would be willing to add hundreds of dollars maybe to their property taxes to
buy this property, I'm not so sure that that would be a realistic achievement.
I'll yield to the rest of the Council.
M/Herrera: Ok. Thank you. Mrs. Ansari. Did you have questions that you
would like staff to research.
C/Ansari: Well, number one, I'd like those questions answered because in
listening to the tapes, some of the questions that were asked tonight were
ones that were asked during the Planning Commission hearings. And
looking at the notes from the Planning Committee, the minutes of the
meeting, and listening to the tapes - I think I got more out of the tapes than
going back and looking at the notes. I'd like some of the answers given to
us. I don't know if we'll be able to get them by August 4 so that the people
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 35 CITY COUNCIL
who have attended many of those Planning Committee meetings will
be able to get the answers for them and be able to see them in a
timely way. I think the question about having a workshop was a very
good point. I think then we would be able to have some give and take
and discuss this openly. I think when you get 2,000 signatures, and
I know people were saying those 2,000 signatures are from some
areas of the City that were not even near this property, I think it
determines the whole City, this project that's determined. It's not only
the people that live near the project. It's an area that impacts the
whole City. Granted most of the traffic mitigations, the amount of
houses that are being built - there are 130 - when you have, if you
double that on cars it brings it to 260 and I think much of our traffic
impact, and this does impact the traffic problem, comes from across
Grand and I think, what are they approving over in Chino Hills - 800
homes last month? So those are concerns that I have, too. But I
really, one of the issues that really concerned me was the fact of
there was new a project development or there was never a map for
them building on the unrestricted property which is Lot #6. And that
was not done. In fact, even listening to the notes and the minutes of
the notes, listening to the tapes, I don't even know if that was
discussed much. Didn't seem like it was. So I have a little concern
about that. And I'm not saying that these developers have not tried
to work with the community. I think they have. But I think maybe
these issues need to be discussed maybe in a town - maybe in a
workshop that we can discuss this, and that we can discuss this
openly back and forth and try to iron out these issues. Some of them
may be but to talk about these concerns that we have and maybe a
less informal, less intimidating session and not have it go on for
months and months with anger escalating. We need to talk about this
project and see where its going to go. And I'm not ready to pass the
project where I have many questions that I feel were not answered
yet. And they were not answered for the people that attended those
meetings. And I'd like to see the answers. Thank you.
M/Herrera: Thank you, Mrs. Ansari. Mr. Chang.
MPT/Chang: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Well, first of all, we
certainly want to thank these many residents who are concerned
about our community and have taken the time to come over here to
express yourselves. I believe several things make this issue so
important or so touchy. Number one, we talk about property right and
I'm glad that most of the people tonight who expressed themselves
respect property rights which is good. And that means that we do not
allow developers to do anything at all. So basically, the property right
is in Lot 6 and I think that's what we're concerned about. Number
two, because there is a map restriction, therefore, it causes a
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 36 CITY COUNCIL
problem. Without this map restriction, the whole thing would be
easier. Number three, the significant benefits are already recited in
the General Plan. So, what is really a significant benefit to the
community is something we have to figure out - Council and everyone
in the community. And of course, the EIR report which we understand
doesn't 100% fulfill the requirement. The other concern is that if we
bring the whole thing down to Lot 6, will that still fulfill the
requirements of the EIR criteria threshold? That I would also like to
know as well. But luckily this is a temporary situation and of course,
temporary situations need to be concerned. But I believe this is
manageable. If somewhere down the line we have to make a
decision, this is something that can be managed. Of course, the
betterment of the community will be considered. That is the number
one concern. The quality of our life. I mean, that is all that we talk
about here. Traffic situation, yes. We do realize that we have a
traffic problem and we do realize that 130 houses maximum might
create some impact to the traffic to make bad into worse like some of
you people said. We need a better analysis on how bad it might be
and to give us a better analysis so that we can really make the
decision - a smart intelligent decision. Right now, I think we are all
here to listen to each other and to exchange our opinions. There's
nothing that we want to make the decision tonight. And we are glad
that we still can communicate here peacefully, respect each other and
respect the property rights, and respect your right of living in a quality
community and hopefully we can all keep it that way. But I do have
a concern that we should see a project that stays within Lot 6 only to
see what is going to come up. Without see that, it is kind of hard for
us to talk about further. And besides, since the property right remains
in Lot 6 only, I think the developer should come up with a Lot 6
proposal versus the other proposal as well instead of just one and
only proposal. So I think that's probably what I would suggest we
look into that as well. But anyhow, before then, we welcome you for
your expression and thank you for your expression. So I think,
Madam Mayor is going to make some announcement whether we're
going to have another hearing again or not. Thank you.
M/Herrera: Thank you, Mr. Chang. Mr. Huff.
C/Huff: Thank you, Madam Mayor. It's been a long evening as you
have sat there and opened up your hearts and told us your concerns.
I share many of those concerns and yet, I try to balance that also,
with what is in the best interest of the community because that is what
we do up here as Council Members, hopefully. And tonight we sit
here not as legislators creating law, but we sit here in a quasi-judicial
mode trying to interpret things. So it's a little different role than
maybe we're normally use to. And also in that role we have to be
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 37 CITY COUNCIL
careful that we're not swayed by shear numbers. There has to be
logic. We have to make findings or we find ourselves vulnerable to
lawsuits. And so from that standpoint we do need to proceed
carefully, wisely, thoughtfully, and make sure that the product we
come out with reflects the interest of the community, the desire of the
community as a whole, but also doesn't compromise our own
positions or the future. We don't want to just give something to
somebody because you're coming and asking, but we also don't want
to deny them just because we don't want it. We have to make the
decision wisely. I too share the concern about this deed that we saw
tonight, the 1972, and I would like to see that come back and I
understand that that is in the process and we will hopefully get a copy
of that and we can review that and see if it applies to us here. The
common theme that came up tonight was the traffic. And certainly we
do know that traffic is a problem. 1 would like staff to give us a little
bit of a report or perhaps the applicant next time, but I think its more
correctly staff, to look at what the traffic counts are coming from
outside of the City. I believe we do fairly regular traffic counts. I
know we did a Ouail Summit Traffic Study showing Grand Ave. at
32,000 vehicles and that roadway is rated for about 30,000 as I recall.
D.B. Blvd. is a major arterial. Where are we right now as far as the
regional impacts. What are we seeing on the streets of D.B?
CM/Belanger: We take periodic measurements of traffic coming
across the Chino Hills/City of D.B. incorporation line. For a short
period of time it was on about a monthly basis. We're now doing it on
a quarterly basis. We will take your comment in the form of a
question and well provide that data or the data that we have and give
you an indication of what the changes, if any, are in terms of the
traffic counts, they're 24 hour counts so they give us a snapshot of
an entire day, just to give you a flavor of what's coming across the
line and then how that traffic dissipates in a variety of directions at
Grand Ave. and D.B. Blvd.
C/Huff: Good. I'd appreciate that because I was caught up in the
traffic on D.B. Blvd. tonight. Actually, that's why I was 5 minutes late.
It is a nasty thing. We'll talk more about that later, but I'd like to see
how this project impacts the traffic. I've heard two different studies.
I know the first traffic report looked ridiculously low and one of the
speakers mentioned that tonight. And I heard a higher traffic count
later on so let's sort through and see what the real impact of this is -
our best guess - because that's really all it is, the best guess. If you
have 130 homes out there they may or may not generate four trips a
day per vehicle or whatever, but it is a guess, but let's try to get that
nailed down. There is also a concern about schools - overcrowding
of schools. And while one speaker said that wasn't our venue - the
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 38 CITY COUNCIL
schools do their own thing and have an assessment from the
developers, I would like us to quantify, if you could bring that back
next time, about what will happen with this. I understand there are
some plans for the Pomona School District to develop Pantera
Elementary School and if we could get some report from the Pomona
School District about how this would impact them - negatively or
positively, that would be helpful. Not that it is our venue, but just as
collateral information because that is a concern to the residents here.
Also on the aesthetics, clearly something that is the way it is when
you buy it, you like it, or it's okay or you wouldn't buy a house. And
so any change is going to have a resistance, whether that is a change
for the better or a change for the worse because it's really a change
to the unknown and people do resist the unknown. And we've looked
at the applicant. There's a nice little foam model down here which I
haven't had an opportunity to look at. The 3D model. We have a lot
of maps, pictures, but really trying to visualize how something is going
to look is a difficult thing. I know when I was on the Planning
Commission I was viscerally reacting against development that was
taking place in the Country area called the back Country, in the SEA,
Significant Ecological Area, and yet looking at that 4 years, 5 years
down the road, it looks significantly different than it did at the time of
grading. Why is that? Because there was a plan. And the plan was
that they grade the jeepers out of this thing which is what I was
looking at and reacting to, but when they did compact it and fill it up
and try to form those roads and pads into a flowing kind of pattern
which is similar to what you see here, when you get that revegetated
and the native vegetation on the slopes - its growing slowly at this
point, but the other vegetation on the pads is growing better - it takes
on a totally different characteristic. Is that as good as the naked
hills? No. Is it acceptable to the community? I guess that's a
judgement call. But I would like staff to speak a little bit to what we're
trying to achieve through the General Plan and through the most
recent Development Code that we've just adopted of excellence in
planning because that's what we've been trying to achieve. The
County did not achieve excellence in planning. One of the speakers
tonight talked about the early streets that were made where you could
hardly have two cars passing at the same time. They're very narrow.
That houses are all jumbled together. We had a slope failure in D.B.
with this 100 year rain this year on one of those older tracts also. But
could someone from staff speak to what we're looking at when we're
looking at a project that has 120 or 100 put onto Lot 6 or if we're
looking at something like we see here on Lot 5, 6 and 7 where it's
overlapping, what makes one project more of an excellence in design
as opposed to the other one which may be an easier decision for us
to make. Obviously, from the comments we've heard tonight it's a lot
easier for us to just approve something on Lot 6 and forget 5 and 7.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 39 CITY COUNCIL
So what is the difference that we should be looking for.
CM/Belanger: It depends on what your premise is. If your premise
is you can have 120 homes the outcome on aesthetics is going to be
different than you can build an aesthetic project and we'll give you
whatever the land grants you. In essence, it could be from 1 to 120.
So what your premise is in terms of what you're looking at will dictate
the aesthetics. If you don't start with a specific number that you're
trying to reach and instead say we want to see a project that meets
some aesthetics standard and that whatever the number of tots are
that evolve from that become what you consider, that's one way to
look at aesthetics. The other is you can have 120 lots. Let's see
what it looks like. There can be two completely different analyses in
terms of aesthetics. In terms of Lot 6 proposal Council has indicated
they want to see a proposal on Lot 6. There are a couple of issues
and I'm sure the property owner heard that and if he's been paying
close attention he probably ought to do that. The question is whether
you want to see a project within the lines or do you want to see a
project that allows for grading outside the lines to support a project.
There are some issues here in terms of what do you mean by Parcel
6 and the kinds of project alternative you want to see come back to
you. Or maybe one of each. One that shows, that has grading
outside the lines but you build lots within the lines and one where
everything has to take place within the lines. It would be useful in
terms of direction to the staff as well as, to the property owner how
that would be undertaken. Because that will also have an impact on
your question of aesthetics as to how you do that.
C/Huff. Maybe you can answer the question right now. How much on
this 130 home tract that we see now, how much of the Lot 5 and Lot
7, those are the map restrictions and possibly deed restrictions, how
much of that is encroached upon for grading and how much of it is for
actual pad on those two lots?
CM/Belanger: For actual grading the number is - I'll just use a
number and Mr. DeStefano can correct me - it's 19 acres. For actual
construction...
Chuff: That's a combination of both lots?
CM/Belanger: Yes. The applicant has indicated that the actual
construction is on a smaller amount but you have to grade it all in
essence to create the lots on the lesser amount. So you grade 19
acres in order to build on, I don't know what it is, 4 or 5 acres.
C/Huff: What's the breakdown of how much of the lot is disturbed as
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 40 CITY COUNCIL
opposed to how much of the lot is undisturbed. In other words, is it
a 150 acre lot and you're messing with 10 acres of that? What is that
ratio? The number?
CM/Belanger: I'm not sure I'm understanding your question.
C/Huff: Ok. We know we have X number of acres, 43 acres or
whatever it was, on Lot 6. I've seen two different things that confuse
me. Actually, I've seen a lot more than that that confuses me. I've
seen a total building pad I thought somewhere of like 65 acres. And
yet there's another number that added up to 10 less. What I would
like to know is how much are we disturbing of Lot 5 and how much
are we disturbing of Lot 7 and what is the total size of Lot 5 and what
is the total size of Lot 7.
MPT/Chang: Council Member Huff, 1 think probably one of the
information I counted may be helpful to answer your question here.
Basically, it's the 19 acres on Lot 5 and 7 being used and then they
will build on like Mr. Belanger said, about 4 to 5 acres. However, a
total of about 42 of the lots fall into 5 and 7. Basically, roughly. On
Lot 5 about 12 houses. On Lot 7 it's about lots, pads. So probably
that would help you to figure out.
CM/Belanger: You're asking how many of the acres of Lot 7 are
going to be utilized in relationship to the totality of Parcel 7 and the
same for Parcel 5. 1 don't have that number before me but I'm sure
somebody over here does and they'll get it for us in a moment. If we
can't readily get it for you it will again be one of the written responses.
C/Huff: I would like to see, and I think we're going to generate some
kind of response to the attorney's letters and his written comments.
I would like to see that and I think you're bringing that back to us at
the next meeting so that would be helpful.
CM/Belanger: It will be brought back not at the next meeting but
August 4. And any information that is provided to City Council is also
provided to the public. And we'll try to do it in a way where the public
has it in enough time to read and analyze it and the City Council has
enough time to read and analyze it.
C/Huff: Ok. That's it for my comments or questions tonight and I look
forward to sorting through these comments and trying to find some
more common denominators and looking for answers to that because
when we get through this process at least we want to have your
questions answered. It may not be answered to your liking, but at
least we'll try to answer them and then we'll make a decision on top
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 41 CITY COUNCIL
of that.
M/Herrera: Ok, thank you. Mr. Chang, you had another question?
MPT/Chang: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr. Belanger, in terms of a
proposal within the boundaries of Lot 6, 1 would rather see everything
inside of Lot 6 instead of grading on Lot 5 and 7 again because if
that's the situation were going back to day one again. So we might
as well just stay within Lot 6 only including the grading so that it will
be easier for us to figure out unless the other Council Members do
not agree with that.
MtHerrera: Thank you, Mr. Chang. Given to us was a Comparative
Environmental Evaluation Proposed Project and EIR Project
Alternative, and I believe this alternative was regarding building just
in Lot 6. 1 believe 120 units within Lot 6. And there was an analysis
of what that would mean and 1 would just like to point out a couple of
things that concern me. "The grading design for the EIR Project
Alternative provides less contour grading than the proposed project
although major slopes are somewhat contoured. This grading design
confom-s with the Hillside Grading Ordinance to a lesser extent than
the proposed project. Another point that concerns me is construction
noises. "If the alternative is taken (and that is just building on Lot 6)
implementation of the project alternative would (tape pauses between
side 5 and 6) at the intersections of D.B. Blvd., Tin Dr. and D.B. Blvd.
and Gold Rush Dr. However, these noise levels will not be greater
than those associated with the proposed project. The EIR Project
Alternative proposes residences in a development area adjacent to
D. B. Blvd. that were not part of the proposed project. Proposed on-
site residences along D.B. Blvd. may experience vehicular noise
levels that exceed the City's noise standards. And so while you're
saving maybe noise in your neighborhood, you're transferring it to
somebody else's neighborhood which may not necessarily be a good
thing. A lot of questions have been raised. I have some of my own.
Is Ron Tehran still here? Okay. He was the one that shared with us
a copy of the map restriction that was dated 1972. And I don't have
a phone number for him. I do have an address. If somebody has a
phone number for him we could contact him and get a copy of that.
I would just like to ask staff to research. Mr. Huff has already talked
(about) and several residents brought up, the traffic point. If we could
have a little summary for the large part, the traffic along D.B. Blvd.
Where does it originate and where does it go to? Is it in town traffic
or is it out-of-town traffic, regional traffic. Schools, Mr. Huff
addressed that. Overcrowding of schools and where are we going to
put the kids. The school will be within PUSD and I believe they are
already planning to build another elementary school near that site.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 42 CITY COUNCIL
But if you could address that briefly. A question was asked about
trees and how is it determined which trees go. The tree replacement
and what is the ratio - if you could just briefly talk about that. A
question was raised about pollution in the air. What mitigating things
could be done to reduce that, if possible? A question was raised
about the Arciero project - that there were map and deed restrictions
on that property; we lost trees. If you could briefly address that.
What trees were taken out and in what number were they replaced.
I've already mentioned about getting a copy of the map restriction
dated 1972 from Ron Tehran and if that is a valid copy - deed
restriction - does that supersede our copy of 1967 that was shown to
us? The copy that was put up on the...
CM/Belanger: That was 1981. That's the date of the registration of
the engineer.
M/Herrera: Ok. Then how does that work. If there was a 1972 copy
of something, does something else dated 1981 take precedence over
it?
CM/Belanger: Without seeing both documents, it would be difficult to
say.
M/Herrera: Ok. Could you perhaps address that question.
CM/Belanger: Yes.
M/Herrera: Ok. That concludes my comments or questions, rather.
As I'm counting, I did count three individuals that want to see
something brought back on Lot 6. Would that need to be in the
nature of a motion?
CA/Jenkins: Mayor, I also counted at least three and we've been
talking about that here. It seems to me that the applicant has the
option of going forth with the current proposal or acceding to the
wishes of at least three of you to have the opportunity to compare the
current proposal with a proposal that is limited to Lot 6 and I don't
think it requires a motion but I do think at some point we need to know
whether or not the applicant is willing to prepare that alternative
document or whether the applicant wishes to just move forward with
what we have. And then I'm going to reserve for the moment the
question of what happens if the applicant does prepare an alternative
document and the Council prefers it to the existing proposal because
it will require some additional analysis as to whether or not A) it must
go back to the Planning Commission and B) whether or not there
needs to be any supplement to the EIR. So the only real issue that
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 43 CITY COUNCIL
is before you right now in that regard is whether or not the developer
is interested in coming forward with an alternative and whether or not
they are able to do that by August 4 or whether they are going to
need additional time to put that sort of a proposal together.
M/Herrera: Can I make a suggestion then to Council. Many
questions have been asked and we've asked staff to draft responses
to us. Can I suggest that we kind of hold up on any request to
change the project until we see the responses to the questions. And
those I anticipais can be brought back on August 4. And at that time
if the Council want to make a serious request to change the project
it can be done at that time. Okay. Mrs. Ansari. You have a question.
C/Ansari: Yeah. There's one other issue, too. For this proposal
that's coming before us to lift map and deed restrictions so they can
build on Lot 5 and 7. 1 don't know if what they're proposing to the City
is of significant benefit to us. They have a good project. Its going to
look aesthetically nice. They're giving us land that already has
restrictions on it and $250,000. 1 don't necessarily think that's a
significant benefit to the City. Just that alone to be honest with you.
M/Herrera: Ok. What is the Council's opinion on my suggestion that
I just made to kind of hold in abeyance any formal request to the
applicant to change their project until we review the responses to all
of the questions that we've just put before them. Mr. Huff, you wanted
to say?
C/Huff: I guess the real question hinges on what Council Member
Ansari just said. Is the dedication of the open space to the City a
significant benefit? Because if we want to thumb our nose to that and
force them back to just Lot 6, then that's a decision we can make. I
will say that when the applicant - I don't know if they were in escrow
with the property, but they were looking at the property - Bramalee
had gone into bankruptcy and so it was on the market, and they did
approach various Council Members - I know they approached me and
they asked me about my impression of the Memorandum of
Understanding. And I was on the General Plan Advisory Committee
back when we dealt with this thing and I had heard about the MOU
and in fact, the General Plan was written trying to encapsulate the
essence of the MOU in there. The concern always was from the
group that I was involved in - the GPAC - from what I heard before,
that the developer would find a way to wiggle around the MOU. Now
I find it a little bit ironic that it's sort of on the other foot now. The
General Plan was written - it was thought to be a good development
at the time. Although it was a concept, this is the first time the City
was getting something of significance. We were in the middle of or
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 45 CITY COUNCIL
you're saying is that you do not think it is a significant benefit to the
City. So that's the question I believe you have to answer for
yourselves.
M/Herrera: Well, and in a great sense I agree with Mr. Huff. We're
required to be prudent with the public's monies. And I cannot justify
why we would buy something, pay for something, if somebody is
willing to give it to us for free. I cannot justify that. I'm going to repeat
again that I would like to see the Council hold off on a formal request
to the applicant to change the plan until we see the responses back
from staff regarding all of the different questions that we've asked.
Mrs. Ansari.
C/Ansari: Then, if we're going to have those questions answered that
people in the audience felt that were not answered before, I would
suggest that we have a Town Hall Meeting or a Saturday meeting
where people could have those questions answered for them and
maybe we can discuss that freely and look like we're working with the
people in the community and discuss this. Now, the amount of open
space that we would get with this development is very very nice when
you think of this as open space. However, what the issue is, is how
do the people in the community feel about it. And if this is going to be
decided by us and we're going to vote on it, I think that we need to
have a forum where we can talk about it, have a Town Hall type of
thing on a Saturday to discuss it openly. This is our first meeting.
We received this packet, although we had gotten the EIR's a year
ago, July was the first EIR I got, we got this packet of the tapes was
a week ago Monday - a week and a half ago I received the tapes.
And I've been listening to them since then. And so the tapes and all
of the information that we went through, I think there's still some
questions and I think we need to have a meeting where we can talk
about this freely with the people in the community and then maybe
put some closure on it and decide where we're going to go from there
- whether or not we... if you want we can hold off on whether to build
on Lot 6 until after we have this Town Hall meeting but I think it's
something that needs to be discussed. Now also, the alternative
suggestion that they had in this book, yes, Mr. Belanger, in this book,
does not have a map. It does not have a map of how they were going
to develop it even though they answered it in the request of the
altematives. Where is the map. Well, it didn't go in, and this was not
given to everybody that was at when they had this at the meeting. It
was never discussed fully if you read the minutes of the meeting
where this was brought up - the alternative. And I think maybe this
needs to be discussed to. I listened to those tapes.
M/Herrera: Mrs. O'Connor, did you have something?
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 46 CITY COUNCIL
C/O'Connor: I think we would be doing a disservice to the citizens of
D.B. if we did not have the applicant come back with a presentable
development on Lot 6. 1 can't say at this point in time which one
would be aesthetically better. I don't like the idea of the one that is
on Lot 6 or the proposal of having the six homes right off D.B. Blvd.
But I think we have to let the citizens see both plans so that they can
decide for themselves whether aesthetically the proposed plan is
better than the Lot 6 plan. We've heard the developer say that they
don't think that it would be the best possible plan on Lot 6 but we've
also heard from the majority of the residents here that they want,
they're not against the development on Lot 6 which causes me a little
problem because you hear a lot of questions about the air pollution
and the noise. Well, if its developed on Lot 6 there's still going to be
the air pollution and there's still going to be the noise. So I really
think that we need to present a viable project on Lot 6 so that the
citizens can see that yes, the proposal on Lot 6 is not as good as this
proposal or, Lot 6 is as good as this proposal. And without that
information - I know they made an attempt, but there's still a lot of
open items on this alternative and I just feel that personally, I will not
be able to make a decision one way or the other without seeing the
Lot 6 proposal and I think we owe it to the citizens who have said they
want the project on Lot 6, to show them what it would look like.
M/Herrera: Ok. First point. Do we want this brought back on August
4 or August 8 which is a Saturday?
CM/Belanger: You're asking the applicant to prepare an alternative....
M/Herrera: No, no. Right now you only have one Council Member
asking for that alternative.
CM/Belanger: Let's just presume for the moment that somewhere in
this discussion that three of you decided that you wanted to see a
project attemative, you need to get from the applicant how much time
they need to do that and whether August 8 is sufficient.
M/Herrera: Ok. First point of order then, we need to see if there are
three individuals that are asking the applicant to do that.
C/Ansari: Well, whether it's August 8th or not, eventually I'd like to
see it on Lot 6 so we may as well have them do..l would like to see it
on Lot 6.
MPT/Chang: Yes, I would like to see it on Lot 6 because basically,
the procedure to this is suppose to have Lot 6 be proposed and then
to have something else prepared. Meaning, if Lot 6 is not good
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 47 CITY COUNCIL
enough, then how Lot 6 will similarly cross the border onto Lot 5 and
7. To me that sounds more logical for them to apply to the City and
have the matter before us to make the judgement not only just to the
Council but also to the residents. I think probably that would make
more logic. Disregard what is of more significant benefit to the
community for right now. And that is something else we certainly
want to put a consideration.
M/Herrera: Ok. Then we have three Council asking for a proposal
on Lot 6. So next point of order would be to find out whether they are
interested in doing that and how much time do they need to do that.
So we're perhaps talking beyond August 8th time. Do we need that
response right now at this point in time, Mr. Jenkins? Or...
CA/Jenkins: No, we don't, but if they don't provide it then what we
should do is continue this to a date certain from which we can then
continue it depending on their response. So, for example, if they
were to give us their response within the next week you could
continue this for two weeks solely for the purpose of them continuing
it either to August or beyond.
M/Herrera: So, let's see. The next meeting would be the 21st so we
could continue this to the 21st for the sole purpose of hearing back
from them whether or not they are interested in doing that and then
continue it again to a point in time where they think that they would
have the plans ready. Meanwhile we'll know if we have to go through
the Planning Commission process.
CA/Jenkins: Right. If they decline then we could continue it to your
first meeting in August simply to answer the questions that have been
raised.
M/Herrera: Do we need a motion to continue this item to August
21 st?
CA/Jenkins: I'm sorry. Did they indicate a response back?
M/Herrera: Do you need time to think about...?
Todd Kurtin: I have two comments. One—we need time to think about
it, number one. But more importantly, to me, we need to fully
understand what you're looking for. Councilwoman O'Connor just
mentioned that our other alternative was inadequate. I don't know
what that means. We need to know what you're really looking for so
that we can understand what to deliver and if that's appropriate or
not.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 49 CITY COUNCIL
Todd Kurtin: Because she later said it depends on if the map
restrictions would allow us to grade on Lots 5 and 7 which we have
prepared an analysis like that already. And so now I need to know,
do you want us to complete that analysis that there are some holes
there or to go to Mr. Chang's analysis?
MPT/Chang: Again. This is personal. Just coming from the sense
that on Lot 6, you have a right to build. Then come in with the best
solution that you think can maximize your benefits either up to 130
houses or 85 houses or something I don't know. But it make it still
quality that you think can attract the residents and attract the Council
and also to bring the best benefit to the community. Then at your
discretion, come up with the best proposal that might work. Then I
think with that in hand in front of us, it will be better to make an
analysis and one that is fair.
M/Herrera: So, you have some options. We can continue this to the
July 21st Council meeting so you could wait until that meeting to
respond if you want to go forward. Perhaps well have a little bit
better clarity in what different people mean, exactly, or are looking for
exactly, whether just the building is on Lot 6 and you grade outside
or exactly what ... its after 11:00 p.m. and we've been talking about
this for 5 hours. And we do have another agenda item that we must
take care of.
Todd Kurlln: We will go foruvard to Aug. 8 and discuss with staff what
to prepare for that meeting. We'll have alternatives ready by then.
M/Herrera: Ok. That's a Saturday. And staff at that point will have
responses to all the different questions asked so we will schedule the
Council meeting for Aug. 8, Sat. Ok? So, Mr. Jenkins, is the public
hearing still open?
CA/Jenkins: Yes.
M/Herrera: ...or do I close the public hearing?
CA/Jenkins: No. I would suggest you continue it to Sat., Aug. 8.
M/Herrera: All right. Then this public hearing is still open and this
matter is continued to Aug. 8.
CM/Belanger: Madam Mayor. We would need a time when that
would occur.
M/Herrera: 9:00 a.m.
JULY 7, 1998
PAGE 51 CITY COUNCIL
43 and 98-44 levying assessments on Assessment District Nos. 38, 39 and
41 for Fiscal Year 1998-1999. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Chang,
M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
9. NEW BUSINESS: None
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING: 11:15 p.m.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 11:16 p.m.
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS: None
11. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: MPT/Chang spoke about a
successful and patriotic July 4th celebration.
C/O'Connor encouraged residents to attend the Concerts in the Park.
Quakes night for D.B. will be Wednesday, August 26, 1998. She and
M/Herrera discussed their opposition to Senate Bill 2010 with the California
Legislature and the L.A. County Board of Supervisors.
M/Herrera spoke about the Monday, July 6, 1998 Special City Council
meeting. She stated she will establish a Telecommunications Facilities Task
Force consisting of two residents appointed by each Council Member, two
Council Members (Cable Subcommittee Representatives) three members of
the telecommunications industry and staff representatives as deemed
appropriate by the City Manager. This task force will begin work on
September 1, 1998 and conclude meetings by October 31, 1998 with their
report to the Planning Commission no later than January 1, 1999 for its
review and recommendation to Council. The number of Task Force
meetings will be determined by staff.
12. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Herrera
adjourned the meeting at 11:21 p.m.
ATTEST:
Mayor
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 50 CITY COUNCIL
M/Herrera continued the public hearing to a Town Hall Meeting to be
held on Sat., Aug. 8, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. in the SCAQMD Auditorium for
reviewing alternative project proposals and staffs answers to
questions posed during the public hearing and in written form.
7.2 (a) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1998 -
RESOLUTION NO. 98-42: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND AR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1998-1999 - On May 18, 1998, Council approved the Engineer's Report and
adopted Resolution No. 98-29 to declare the City's intention to levy and
collect assessments for District No. 38. Council commenced the public
hearing on June 16, 1998 and continued to July 7, 1998 on the levy of the
proposed assessments on assessable lots within this District for FY 98-1999.
(b) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1998 -
RESOLUTION NO. 98-43: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1998-1999 - On May 18, 1998, Council approved the Engineer's Report and
adopted Resolution No. 98-30 to declare the City's intention to levy and
collect assessments for District No. 39. Council approved the Engineer's
Report and adopted Resolution No. 98-30 to declare the City's intention to
levy and collect assessments for District No. 39. Council commenced the
public hearing on June 16, 1998 and continued to July 7, 1998 on the levy
of the proposed assessments on assessable lots within this District for FY
98-99.
(c) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1998 -
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1998-1999 - On May 18, 1998, Council approved the Engineer's Report and
adopted Resolution No. 98-31 to declare the City's intention to levy and
collect assessments for District No. 41. Council commenced the public
hearing on June 16, 1998 and continued to July 7, 1998 on the levy of the
proposed assessments on assessable lots within this District for FY 98-99.
Consultant John Friedrich presented information regarding LLAD Nos. 38,
39 and 41.
M/Herrera reopened the Public Hearing.
There being no testimony offered, M/Herrera closed the Public Hearing.
MPT/Chang moved, C/Ansari seconded, to adopt Resolution Nos. 98-42, 98-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 40
SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCILIWALNUT VALLEY
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MEETING 4�
JULY 17, 1898
4?
CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the meeting
to order at 8:07 a.m. in Room CC -2, South Coast Air Quality Management District
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
SCHOOL DISTRICT CALL TO ORDER: Board President McPeak called the
School District meeting to order at 8:08 a.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led
by Mayor Herrera.
3. CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari and
O'Connor, and Mayor Herrera. Council Member Huff and Mayor Pro Tem Chang
were absent.
SCHOOL DISTRICT ROLL CALL: Board Members Lee and Sykes,
Clerk Hall, Vice President Healy and President McPeak.
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, Diamond Bar City Manager; Ronald
Hockwalt, WVUSD Superintendent; James DeStefano, Diamond Bar Deputy City
Manager; Vernon Medeiros, WVUSD Assistant Superintendent; Bob Rose,
Diamond Bar Community Services Director and Lynda Burgess, Diamond Bar City
Clerk.
(1) School District Property Use
Dr. Hockwalt stated that the most recent proposal for Larkstone Park
recommended an exchange for a 3+ acre gross piece of the canyon area at the
bottom of South Pointe into a passivernterpretive area.
C/O'Connor asked how many acres are located in the canyon bottom.
WVUSD Land Use Consultant Rogers stated that the gross area is about 35 acres
which includes the canyon sides and the Standard Pacific project abutment. The
canyon bottom holds approximately 10 to 12 useable acres.
BP/McPeak stated that the Council/School Board needs to address maintenance
and liability concerns.
CM/Belanger pointed out that liability issues continue to exist for the School District
if nothing is done. If the intent is to improve the area (pathways, signage, trees,
etc.) ongoing maintenance will be required. When both agencies are involved, the
matter becomes an issue of joint liability.
BP/McPeak offered that the School District could transfer Paul C. Grow Park to the
JULY 17, 1998 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL/WVUSD JOINT
SPECIAL MEETING
City in exchange for Larkstone Park.
CM/Belanger responded to C/O'Connor that Paul C. Grow Park consists of five
acres. The park land was built using Quimby funds for the building of homes. As
a result, then= would remain the issue of removing the park land from the area and
placing it in a completely different area.
BP/McPeak responded to M/Herrera that Quail Summit Elementary School students
use the Paul C. Grow Park facility for school day activities. The City maintains the
area.
Responding to Clerk/Hall, CM/Belanger explained that Larkstone Park has a
reversion on it to the County. The park was originally granted to the County and
then to the City as a result of the building of homes. Therefore, the land is
connected to the area and the City has always contended that the transfer of the
acreage ought to be three acres for another three acres in the same vicinity
because the County is involved. If the County signs off, the park land could be
relocated to another area. There is no agreement between the City and the School
District with respect to Paul C. Grow Park. The nature of Paul C. Grow Park has
changed with construction and, as a result, the park will be used more as a school
facility.
CM/Belanger confirmed to VP/Healy that the school uses the park area between
8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. on school days. The agreement would need to call out time
frames for liability purposes. For example, if a student is injured on City property
during school hours, the agreement needs to define the primary liability during
school hours and the primary liability during other hours. This is an ongoing
concern with Paul C. Grow Park.
C/O'Connor expressed concern that the citizens may assume that Paul C. Grow
Park is a park facility for general use and belongs to the City and that the City may
be giving up another 3 acres for a park that most people believe already is a park.
BP/McPeak agreed that it is a perception problem as well as an equity issue. The
liaison committee felt that the agencies need to settle the liability issues concerning
Paul C. Grow Park regardless of whether the swap is completed.
Clerk/Hall expressed concern that the School District and City need to reach an
agreement regarding Paul C. Grow Park.
CM/Belanger recommended that a date be set to discuss an agreement for Paul C.
Grow Park.
Dr. Hockwalt suggested that each agency independently consider the matter during
their August sessions, review the proposed agreement at the first meeting in
September, and adopt the agreement at the second meeting in September.
JULY 17, 1998 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL/WVUSD JOINT
SPECIAL MEETING
M/Herrera and CM/Belanger concurred.
MPT/Chang arrived at 8;30 a.m.
Dr. Hockwalt proposed that the School District work with the City toward reaching
a joint use agreement for use of the South Pointe land which would require a
General Plan Land Use amendment from Open Space to Specific Plan.
M/Herrera asked how the property would be accessed if it was designated for some
other land use such as commercial?
CM/Belanger responded that the property would be accessed via Diamond Crest
Rd.
Mr. Rogers explained the layout of the canyon area and stated that the slide has
been remediated and the area certified as constructable property.
M/Herrera stated that the City has spent a considerable amount of time marketing
D.B. There is a parcel of undeveloped land on Grand Ave. and Golden Springs Dr.
which the property owners have given the City permission to market. She explained
that it is a prime piece of property and that a number of developers are interested
in constructing a large complex. The area has freeway visibility and access and
would create significant tax revenue for the City. The challenge is to interest the
church to relocate. With the exception of South Pointe and Site D, there are not
many large parcels of land available in the City. The City has committed to having
site plans drawn to show the church how a particular property would work.
BP/McPeak said that this matter was discussed during the recent liaison committee
meeting. The information available was that the church would not consider moving
to another location.
CM/Belanger stated that the City continues to discuss the matter with the church.
From the City's point of view, it is important that the property have its full potential
realized. He suggested that the property be acquired through the foundation which
would allow the property to become an economic engine for the school district over
time. The church is not in a position to leverage its land because they paid too
much for the property. If there is a possibility for exchanging these properties and
involving the Redevelopment Agency to assist with financing the relocation of the
church, it will be a win-win situation.
Dr. Hockwalt explained that the School District is very interested in long-term
benefits and is interested in pursuing the idea.
CM/Belanger responded to M/Herrera that if the church relocates to South Pointe,
a General Plan amendment will be required.
JULY 17, 1998 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL/WVUSD JOINT
SPECIAL MEETING
M/Herrera indicated that the church is concerned with freeway accessibility. Both
South Pointe and Site D are accessible and convenient to freeways.
BP/McPeak concurred with M/Herrera that the School District will consider Site D
as well as South Pointe as an exchange property.
CM/Belanger explained that because of community concerns and location,
commercially zoned Site D is problematical.
Dr. Hockwalt stated that the School District is interested in working with the City
with respect to Site D. The District's primary concern is an ongoing revenue
stream. He spoke about the possibility of relocating the Walnut School District
Office and proposing a different use for the land.
CM/Belanger stated the City would propose using redevelopment resources to
relocate the school and administrative offices and convert the current location land
use to industrial.
Dr. Hockwalt responded to C/O'Connor that the School District would consider
relocating the district offices to South Pointe or Site D. When there was discussion
that the City may want a City Hall either at South Pointe or Site D, the School
District considered co -habitation. Since the District recently invested $600,000 to
renovate the school site, relocation may be problematic.
Responding to M/Herrera, Dr. Hockwalt stated that the school site consists of about
9 acres.
Mr. Rogers stated the total parcel acreage is 16.7, split as 8.7 acres for Walnut
Elementary School and 8.0 acres for the district offices. He explained that the Del
Paso Continuation H.S. and other uses occupy about 60% of the 8 acre site.
Dr. Hockwalt stated that the District is also interested in moving the Del Paso site.
M/Herrera suggested that the School Board prioritize alternatives.
(2) Joint Park and Recreation Agreement with Walnut Valley Unified School
District
CM/Belanger stated that this agenda item was scheduled to discuss joint
agreements related to the parks rather than a discussion of the Parks Master Plan.
Dr. Hockwalt responded to CM/Belanger that adjacent neighbors are concerned
about the lighting of the basketball and tennis courts at D.B.H.S.
CM/Belanger explained that due to the way in which the property is situated,
lighting of fields would not intrude into any residential neighborhood.
JULY 17, 1998 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL/WVUSD JOINT
SPECIAL MEETING
CM/Belanger stated that AYSO is possibly interested in investing in lighting for the
Chaparral site to make it more useful for soccer.
Clerk/HalI said that the problem with AYSO offering to invest in lighting is that they
would anticipate exclusive access to the facility.
CM/Belanger indicated that D.B. has a similar problem in scheduling because of the
numerous and diversified groups seeking facilities and park for their activities.
(3) School Safety Traffic Study
Dr. Hockwalt responded to C/O'Connor that it is the School District's intent to use
Diamond Crest Lane to its maximum potential for busing students to South Pointe
Middle School when the street is ready.
CM/Belanger explained that signalization is proposed to be installed mid -fall which
will provide ingress to Brea Canyon Rd. from the school site.
Dr. Hockwalt pointed out that the latest update to the School Safety Traffic Study
involves proposed changes for Evergreen Elementary School.
CM/Belanger stated that, as a part of the 98/99 FY Budget, Council approved
overtime hours for a L.A. County Sheriffs Department deputy to provide traffic
safety enforcement for the schools on a non -sequential rotating basis in an attempt
to raise the consciousness of individuals that create traffic at the schools and to
provide more intensive enforcement for people who create safety problems. He
explained the proposed traffic improvements for Evergreen Elementary School and
stated that the related costs are contained within the matrix on Page 8 of the study.
Dr. Hockwalt reiterated that the WVUSD is more than willing to work with the City
through this process. He said he will attend the July 21, 1998 Council meeting to
publicly confirm the district's intent. No objections will be raised.
(4) Other Matters of Mutual Interest and Concern
C/Ansari expressed concern regarding the School District's D.B. Sister City
exchange program.
Dr. Hockwalt explained that there are discussions regarding exchange of students
from D.B. to the Sister City sometime this fall. There have been some political
changes within the Sister City that may affect the program. He said he has had no
discussion with Sister City officials.
MPT/Chang stated that he and Council Member Huff plan to meet with Sister City
officials in August, 1998. The new mayor was previously a delegate to D.B. and is
very interested in continuing the relationship.
JULY 17, 1998 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL/WVUSD JOINT
SPECIAL MEETING
M/Herrera proposed that the next joint meeting be held in October, 1998.
BP/McPeak thanked Council for hosting this unique and historic joint meeting. She
believed the ability to exchange ideas openly and freely was very beneficial to both parties
and looked forward to a continuing collaboration for the mutual benefit of the community.
4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct,
Mayor Herrera and President McPeak adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 10:01
a.m.
ATTEST:
Mayor
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL O
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JULY 21, 1998 9�
1. CLOSED SESSION: None
2. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the meeting to order at 6:37
p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E.
Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Huff
INVOCATION: Monsignor James Loughnane, St. Denis Catholic
Church
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor
Pro Tem Chang, Mayor Herrera
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City
Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Liu, Deputy Director of
Public Works; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Mike Nelson,
Communications & Marketing Director; Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant and
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
APPROVED AGENDA: As presented.
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
3.1 Presented Certificates of Appreciation to Solid Waste Task Force Members.
3.2 Presented Certificates of Appreciation to Off -Street Parking Task Force
Members.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - July 22, 1998 - 6:30 p.m. - 1998 Mid West
Coast Band (Top 40 Contemporary), Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 E.
Golden Springs Dr.
5.2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - July 23, 1998 - 7:00 p.m.,
SCAQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3 PANTERA PARK GRAND OPENING - July 25, 1998 - 10:00 a.m., 738
Pantera Dr.
5.4 PLANNING COMMISSION - July 28, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., SCAQMD Auditorium,
21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.5 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - July 29, 1998 - Sapadilla (Reggae) - 6:30 p.m.,
Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 E. Golden Springs Dr.
5.6 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - August 4, 1998 - 6:30 p.m. - SCAQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
5.7 LOS ANGELES COUNTY LIBRARY - DIAMOND BAR BRANCH RE-
OPENING - August 15, 1998 - 10:00 a.m., 1061 S. Grand Ave.
5.8 SUNCAL PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING/WORKSHOP CONTINUATION -
Changed from Saturday, August 8, 1998 to Tuesday, August 18, 1998 at
6:30 p.m., SCAOMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by MPT/Chang, seconded by C/Huff to
approve the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item No. 6.7. Motion carried
by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Chang,
M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6.1 MINUTES:
6.1.1 Special Meeting of July 6, 1998 -Approved as submitted.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of July 7, 1998 - Continued to August 4, 1998.
6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MINUTES:
6.2.1 Goals and Objectives of the Traffic & Transportation Commission
Study Session of May 14, 1998.
6.2.2 Regular Meeting of May 14, 1998.
6.3 RECEIVED AND FILED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
6.3.1 Regular Meeting of May 26, 1998.
6.3.2 Regular Meeting of June 9, 1998.
6.4 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated July 21, 1998 in the amount of
$527,777.28.
6.5 APPROVED NOTICE OF COMPLETION - TRAFFIC SIGNAL
INSTALLATION ON DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AT GOLDEN
SPRINGSICALBOURNE - accepted work performed by Macadee Electrical
Construction and authorized the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion
and release any retention amounts per previously approved plans and
specifications.
6.6 APPROVED NOTICE OF COMPLETION - TRAFFIC SIGNAL
INSTALLATION ON DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AT PALOMINO
DRIVE/GENTLE SPRINGS DRIVE - accepted work performed by Macadee
Electrical Construction and authorized the City Clerk to file the Notice of
JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
Completion and release any retention amounts per previously approved
plans and specifications.
6.8 AWARDED OFFICE SUPPLY CONTRACT FOR FY 98-99 - established an
open purchase order in the amount of $15,000 with Office Depot for
purchase of general office supplies. The majority of everyday "consumable"
products will be purchased from this vendor; however, larger items (office
equipment) will continue to be awarded based upon several informal bids.
6.9 AWARDED CONTRACT FOR THE 1997-1998 CDBG SIDEWALKS &
HANDICAP ACCESS RAMPS PROJECT- to Kalban, Inc. for the 97-98
CDBG Sidewalks and Handicap Ramps Project, in an amount not to exceed
$70,542.20. Further authorized a contingency amount of $7,000 for project
change orders to be approved by the City Manager, for a total authorization
of $77,542.20.
6.10 RECEIVED AND FILED 1998 CONFLICT OF INTEREST BIENNIAL NOTICE
- no amendments to the City's Conflict of Interest Code are necessary at this
time.
6.11 APPROVED EXTENSION OF MINUTE SECRETARIAL SERVICES WITH
CAROL DENNIS - authorized the City Manager to extend the agreement with
Carol A. Dennis for Minute Secretary services for City Council, Planning
Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission and Traffic & Transportation
Commission meetings in the amount of $23,000 for the period July 31, 1998
through June 30, 1999.
MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.7 AWARD OF GEOTECHNICAL MONITORING SERVICES FOR PUBLIC
STREET IMPROVEMENTS - Meadowglen Rd., between Silver Rain Dr. and
Ironhorse Canyon Rd. has experienced seepage problems for several years.
The City has been monitoring the conditions and a comprehensive
geotechnical study was completed by Converse Consultants West. Plans
and specifications are currently under design; however, it is necessary to
retain Converse to review the plans and specifications and provide close
geotechnical inspection as construction will be complicated by high
groundwater conditions, buried utilities and maintenance of access to the
residential driveways and street.
Following discussion, C/Ansari moved, C/O'Connor seconded, to award a
contract to Converse Consultants West to review the plans and
specifications and provide geotechnical inspection for the Meadowgien Rd.
Public Street Improvements Project in an amount not -to -exceed $36,342 and
provide a contingency amount of $4,000 for contract amendment(s) to be
approved by the City Manager, for a total authorization amount of $40,342.
JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
C/Huff stated that he supported the project but could not support the
recommended action because, with the information presented, he was not
convinced that Council had the information necessary to make the choice for
this particular consultant to oversee the project.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, O'Connor, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - C/Huff, MPT/Chang
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
7.1 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 3(1998): AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING
CHAPTER 8.24 OF TITLE 8 OF THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE,
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 8 AND
DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 11 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE,
AND REVISING THE CITY HEALTH CODE - L.A. County adopted an
ordinance enhancing current public health requirements for operation
of food establishments.
M/Herrera opened the Public Hearing.
Martha Bruske asked why staff is recommending addenda to the
County Ordinance. She did not feel that food operators should have
an opportunity to dictate when a reinspection would take place if the
establishment fails its first inspection.
Dr. Lawrence Rhodes asked that the proposed Ordinance be
enhanced to provide that customers may call the City and request
that an establishment be inspected.
There being no further testimony offered, M/Herrera closed the Public
Hearing.
DCM/DeStefano stated that the City contracts with the County for
health inspection services and does not have staff available for
inspection.
C/O'Connor suggested that Section 8.04.0306, paragraph two,
sentence two be amended to read "if a re -inspection is requested,
said grading shall not be utilized for purposes of preparing a Letter
Grade Card or Inspection Score Card, and neither shall be posted
unless a request for re -inspection is not timely filed."
JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
CA/Jenkins suggested "Said grading shall not be utilized for purposes
of preparing a letter grade card or inspection score card and neither
shall be posted."
Following discussion, C/Huff recommended suggested that the matter
be continued to August 4, 1998. Council concurred.
8. OLD BUSINESS:
8.1 FINAL REPORT OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SOLID WASTE
STANDARDS TASK FORCE - The final report of the Solid Waste Standards
Task Force (SWSTF) is the product of five months of meetings and study to
examine how best the City could comply with the goal of 50% diversion by
the year 2000 as mandated by AB 939. Established on December 16, 1997,
the SWSTF examined existing solid waste and recycling programs, identified
key issues related to solid waste collection and disposal, evaluated the City's
current solid waste management system, and identified a probable menu of
actions that the Council could take. Through these recommended actions,
the City could likely achieve the 50% diversion mandate.
J. Michael Huls, the City's solid waste consultant, presented the final report
of the Solid Waste Standards Task Force.
Red Calkins suggested that lawmakers show the City how to accomplish the
50% reduction rate. He said he wants to have a choice of haulers. He
stated he felt the task force was a waste of time because Council had
already made its decision.
Don Gravdahl expressed concern about increased charges for waste hauling
if green waste pickup is mandated by the City.
Dave Reynolds, Solid Waste Task Force Member, thanked M/Herrera for
establishing the task force. He said the task force was led by a consultant
with a provers track record in adding value to his clients in many cities
throughout the area who presented a framework with options that he thought
were appropriate to D.B. Task force members conducted a thorough
investigation and discussion of the options and forwarded their
recommendations to Council. He did not believe Council made its decision
prior to establishment of the process. He spoke in support of the
recommendations and cautioned Council that, in order for a recycling
program to be successful, the City needs to establish an extensive education
and outreach campaign.
Clyde Hennessee believed the City needs more than one trash hauler and
larger recycling receptacles. He suggested people eliminate grass yards to
cut down on green waste.
JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
Dr. Lawrence Rhodes supported a green waste program for the City.
Martha Bruske expressed concern about recycling containers left in front
yard areas and supported use of closed recycling containers. She urged
Council to remember that the trash pickup trucks are noisy and more trucks
mean more noise. She stated she does not trust home composting and she
fears that with rising costs, people will bury their trash. She suggested that
the City newsletter list hazardous waste pickup dates and locations.
Allen Wilson spoke in support of the task force's recommendations.
Following discussion, C/Ansari moved, C/Huff seconded, to direct staff to
prepare a proposed implementation schedule and analysis of the Task
Force's recommendations for consideration at the August 4, 1998 City
Council meeting. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Chang,
M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
8.2 FINAL REPORT OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR OFF-SITE PARKING
TASK FORCE - The Off -Site Parking Task Force, established by Council on
December 16, 1997, had the task of identifying all issues regarding off-site
parking, considering oversized vehicles, extended parking, permitting 24-
hour parking and prohibiting 72 -hour parking in residential neighborhoods.
The Task Force reviewed current D.B. laws as well as solutions adopted by
surrounding cities and made recommendations for possible solutions to the
problems identified in D.B.
Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs Dr., said he did not want the City to
adopt additional laws with respect to overnight parking. He turned over to
the City Clerk letters from Wong N. Kim, 20723 Timberlane Dr. and Manuel
and Shany Jin, 2716 S. George Ln., asking that Council not adopt any new
laws.
Roy Wilks spoke about the Off -Site Parking Task Force and its report to
Council.
Roger Warnken, 20330 Damietta Dr., stated he favored no additional
parking laws.
Stan Granger, 23800 Gold Nugget Ave., agreed with Al Rumpilla about no
new parking laws and suggested increased enforcement of the current laws.
Cleta Farr, 21225 Cold Springs Ln., said she was against no overnight
JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
parking.
Tina Freeman, 23642 Palomino Dr., left a note for Council stating she did
not believe that D.B. has parking problems.
Martha Bruske, 600 S. Great Bend Dr., asked that code enforcement
expectations be added to the Sheriffs Department. She urged Council to
implement Motion 3 shown in the report and to enforce the current laws.
Don Gravdahl spoke about his participation on the Task Force and showed
photographs of vehicles that appear to be abandoned. He supported items
1, 2, 3 and 6 on the Task Force report.
Dr. Lawrence Rhodes, Fibre Ct., said he and his neighbors are not opposed
to people who park on his street in violation of the City's Parking Ordinance.
Alberto Garcia, 2705 S. George Ln., Walnut, was opposed to proposed new
restrictions. He asked the City to leave things as they are and let the
residents keep their parking spaces.
Bill White, 24212 Breckenridge Ct., asked Council to help the residents of
his street with an ongoing concern about the safety of neighborhood children
because of the number of recreational vehicles that are parked on
Breckenridge for servicing.
Dennis Westbrook, 21227 E. Fibre Ct., agreed that enforcement is
necessary. However, he was concerned that additional enforcement would
mean additional taxes to the residents. He favored educational information
for residents be provided instead of more signage on the streets. He would
like the City to allow recreational vehicles to be parked on the street
overnight for loading and unloading. He agreed with Motion 5 and no
parking on the street during street sweeping.
Darlene Epperly, 23528 Twin Spring Ln., said there is insufficient parking at
her residence to accommodate the number of vehicles in her household.
She favored enforcement with respect to abandoned vehicles and agreed
that recreational vehicles should be allowed to park on the street overnight
for loading and unloading.
Marta Samayoa, 358 Ballena Dr., was opposed to any new laws.
Clyde Hennessee agreed with previous speakers who said there should be
no new laws. He said he withdrew his participation from -the Task Force at
the second meeting.
Thom Pruitt spoke about his participation on the Task Force and
JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
commended Chairperson Leonard -Colby for her leadership. He presented
a petition signed by 17 residents of Breckenridge Ct. expressing their
concerns about a dangerous situation that exists in the area.
Erik Sandoval opposed new parking laws.
M/Herrera stated that Council received letters from Carrie and Mindy
Farrabee, 20974 East Canyon Ridge Rd. and Toshiko Ishijima, 20805 Rocky
Point Ln., who expressed opposition to any new parking restrictions. She
acknowledged a letter from Barbara and Lawrence Parker, 23727 Meadow
Falls Dr., who urged the City to continue to permit the parking of small
motorhomes.
Following discussion, M/Huff moved, MPT/Chang seconded, to request
staffs input regarding recommended motions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. In addition,
Council directed that staff provide additional information regarding different
issues including the Walnut Sheriffs Department's list of priorities with
respect to enforcement and ways in which these matters might be resolved.
Further, to continue the matter to a Study Session on Tuesday, September
1, 1998 for further consideration. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Chang,
M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari
8.3 RESOLUTION NO. 98-45: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING IMPROVEMENTS AS PART
OF THE DIAMOND BAR SCHOOL SAFETY STUDY AT ARMSTRONG
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CASTLE ROCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,
CHAPARRAL MIDDLE SCHOOL, DIAMOND BAR HIGH SCHOOL,
DIAMOND POINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, EVERGREEN ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL, GOLDEN SPRINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, LORBEER
MIDDLE SCHOOL, MAPLE HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, QUAIL SUMMIT
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, SOUTH POINTE MIDDLE SCHOOL, AND
WALNUT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. On February 4, 1997, Council
authorized Austin -Foust Assoc. to conduct a comprehensive school
safety/traffic study for Pomona and Walnut Valley Unified School Districts
school sites in order to effectively address school -related traffic issues. The
School Safety Study dated June 3, 1998, contains the results of the study
and recommended improvements. After a series of meetings and
workshops, the Traffic & Transportation Commission approved the study in
concept on November 13, 1997. Council received public comments and
discussed the study on April 7, 1998. The study was further discussed
during two Council study sessions held April 21 and May 5, 1998.
JULY 21, 1998
PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
CM/Belanger read a letter addressed to Council and signed by
representatives of both school districts which stated that neither the Pomona
or Walnut Valley Unified School Districts have any problems with the D.B.
School Safety Study recommendations.
M/Herrera read a request signed by six homeowners requesting that, due to
construction in the area, the school bus dropoff be moved from the 700 block
to the 800 block of Leyland Dr.
C/O'Connor recommended that, with adoption of the Resolution, letters be
forwarded to each school involved notifying them of the specific
recommendations to be implemented and that the Walnut Sheriffs
Department will be monitoring school sites on a random basis during school
hours.
C/O'Connor moved, C/Huff seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 98-45 with the
exception of Items C, E, and F for D.B. High School and Item D for
Evergreen Springs Elementary School and that all items that can be
implemented prior to the beginning of the 98/99 school year be completed.
C/Huff amended the motion to indicate that the items withdrawn from D.B.
High School and Evergreen Springs Elementary School be brought back to
Council for consideration within 60 days. Motion carried by the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Chang,
M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
A) RESOLUTION 89-88B, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION 89-88A
AND ADOPTING RESOLUTION 89-88B, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF
ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR.
Moved by M/Herrera, seconded by MPT/Chang to adopt Resolution
89-88B. Motion failed by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
C/Huff moved, C/O'Connor seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 89-
88B and specify that the employees' portion be removed from the
JULY 21, 1998
PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL
employees' cafeteria plan if the employee so chooses. Motion carried
by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
B) ORDINANCE 26B(1989), AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM - In
September, 1989, the City contracted with the California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) for retirement benefits for
its employees. The City's current contract is a 2% @ 60 full formula
for local miscellaneous members with no Survivor Benefit coverage.
There are several other supplement provisions which are available to
contracting entities. It is requested that Council consider adding one
of these provisions at this time. The proposed amendment is:
Section 21574 - Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits for local
miscellaneous members. The cost to the City for the benefit
amendment is $3.50 per month per eligible employee and a cost to
the employee of $2.00 per month.
C/Huff moved, C/Ansari seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 89-88B
rescinding Resolution No. 89-88A to approve an amendment to the
contract with the Board of Administration of the Public Employees'
Retirement System and approve first reading by title only of
Ordinance No. 26A (1989) amending the contract with the Board of
Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System
with second reading to be held on September 1, 1998. Motion carried
by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
9. NEW BUSINESS: None
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING: 11:22 p.m.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 11:25 p.m.
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS: C/Ansari reported on her attendance
JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL
at a Cities & Commerce Consortium meeting and today's Chamber of Commerce
meeting.
CM/Belanger, responding to C/O'Connor's request, stated that the City has placed
3 of the 6 approved new shopping center sign boards at Sav-On, the Country Hills
Towne Center at the Madrid Coffee Shop and in front of Lucky's market.
C/O'Connor reminded residents that during rehabilitation of the north D.B. Blvd.
area, construction speed limit is 25 mph and fines are doubled for each offense.
The D.B. Rotary Club will hold a pancake breakfast/blood drive at D.B.H.S. on
Sunday, July 26.
C/Huff requested that staff present information to Council regarding the traffic study
for the post office area.
M/Herrera reminded Council to appoint their Telecommunications Facilities Task
Force Members to commence work on September 1, 1998 and conclude on October
31, 1998.
11. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
M/Herrera congratulated West Point Military Academy graduates Second
Lieutenant Randy Herrera and Second Lieutenant Bryan Chapin and thanked them
for the "fun this evening."
12. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Herrera
adjourned the meeting at 11:33 p.m.
ATTEST:
Mayor
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
JUNE 11, 1998
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair/Leonard-Colby called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality
Management District Hearing Board Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Lin.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners: Chair Leonard -Colby, Vice Chair Morris, and Commissioner Istik, Lin
and Virginkar.
Also Present were: David Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works, Tseday Aberra,
Administrative Assistant, Lt. Stothers and Deputy Rich Clark.
L APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A. Minutes of Goals & Objectives Study Session of May 14, 1998.
C/Virginkar moved, VC/Morris seconded, to approve the study session minutes of
May 14, 1998 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0-1 with C/Istik abstaining.
B. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 14, 1998.
C/Virginkar moved, VC/Morris seconded, to approve the regular meeting minutes of
May 14, 1998 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0-1 with C/Istik abstaining.
IL COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chair/Leonard stated she observed several vehicles
speeding over the ladder crosshatch on Grand Avenue in front of Century 21 E -N. She asked
for re -consideration of this matter and suggested that increased enforcement may be
necessary.
M. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR - None
JUNE 11, 1998 PAGE 2
V. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Goals & Objectives of the Tragic and Transportation Commission.
DDPW/Liu presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Traffic &
Transportation Commission continue to review, discuss, and numerically prioritize the
updated goals and objectives.
Chair/Istik asked if the matter of narrowing Sunset Crossing Road is included in the
1997/1998 Fiscal Year budget.
DDPW/Liu responded that this item was budgeted for 1997/1998. Staff will need to
further discuss the specific nature and request for this type of study. Staff
recommends that the Commission keep this matter as one of its goals and objectives.
C/Istik stated that if this item was in last year's budget the matter should go forward
with the City Council and no longer be a matter under consideration by the Traffic and
Transportation Commission.
Chair/Leonard suggested the item could be discussed in a joint study session with the
City Council. She favors leaving the item on the list of Goals and Objectives for this
year.
The Commission concurred to leave the item on the list.
Chair/Leonard asked if C/Istik would provide his numerical rating prior to the list
being forwarded to City Council.
VC/Morris reiterated his concern about the school study issues including restriping
and whether the city will be able to move forward prior to the fall school session.
DDPW/Liu responded that the School Traffic Study is scheduled to be discussed by
the City Council at the July 21, 1998 meeting. Approximately $100,000 has been
budgeted for Fiscal Year 1998/1999 for school related improvements.
JUNE 11, 1998 PAGE 3
VC/Morris said he hopes the City Council will move forward with this matter in order
to effect changes prior to the September, 1998 school session. He explained that the
City Council has asked staff to reconsider mitigation measures at a couple of schools
including Evergreen Elementary School. City Council wants to move forward to
implement mitigation measures. It is up to the two school boards to approve their
portion of the suggested improvements.
DDPW/Liu responded to Chair/Leonard that with the submission of C/Istik's rankings,
staff will reprioritize the list and bring it back to the Commission for further
consideration and final approval at its next meeting.
VL NEW BUSINESS:
A. Multi -way stop signs at the intersection of Sunset Crossing Road/Prospectors Road.
C/Istik moved, C/Lin seconded, to concur with staffs recommendation to not approve a
multi -way stop sign at the intersection of Sunset Crossing Road/Prospectors Road at this
time. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote.
B. Background information on the installation of the "2 Hour Parking, 8 a.m. to 5
p.m., Monday -Friday" signs along Fallowfield Drive and Pasco Court.
DDPW/Liu presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Traffic and Transportation
Commission review/discuss the background information and continue this matter to the July 9,
1998 Commission meeting.
DDPW/Liu responded to CNirginkar that the business owners have indicated that they would
be willing to pay the city for parking on Fallowfield Drive and Pasco Court through a parking
permit program. In considerations of forthcoming recommendations from the Off -Site
Parking Task Force, staff believes this matter should be carried forward for consideration at a
later date.
AA/Aberra responded to CNirginkar that First Mortgage did not indicate the number of
parking spaces they wished to have permitted.
C/Istik stated he believes consideration of this matter is more of a land use issue than a traffic
parking issue. He pointed out that Fallowfield is a residential street with houses on both sides
of the street. By allowing street parking the city is making a residential street entrance appear
that it is an overflow parking lot for a business that is underparked.
JUNE 11, 1998 PAGE 4
VC/Morris, referring to meeting minutes of January 14, 1993, asked if First Mortgage
completed construction of an addition to allow an additional 15 parking spaces in front of the
building with modifications to the lower portion of the building.
DDPW/Liu stated he does not believe the expansion took place. Referring to Page 6 of the
May 21, 1992 minutes, First Mortgage indicated they had approximately 60 employees.
Staffs observation was that the businesses required accommodation for 15 to 25 vehicles.
CNirginkar stated he feels that former Commissioner Chavers! recommendation for "No
Parking 10 a.m. to 2 p.m." is a good recommendation.
VC/Morris asked staff to determine whether the proposed addition was completed.
C/Istik read former Commissioner Chaver's comment from the December 10, 1992 meeting
that "He explained to Mr. Ziroli (First Mortgage Corporation) that it is not the responsibility
of the citizens of Diamond Bar to provide parking for businesses on every street". Mr.
Chavers is making the distinction between public streets and private use.
VC/Morris said the concept of permit parking is interesting and he looks forward to a report
from staff regarding this matter.
VII. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS:
DDPW/Liu reported that at its June 2, 1998 meeting, the City Council approved the
construction contract to All American Asphalt for the Diamond Bar Boulevard rehab project
from Palomino Drive to Temple Avenue. The 90 calendar day project is slated to commence
immediately following the fourth of July weekend. Businesses and residents adjacent to the
area have been notified of the project and an informational meeting will be held for their
benefit. The City Council also approved the Traffic and Transportation Commission's
recommendation to install a stop sign at the intersecting leg of High Knob Road at Greycloud
Lane. At the June 16, 1998 meeting, the City Council is slated to award a contract to
ProTech Engineering for the signalization on Diamond Bar Boulevard at Montefino Avenue
and at Quail Summit Drive.
DDPW/Liu responded to Chair/Leonard that microwave detectors will be used at the
intersecting legs of both Quail Summit Drive and Montefino Avenue locations which negates
the necessity of realigning the shopping center and townhome driveways.
JUNE 11, 1998 PAGE 5
VIII. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS - Chair/Leonard asked for status of the Montefino
Avenue red curbing.
DDPW/Liu responded that staff asked Montefino Avenue Homeowners Association to
remove the red curbing they recently installed which they have done. If they wish further
consideration of this matter, it should be brought to the Traffic and Transportation
Commission in the form of a request.
VC/Morris asked if the Diamond Bar Boulevard rehabilitation will include striping changes
recommended by the Commission from Palomino Drive to the westbound SR 60 onramp.
DDPW/Liu responded that staff will work with the consultant to modify the striping.
VC/Morris asked that a resident's comments regarding the difference in the timing of the
traffic signals between north of Diamond Bar Boulevard on Grand Avenue and south of
Diamond Bar Boulevard on Grand Avenue be a focal point of sychronization in order to keep
residents on the main streets of the city.
DDPW/Liu assured VC/Morris that the resident's comments will be considered. He reminded
the Commission that the city is seeking input from various traffic consultants regarding ideas
for the City Council to consider regarding Grand Avenue traffic capacity.
IX. ITEMS FROM STAFF:
A. Monthly Traffic Enforcement Update: May, 1998.
Lt. Stothers presented the Traffic Enforcement Update for May. The enforcement
index for May was 36.4.
X. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
Chair/Leonard-Colby stated the Off -Site Parking Task Force completed its Report for
presentation to the City Council on July 21, 1998.
XL SCHEDULE OF FUTURE CITY MEETINGS:
As presented in the agenda.
JUNE 11, 1998 PAGE 6
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Traffic and Transportation Commission,
VC/Morris moved, C/Istik seconded, to adjourn the meeting. Chair/Leonard-Colby adjourned the
meeting at 8:07 p.m.
Respectfully,
David G. Liu
Secretary
Attest:
Joyce Leonard -Colby
Chair
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
VOUCHER RE�ICTER APPRDVAL
The attached listing of vouchers datet 080408 have been
reviewen, approved, and recommended For payment. Payments are
hereby allowed from the following funss in these amounts
WND DESCRIPTION PREPAID VOUCHERS TOTAL
001 GENERAL FUN[ 66,8�Z.�7 850,886.62 917,769.0P
112 �ROP � - T�ANSIT �UND '00
7
45,439.4 45,439�
.7
115 INTEGRATED WASTE MGT FUN[ '�� 562.80 561'80
l25 CO� DEV BLK Q��NT FUND .00 1,208.25 �1,208.25
�32 LLAD #38 FUN[ .0C 3,968.72 3,968.72
�39 L�AD #39 �UND .0� 1,123.87 1,123.�7
256 CAPITAL IMP�O��PROJ FUN� .0o 92,025.21 92,025.21
5l0 SEL� l�SURANCE FUN� .�0 1,740.58 1,740.58
Caro1
Mayor
De�o�a� �' O'Cornor
Counc�l Member
I U� DATE� O7/29/1�� 1Y�23�33
VOUCiER RBISTEH
PAGE� l
DUE THRU; 08/64/lz-�.?8
FUNO��CT'��T-PROJECT-�%T
PO #
INVOICE
A;DUN DA 'IE CHECK
ACCURATE LANDSCAPE
VO15310-4120O--
�135
71hL3� G[* FAR`'SUnPLlES
494.00
VO1532G'4221O'
�285'OPEN �A\-��D'L MAl"J. SUMTRDD
48.32
0O15319-42210-'
6235'OPEN MAY-ADDL MAIN— PETERS8K
28�.55
(015J3�'42210-
6285-0PEN MA�'��D'L MAlNT SiC CY�
97.46
0O153�3-�210-'
62O5'OPEr MAY-A[0'� MAINT HERITAGE
125.O�
13Y5539'4221O'
62D�
70Yo54 A��'L MAlNT'7IS-
TOT^` PRE�AlE
TGT�� �DUCKERS
TOT:' DUE VENDOR
.O0
2,0V6.56
2,V08.5�
PIZO�E
0014096-44000
7419
98'47� ��Tc- PRl�TS-SHPG CNTR�
385'2�
�OTAL P�EP��CS
TOTA.
.00
VOUC�E�6
TOTA� DUE VENDOR
385.2l
385.22
ALL �MERIC�N ASP*AL-
2505�18-4641\-�2499 4�4�1
734t
6�08� CON�T�'D6AP REHA�
PRr�J
TU�A� PqEPAI[�
63,162.00
TIED VDUCHERS
.0O
63.162.00
TDTAL DUE VENDWR
6�.162.00
AMAI/KEYE PR�3UCTl;IT, CENTER
0O14O40'42340''
7562
SEMlN�R-8/13/93 6OMENZI
139.�O
AL pR[PAIDS
.O0
TOT�� VG�C�E��
139.0V
TOTAL DLE VENDOK
139.O�
A�ERICA� PU8LlC WO�K5 ASSOCI4TION
�MP GUIDE
o.V�
TOT�L PREPAIDS
.0V
TOT�_ VOUCHERS
6.0�
TOTAL DbE VENDOR
6.VV
ANAHElr SP0RTS` INC.
S�i535o'45310'
DA/ CAMP EX1'URS-8/5/96
36919
TOTAL pRE;�I3S
184.25
TQTAL VOUCH[RS
.V0
TDTAL D11:7 VEND0R
184.25
AT�r
O�14OY�-42125'-
LON3 DISTANCE PHNE SVCS
6,31
T0AL PREPAIDS
,00
TOTAL VOUCH[RS
FR,
6.31
TOTAL DUE
6.31
AUTH0RIZED G��ICE SYSTEMS
0014050-46200''
7498
1-5687-u FORM FLOu BUR�7 B #8'5
2.728.25
TOTAL PREPAIDS
,00
TOTAL V2 'M-
2,728,25
TOrAL DUE VENDOR
2,728.25
RUN DATE. O7��/1991 19;23�33
VOUCHE� E
PAGE` 2
PR��lC
F1N0/S��'ACCT-PROJB�-��C�f@J-n
YO�ANDA BENDER
0C� 3474O--
2�44� RECREATI3r� R[FUNC
TJrAL PREPA�DS
.00
TO�AL VObCHE�S
59.0C
TJTAL DUE VE`M.OR
�ANJANA BHATT
Vo�-34780--
2725o RECREA�IO� 8EFUNC
�10.00
TJT�� PREPAlDS
.00
TOT�� V��H�RS
T6TA� DUE VEN3OR
310.0S
31O.0�
BlLL'S LOCK AND SAFE
VO15310-4120O-'
6iSl OPEi KEYS FOR PARKS
27~4S
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TD��� VOUCHER�
27.48
TOTAL DUE oENDOR
27.48
DANIE�LE 8LAE
001-34780'-
27255 RECRE4TlOW REFUND
45.00
TJrAL PREPAIDS
.00
TDTA� VOUCHER5
45.00
TOTAL JUZ VEMDOR
45.0O
MICHAEL 8RANDMAN AS��lATES lNC
O01'23O1�—
V��9-347O P�� ER 92-O3
801.49
0V1'23�10—
O698-3469 PPOP SVCS -FPL 93-V6
2,235.42
PR3- SVCS'FP1 Y4-25
763.47
T2TAL PREF-, AIDS
.00
VUUCHET%5
3,826,38
T3TAL DUE VENCOR
3,82�.38
ERiAN STIRRA T& ASSOCl�TES INC
0015510-45227'' 7090
���ii ENGR lNSP SVCS-BALLENA
45.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
45.00
TOTAL DUEEL VENDOR
45.0O
CA JOlNT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHOR.lTY
5104OO1'47200-
S86O95 LIA6 COPAY'DB VS ANI3
1707.50
88�4O50-4233O-'
,EG lS-CONF 10/20-21'GTMD
12O.00
TOTAL PREPAIBE.
.00,
TOTAL VOUCHERS
1,827.50
7071".L DU[ VENDIOR
|,827.50,
CERTIFIED TRANSPORTATlON
11I5360-45310-- 74V0
O1'27095 TRANSP-7/1'DAY CAMP E%CUR
252.51
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.0V
TOTAL VOU��R5
252.51
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
252.51
11:%,!J1N' DATE; V7�,)/199G 19;23.33
EJ----
u-
PREF�lD
FC�D/��T'4CCT'PROJ�T-ACCr
PO �
I���CE ��C ��T�O*
AMOUN DATE CHECK
001531V -4213V—
7539
1501749'0 UNFR�£-PR'' STF-W/OF7/2O
�9.47
0421��
7539
150�7��6 3NlF�� ��K STF-W/OF7/6
t-
70OL531V-4213V''
00 15310-4 2131--
7539
150173808 UNlrRMS-PRK ST
.47
T8TAL �EPAlDS
.O0
TOTAL VOUCHERS
58.41
TOTAL DUE VE�iDD�
58.41
COFFEES�ITH CO�PAny
V������'�232�
0O!4V9V-4213O-
76��
1C29/9O17 NE�TIN� SUPPLlE5
O�1�09�-422l�'
7���
7667
�029/7�17 JU�Y �QUIP REaTAL
2U\3 MAlNT W�TER FILTRATN SYS
l7.95
6�.O0
TOTAL PREP�lDS
.00
TOTVCUCHEPE
7OT�i DUE VE _Um
145.8C
�OMPCARE ��ICAL GRCUP
0O14�90-42345-'
6O00
PHYSCLS-RO- .lE/KAJIWARA
178.00
TOTAL PKEPAlDS
,C0
TOTAL VOUCP:=S
178,00
TOTAL DU[ VENP0R
178.00
�MAU & ASS8CIATES
VV14O5V-u4O10—
6911
98-5227 AUCIT S3RD PR8RS PYMT
VCS -
8`600,V0
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL YOUCHERS
8`600.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
8,600.00
D&J EMSINEERING
VO15220'45201--
7439
98D8SPECL5 BL03 & SFTY SVC5
1,V61.64
V�15220-45201-
7439
SFTY SVCS'6/L8'30
TOTAL PREPAlD�
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
12,874.30
TDTAL OUE VENDOn
12,874.30
DA| & N�T� COF� CENTE�
O31 230�0--
12�� COpIES'SUNCAL'FP� Y6-049
431,92
��15�51-42�10-
733/
|24� SC�O0L E�FETY TRFC STUDY
l78.17
TOTAL 7—
D
TCT!
T0AL DUE ��kDOR
610.09
CARC� DENNIS
V01�210-Ai flO0-
6087
DC98V1 Ml��TES'D»L CDE lNFOR*
160.O0
T0TAL PREPAIDS
.VO
TOTA� VOUCMERS
160.O0
TOTAL DUE VEOF
DlAMOND BAR 2I-1-SINE3S ASS3CIATES �19
0�14090-42210-
7599
AD�'� CAn'SUITES �VV,1YO
477.02
TOT�L PREPAIDS
.00
TOT�L VOUC��RS
477.02
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
477.O2
Clr) O"
RUN DATE'. 07/29/",-fi-f 19-23:33
VOUCHER R:3lS�E�
�UE THR: 0�/O4/1998
PREPAIC
FUNO/SECT ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PO #
INV0I7E D��RIP7iDN
AMOUNT
UATE: CHEC�
DIAMON- B IMPRO`lPEMT A5SOCIATIOn
V01�09�-42115-
7670
2065
COr� ln PRr A[`JUL�
4�O.00
��A�
PREPA�DS
.0C
TOTA^
VOUCHERS
440.0O
TOlAL
�� VE�0K
44O.O�
DlAMOND ��R INTERwATlONAL DEL�
*)l4V90-42�5'
9o43
HT�'SUPPLS'CCNCL 7/7/98
25.56
TOTAL
PREPAlDS
,00
TO7A�
Y8UCHERS
25.56
TOTAL
DUE VE�DOR
25.56
DIAHON3 �AR �IWAwlS
VO1535O-45305-
75O9
MEL5-STAFF6/17.24C0NCRT S
145.06
T3TAL
PR[PA�DS
.V0
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
145.VC
TJTAL
DUE VENDOR
A.
�IAMDND BAR PBTY C�8H
VO1�40-��O-
CCLK I�
6,00
0O14��'4233)-
��K Cr--INF-4/22-24
12.00
0O14010-42325-
CITY �CL MTS �IPLS
2.00
V014O4O'4239O-
CCLK-ELECTION SUPPLS
3.93
42
VOi5553-325''
W
SUPPLS-�LD STE TSK FRC
1O .82
V014O95-42353-
ANNV CELEB SUPPLS
6.�7
;014O4212C-
POSTAGE
.55
0O14O9O-4120O-
CEA OOVT SUPPL�
8.24
0O>5310-4231�-
FUEL-PRKS & R[C
5.O0
TOTAL
PREPA�DS
,00
TDTAL
VUUCHEPS
TOTA�
DU� YENDOR
57.21
D}AMOND BAR KEDEVLOPHE%T
0O�-13150-
AD"NCE-EXP1i0�TURCS'OIL
144,6�2.12
T�TAL
PREFA]�S
.O0
TOTA�
VOUCHERS
144,632.12
777
14L`6-.12
DIAM�� BIA-;� SENIOR CJJ8
�I55215-44OO'�'-
75O�
IN8'SENl3K CITIZ� �OUP
263.00
TUTAL
PREP�ICS
.0O
TGTAL
VOUCH;-:RE
263.O0
TOTAL
DUE VE�DOR
263.00
DlAM:�D F�DTD
0O��095-42112-'
75�5
19681�
PHOVICES
12.72
TOTAL
PREPAlDS
.O0
TOTAL
VO;C�ERS
12.72
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
12.72
Dl�� CHO & AS�DC�ATES
1255215-44OO�'
64�1
TCTA�
JUN:. PRC:: SYCS CD8C
PREPAIDS
TOTA�
VDUCHERS
.J8
65�.O0
TOTA^
DU� �ENDOR
/.so on
RUN DATE, 07/29/1�lclV0UC�ER
!'=.',T C,
JLE TH1!- _;7
�VND/��T'ACCT'PROJECT'ACC
FD #
l��}CE I�SC�lcTI��
QlY��IFIBD PARATR��IT lNC
1125553'�529--
597C
�l�L-RI[� ���-6/�6'30
1125362'45310—
TOTA� P��4ID�
T�ALV�C��
Tr-17AL DUE YE�0L�
LCl�A
V01'3478O—
26187 RECRE��l�. R����
TDrAL PF�P��3S
TOT�a YO�[HEp�
r�TE YEMD3
FEDER�L EXFRESS
0t�'23010—
00l4O9�'42l2o^-
4554�9331 EXPRESS MAl�'GEN GOVT
O01'23010—
458244C97 �XP��G M�IL-FPL Y2'1
�0}4O9U-42123
�58244O�7 EXPRESS nAIL'GEN GOYT
1255215-4212�-
45D244�97 E%PREcK, lllAIL-CDBG
�V:-23O1O-'
45546933� EXPRESS MAl^-FPL Y8'15
TOTAL PRE���CS
TOTAL YOUCHERS
TOToL DU[ VEN�O�
FB�RAL RESERVE B�� OF MI��APDLl5
PP14/15-SAVGSBDN� DEDCTN
TOT�L PREPAlDS
TOTAL YUUCHER�
TCTAL DXE VENDOR
FESS PAR��'S DOUBLETRF� RESDRT
V0�4050-42330-'
TOTAL pREPAI�S
TOT�L VOUCHER[
�OOTxILL TRANSIT IO8[
1�2�553-45535-
7588
8�0 JUL\-TRAuS S�S5'�ARES
��25�53-45533--
75S�
86V�' JULY-rRANS SUBSDY PRGRM
TOTPR-p4lD5
TOTAL VOUC�ERS
TO�*� DUE VENDUR
GF5 FRIEGRICH � ASSOClATES TNC
0015551-45223-'
7375
98V7-14 JUNE -PLAN CHECK SBRVlCES
OO15510-4�27'-
7452
98O7'�5 E�� l��ECTN SVCS -JUNE
2505510'46411-01498'46411
7013
Y8V7'O9 SILURRY SEAL AREA 1 -JUNE
TOTAL PREPAID;
TDTAL VOUCHERS
T] - AL DUE VENDOR
9.197.7�
I�.Ac%
9,G1B.76
9,81O.7c
�.�
�.�
�.�
173.5O
128.0
17.257
�.�
.�
4�.�
50.00
.00
?�.�
��.Cr,
5,140.67
41,
C.540.41 6540.47
U2.50
56.25
3,522.O0
.0O
3,7V�
3,690.75
PREP ID
I—A CONFERENCE P- CTRATI[N
0}i4O30 42338
lCIMIA CONF
REM.;T -10/23��
RUN DCE: O71"25/19"8
7MAL
PREPAlDS
1 OUC�4E9 RE�lSTE�
TCTA
VO!��
DU[ THRU' 09/o4/�98
F�0/��T'ACCT-PROJECT-��T
PO #
I��ICE DES RI�TI�K
H&L CHARTER
ICMA H0USIN� BUHEAU
00�535V-4531O'-
7190
06980071
c� EXCb�S-GETTY MU5'�/1O
1125360-4531�''
7190
��80O7� TRNS" ��TTY MUS�� 6/10
PREPAlDS
TOTAL
DRE PAIDS
VOUCHERS
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
DUE VENDOR
TOT��
DUE YE@DOs
HALL & FOREM�-
Vo�'21�O8'
00L 23012-'
O�1-211O8
36905
JU:� �V�5'E/` 9�-193
u�1�5Lv'4522r-'
709�
367^�
RErAlN m�LL �NSP SVCS'1AY
O0i'230�2'
TOTAL
3o9C�
JUNE SVC5'E� 97 19O
0Oi 233�2''
TOT�-
36�22
��OF SV�S MAR'EN Y7-193
OV1'23O12'
TOTAL
36432
APK SVCE-Em p7-193
6562
3671O
ENGR PLAN C�ECK SVCS -MAY
0015551'45223'
7331
3f���
PLAN CHSRV7S-JU417
25052L5'4642O 13798-4642O
7V71
��721
MA� DESGN SVC5-��LKIMPRV
0V�55zV-45227-'
7277
3o712
PLAN CHECK SRVCS-MA\
25�52l5'4�4�O'O67?8'4642O
7O71
3672�
MA`'CIP HN3ICAP ��PS
TOTAL
PREPAID�
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
TOTA.
DUE VEND0R
VV�5310-4l20S--
4110957
Ml3C PAFk SUPPLIES
VoL4�?� 4120O'
4\�0957
MlSC -7t,SUPPLIES
TDTA
lDE
�CTAL
YOUC�ERS
TOTA.
DUE VENDUK
J. M[CH4EL HULS
00�-347�o'
272�8
REC�EATION REpUN5
T0ALPP-7AlDS
TOTAL
VOUCHDS
T2�AL
DUE VEIN0OR
I—A CONFERENCE P- CTRATI[N
0}i4O30 42338
lCIMIA CONF
REM.;T -10/23��
7MAL
PREPAlDS
TCTA
VO!��
0T�QUE
VENDOR
ICMA H0USIN� BUHEAU
VO14O30'42330—
lCMA CONF
ACCOM-10/23-28
TOTAL
PREPAlDS
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
�CMA RE7IREMENT TRUST-�7
Vo�'21�O8'
AUG'CONTRI�-ALL DEPTS
O�1-211O8
AUG -PAYROLL
DEDUTIDNS
CO�T-,I8
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
TOT�-
VJUCF�R�
TOTAL
CUE VENDOR
417.00
1�,8S
z12'5-
8�.�
...
,00
119.13
119.13
R4, On
84 00,
563.O008104/199P
563.�
5 6�.O0
165.00 08,104/199S Z017
165.0O
.00
12`0�.82
7�.�
1. Z
RUN
� DAT�O E� O7/29/�19�23�33
VUUCHER �DI
PAGE� 7
D.ET���
PREPAlD
F-0/SECT'ACCT-PROJECT-ACC
PD � INVOICE DBCRlcTION AMOUNT
D�� CHEC
lCMA RETlRE!"!ENT-401
0V1 211V8''
PP�4/15'DEF COMF C8WTRIB 1.34�.3O
TOTAL
nR[PAl3�
.00
TOT�L
VOUCH�RS 1.342.3�
TQTAL
DU[ VE%D0R \,342.30
lhAY, THEATER
00�535V-4531� -
7555 172EXCURE'7/1/9S
11c.�0
T�TA�
�RFPAlDS
.0C
TAL
VOUCHERE
116.O0
T�TA�
DUE VEND�R
�}6.00
INLAND EMPIRE STA3ES
V01535�'453O5-
727� 07O198
TPA'
74I.0�
TTAL
PREPAlDS
.0V
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
742.O0
TOTAL
DU� VENDOR
742.h0
1NLAN0 VALLEY DAlLY 8ULLETIN
V014V4V-�2115'-
7578 38505278 ADI �� ORD NO. 3
67,38
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
or,
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
67.38
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
67.38
JACK ISTIK
VA�5553'44100--
T COMM MTG 7/9/98
40.0O
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.0O
TOTAL
VOUCH E RS
40.O0
TOTA
DUE VENDOR
4' Of
JEA$[.TE KlRSO+NE9
0V1-34780--
27037
RECREATION �EFUND
41.00
�_TAL
PREPAlDS
.00
TOT
VOUCHERS
41,00
TJTA^
DUE VENDOR
41.00
0b�52!o-441O0'-
PLN� COP- MTGS'6/9.23
120.0�
T0AL
PREPAIDS
.O0
TOTA�
VG�C7EB�
120.Ot
TOTAL
DUE VENDGR
120.00
LA COUmT' REG7S7RAR'�ECOR2ER
OO1�V9V'41lV0''
SVCS FEE-[LECT� MATERlALS
3.00
TOTAL
PnEPA[DS
.00
TOTA^
VO6CHERS
3.O0
TO TAL
DUE VENDOR
3.00
LEA0�E O� CA CITlE3
CO14�3V-42325-
CON� �O/2'4-HARKGN/FRTIL
598.00
TOT
VOUCHRS
59O.0C
T[�AL
DUE VENDOR
59O.00
C�rY OF �IAM3�z�,
RUN" DATE: 0/29/19KI 1Y:233i���
n�_lBB
V'-.7 71,
PR[pAlD
F�0/SECT'ACCT-PPOJECT'A
AMOUNT ��E CHECK
C�PTNEY LEE
VV�'34780--
26554
R[CREATIO� ���UND
35,00
TOTAL
PHEPAlDS
TCTKL
Vol IF- HER�
TOTAL
DUF YENDOF
35.O0
JOYCE LEE
0O1-34780—
25V8�
RECr IDm REFUN�
80.O0
TUTAL
PREPA7DS
TOT�
VOUCHEFS
80.00
TOTAL
DUE Y[N3OR
8O.V0
JOYCE LEOuARD-CDL9Y
001��3-44100'-
T&T COM� MTC'7/Y/98
40.00
TOTAL
PREPAID5
.00
TOTA�
Y0UCHEP�
40.00
Dil--
L[�IS LAW 9UBLISH1N
0O14O9O-4232»'
763�A
092Y7�
CA LAGC�/EMPLOYMNT'�0L
62.23
TOrAL
FREPAIDS
.0O
TO
TGTA�
JC� VEk�UR
62,23
62.23
SCOTT LI�
O0�5��-4410O'
7`T CDMM M7�'7/9/98
40.O0
TTAL
TO�A�
PREPAI3S
VOU�HERS
.O0
4O.0�
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
4O.00
LC� A%GELES CD�u7r �rA
112555�'���35-�
758Y
798o995 JUL''TR5SDi FARE-
0
1�25�� 4��3S-
7589
793�VY5
��Y TRSNT S�2SDY P�SRM
451.f0
TIT��
TC�AL
TDT�'
�OUCHE�S
DE VE��3D�
1,337.OV
1.337.06
LG� A�2ELES CCS%T� 7 —7LIC
0Ol5510-4550 —
608
151�2
MA�'R8�TIWE r�lNT
612.47
25J551[-�412'iO598'4641�
768O
145O�
�pr SI�� CO�T� G5/C�LE
�8.i9
25�55�+�412'1�7Y8'�4l2
7��
145��
r�c� SIG [DKTLR DB/��h�D
��.i9
25O55 0-4�4iZ-��598'464l2
70O0
1525
��� 8l�� CNTLR-GS/O�B
10�.15
0TH. L
TO�4'
VOUC�ERE
2,721.1�
TGTAL
DUE VE�0R
2.72�.i6
RUN DATE' 0,7j29/1998 19:23;33
VOUC�ER
PAG[� 9
DUEE
THRU: 0z-�/�/D30
PF,-- TD
FUND/�LwT'ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PO #
14 No 10
AHOUN
LOS- ANIS-ZLBCOLNTYSHERIFF'SDEFT
O0�4411'454O4—
��9F
J��'�;`[ ��F�'CALVCHAPL
�,951.99
0O|441�-4��1—
6539O
JS -CO! i zt�ViCES
2Y6.949.21
VV1441\'4543i—
949��
10,�\ L. vIC r- D
00�4411 454O1
mJ1441�'��0�—
VOi44�1'��O�—
9520
MA�-TRc C�TR�-CA�VCHAPL�
�—
94�i
H�-TPF
�O1441�'*54O4—
94572
App-�RFC CN���-CALVr�APL�
�.l3C.86
�OT4^ PRE�C�
.0S
T3TAL V..qUrHESS
6�6,153.9n
TOr�� Djj- YEN�DR
�� PRINTING
o�14O30-4120C-
768»
PRTG SVCS-2N�' SHEET
42.22
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.0O
TOT&i V0,CHE�--
42.22
�OTAL DUE VEND8R
42.22
MAINTEX
O0�53l4-4120O-
7525
331Y997
MAINT SUPPLS-HRTG PARK
35.39
T3TAL PREP�IDS
.00
TOTA^ VOUCHER5
35.39
TGTAL DUE V[K�OR
35.39
JQE MCMAN�S
001521O'44�0O'
PLN� COMM MT6S'�/9,23
120,0V
TOTAL PREPAlD5
,00
TOTAL VDUCHERS
120.OV
.
TJTAL �UE VEN���
L2O.00
METROLI�(
�l��53-45533 -
759O
METRO�lwK ��S[S ��Y
45535
75YV
M�TRULlNK F4RE5'1;LY p8
21,63�.0O
TQTAL PF�PAIOS
.8C
T�TAL VOUCHERS
TCTuL DUE VENDDn
27`0�6.V0
27.066.V�
00�-34780 -
26O�2
RECR�JIGN REFUND
150.CN
TOTAL -EPA-DS
.0V
TOTAL VOU��RS
15O.0O
TDUrt: VENDOK
15O.VV
��S CONSTRUCTION
25o5313'46415-11798'46415
5771
FlNAL
ADA'RETROFIT-PAIN TERA
21,2J3.52
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00,
TOTAL VOUCHERS
21.233.52
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
21,233.52
P�EL& MOHiN9RA
001-3478�--
2561�
RECREATIDm REFUND
5O.O0
PR[PAID�
.00
TOTA- VOUNrRS
5O.00
TOT�� 3U� xE��O�
5O.O0
RUN DPT : 23-J3
F16ND/S E C.l'ACCT-PRDJECT'ACC
ROLAND MORRlS
0015553-44100—
�. �0YU�TB�/
STEVEN G. NELSON
DEBORAH �'CONNOR
00�4O\O'42325-
0014O1O'4238 —
VOUCHER ��lSTEp
PAG - 10
DUIE THR'`
PREP,-�lD
P� # INVOICE DE -SC RlPTlON
AMOUNT
T&T COMh ���-�/9/98
TOTAL PREpAlDS
4O.0C
TOTA- VO�C�[RS
.00
40.00
DUE VENDOR
4h.00
26524 FAT 71 RE[UND
TDTAL PREFAI��
TOT�� VO���ER5
.:o
30.0�
T0TAL �� V[KDOR
30.0o
PPl4/15-PAY8OLL UEDU��S
93.6O
TOTAL PREPAlDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHER�
Y3.00
TOTAL DUE VENGOR
93.0t
PLNG COMM MTGS'6/9,23
�2V.V0
TOTAL PR[PAIDS
.VO
TC --L V0JHERS
�2O.VV
TJTAL DU� VENOOR
\2V.VO
REIMB CHMBR wlXER-�/18
3.VV
RElMB'SAC/S8 2O1O HRG6/29
9.26
RBMB'SJSTR CTT -6/2!
32.5V
MlLEAGE-CLOUT-6/25
13.O0
TOTAL PR[PAIDS
.VO
TOTAL VOUCHERS
59.76
TOT�L DUE VENDUR
59.76
TY
RUN DATE: 07/29/1998 19:23:33 VOUCHER REZI5TE PAGE` 11
4111 r
F�0/SEC7'ACCT'PROJMKCT-ACCT
OFPlrp BCP07
O0��03o- 12�O -
C%�551O-�12VV-
0VL535V'�12C�-
00\��V-412OO-
0VL4V9o-4�20O—
OO1409V-4120O—
*)14o4O'4l2O0—
OO14��V-412O0—
Vt15350'4\2O0—
�0140V'412,,�N-
001521O'41200—
V01551�-412OO—
VV14��'41200—
VV14O30-4l200—
VO1551V-4120O-
001u090-412V0—
OO14O5O-41200-
0O14O5O-4120V''
OO�409O-412O(*-'
ORLANDO WORLD CENTER HARK1077
F."i- INTERNATIONAL
*}1'LO20S-
0O�-10200
PERS-MEMDER SERVI�� DlVISION
lNV07H
DCRIc7lON
OPEN
��PLIB'CCLK-046 86868
�Y;8-OPEN
��PLlES'C�GR-�447O2472
5998 -OPEN
SUPPLIES ENG�'04��8710�
5998 -OPEN
S�PPLlES'EnER-046187106
599S'OPEK
SUPPLIEG-05'04618724�
5993-OP�N
CR MEi�O-025�57957
5998'O�EN
CR MEMO-34624979�
59�8'OPE:
SUPPLS-G�n GVT'04618691�
599�'OPEN
SIF-
PPUPPLT
1 Pj T
5998'OpEN
SUPPLS-CS'V4720697�
5998 -OPEN
SUPPLIES-C��-0461O6826
5998'8P[N
CR MEMO -048394992
5998 -OPEN
PLIES-EO�
59Y8'OPEN
SUPPLS-CMGR 044782472
59Y8-UPEN
CR MEMO-04483Q1l
59Y8 -OPEN
ZIP _MQ..
5998-0PEN
SUM LIES-ENGR-04625V514
59v8'OPEN
SUPpS-GEN GOVT-V46187V79
5998 -OPEN
SU- PPLS-FlN-02394421O
5»9D'OPEn
S11PPLS-FIN'O47VY6668
5vr8-OPEN
SUPPLS-OFN GVT 047V9&724
5v93'UPEN
SUPPI-£-PLN3-V475VY693
TOTAL P�BPAIDS
lCMA CMGR
�ML�B�I�
It 0 TAL vol-CriERS
T�JAL DUE OR
PP �n'�N.SFEF;
PA|�� ��[p'��� �,8�.� V8/�/1�� 15
�CTAL PREFAIDS 59,8OO.��
TOTAL VO�CHER5 .00
TOTHL L:Ut VENDOR 59`�W.VV
����� ADMIlwCHIRGE�.i) ill
AlLS
TCTAL VOUCHE9S 20V.Cm
CIr� OF �lAM3�'
RUN DATE t)7����
VDUC�it-_R RIES IS TB
'11jE THRU` 08/4/1��
PEPAID
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT'��T
PO �
INV
OUNT DATE ECK
PDMONA JUOICIAL GlSTRICT
V8�'3223V'-
MA,'PARKlNG CITATIONS
475.0f,
001'3223*-
JUNE -PARKING CITATlUNS
29�.V0
TOTAL PREPAlDS
.VC
TOTAL VOUCHER�
765.0O
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
765.0O
PROJECT SISTER
�255215-42355-
6V66
SNR -ASSAULT
278.0O
TCTAL PREPAlDS
.O0
VOU
278,00
TOTAL DUE VFK0OR
278.O0
Q-ZAR LAZER TAG
VV�335O-4531O
DAY CAM;EXCURS-7/,6
180.00 O8/04/\998 3692V
TOTAL PAEPAIDS
1OO,00
TOTVOUCHER5
.00
TOTAL DUE YENDOR
180.0O
R � D BLUEPRINT
0V1551O-4211O-
6003
39367 DLL[PR�WTS-PVMENT MGMNT
9.90
11555|5'42110-
7597
39411 SLDWST��RC-REPRT CUPIES
289.80
TOT�L PREPAlD5
.0O
TOTAL VOUC�ERS
299.70
TOTA� DUE VENDOR
2 .70
R��HS GROCERY C3MPA�Y
0O15350-412O�'
75�6
95232-33 MIC C RECREATIUN SUPPLS
120 , 4Z
TOTAL PREPAITIC
.V0
TOT4L VOUCH�RS
120.42
TOTAL DU_" VENDOR
12O.42
OC14��-4400O—
7431
4942�I TEMP SVCS'�IN W/E 6/19/96
57.O2
001���-���0—
7431
469759 TEMP SVCS'FIN W/E
0014tQ'44008-'
469759 LES 4 �E FREI
-50.68
��,AL pREPAIDS
.00
TOT�� VOUCHERS
38�.44
77AL DUE VEND -JR
386.44
pEPR3'GRAPHICS PR��
0S1439o'4211O^
7499
9148 �� ��D MASTERS/IMPRlNS
945.5L
TUTAL PREPAIDS
.oV
TOTAL VOU��R_�
945.5\
TOTAL DUE VENDOK
945.51
RlCuARDS. WAT�ON & UERSHGN
1�55'4400b-
98991/PO640G LEG4L SVCS-SL� W5TE-MA\
273.O0
N)14020-44821--
9O99�/PO64O8 SPEC LEGAL SVCS -IPS -MAY
3.28O.75
00�4�20'44O�V''
9G�91/P36�36 GEN LE6r`L SVCS -MA'
4,D75.42
0U14�20-4�C2�
989��/PO6408 SPEC t,0144, SVCS'LLAQ'MAX
367,5V
�0�4020'44O21''
98991/pO64C� SP LEGAL SVC�'COURCHESN�
7,555.58
TOTAL P8EPAI3S
.00
TDTA�V0_.2CHERE
TOTAL DUE VEND�R
i6.352.25
CIr� OF 3lpMON� pL;
RUN rLfAT,cl.
VOUCHER REGJEETB
PAGE! 13
DUE THR.Ur O8/O476
PPP--' Tr
F��/SECT ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PO # INVCICE �TD�r»T=T��N
AM��r D�TE
CHECK
JOSEF� RUZICKA
0315210'44102 '
PLNG COMM MTG� 6/�.2�
12O.V0
TDTAL PFISFA IDS
.00
TOTA� VOUCHER�
12O.O�
71TAL �117 U'-CN-if-i--
ENDORA.
H.
��L ��Ai�
TOT�. VOU��ERS
TOTA� D1E VEWDOR
.SO
5O,0�
5AN 6ABRIEL VA�£Y TRIB3NE
V��4V4V-42115-
75�� 14846 PU5 HRG'OR� KQ. 3
105.1�
71rA� �R[PAlDS
.V�
TOT�� VOUCHES�
105.12
T�T�L DUE VC-1—
�11,170,0O
A. I! v v...08/04/}YY8
3�927
TUTAL PREPAIOS
1,l70.00
TOT�� YOU UCHERS
VEN�OR
5G; COMMERCE & CITI�S C3NSORTIUM
0O14010'42325-
WKRSHOP-7/31'ANSARl
TCTAL
12.�0 08/O4/1998
36925
PREPAIDS
TDT& VOUC�ER�
12.50
.00
TOTA� DU� VENDOR
12.5O
25C5510-46412'12599'464�2
74.� 41Cli GNL-DB/MNTFNO/Q��r
329.O0
TO�AL pREP4lI�
,80
TOTAL VO�C�[R�
329.00
-OTA.'- DUE VENDOR
329.00
�C C��IrO�NIA �lNDER7 � MAILING
0014095-42121
6275 22006 SUMB NWLTK-�A-� SERVICES
173.45
TOTAL PREPAlDS
.VV
TOTAL VOU��R�
173.45
�OTA� DUE V0OR
i73.45
STATE COMPENSATlOW lNSURANCE FUND
5L04OG\20V
\138�m'97 WCA/WCFS S��HRGE
33.08
C0
APR/JU N WKRSCOMP PRE!,-9428
540.-62 V8/O4/1Y98
36928
0O1-2�11�—
AP8/JUNWKRSCOMP PREEN-9410
1.6327 V8/O4/1998
36928
001-2111�-'
APR/JU��RSCOMP PREM-8O\O
1.9Y1.33 V8/04/1998
36928
TOTAL PREE-PHIDS
4,165.22
TOTA� �OUCHERS
J3.O3
TOTAL DU[ VENDDR
4,1Y8.:�
RUN [APTEED 07/25-1199E 19:223:32
FUND 'ACCT
THE WHOLE ED ILADA
0015J53-45305—
TI�C�P�S��L
O01�2\0'4�V00—
OO\521V-41U00-
�E:�ON CO�PANY
O0�4V9�4235�—
Y�LLCY WATER DI�n�CT
42 26—
r$1��11'42�26—
�5316'42126—
VOUCHEF i:TEF
P�GE� l4
DUE 7H41U�
PR�P�lD
A MOU N L��
TOT�� YOUCHE��
67.32
TOT�� DUE :ENDOR
��- EXrE��-��AL6VTINS�
.O5.0O 08/O4/��� 3�926
TOTA� PREPA�DS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.0O
�OTAL DUE VEuDGR
85.V0
755�
:lv; TEHP SVCS'PLN� W/E 7/12
147.95
7288
3255 TE�� 3VCS-PLW�-W/E6/28/9S
258.24
7295
327� TEMP SVCS'PiNG'�/E7/5/96
22�.3C
TOTAL PREPATDS
TOTAL VOUC�ERE
626.77
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
626.77
PL2 TG 6�23
6O.VO
TOTA� PREPAID�
.0O
TOTA� VOUCHE��
6O.00
VEND8R
6O.0O
73D2
460627J3 COM$r� P9M PEN5��NCILS
254.59
T0TAL PREpAlDS
.0V
T'7A— VDUCHEF'S
254.5Y
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
254.5Y
�ATER SR��-�BlT��
0�.14
��TER SRYCS'P POW
1,5B7.33
WATEP SEe;ICE'L�AD 39
161.73
��TER SERVICES'LLAC 38
2,Y68.72
WAT[R SRVCS-MAPLE HILL
�OTAL �REPHUT DS
2,087.44
.0V
TOTA� VO�CHER5
T[�AL DUE VBv�3R
D.503.3u
8`50S.36
7455
826857677 EQUI� REN- SlWK'C�NINPRK
6V�.VO
T[TAL PREPAlDS
TOTAL VOUCHERC
.O0
6VV.OV
TOTuL DtiE VENOOR
6�V.�V
lLi- 66822.47
��ORT "TA! VOUCHERS Y96,��.79
�� DATE, 07/2Y/��� 19�23�33
VUUC-[R R�I���
PAGE� i5
T*RU�
PREpAIC
FUND/�IT^ACC -PROJECT-ACCT
PO #
I��lCE ��E�T�]�
�IAUNT
MO
WELLS FAR8O ��K
V0l401O-42330-'
LE�� CO�= A[pFARE-�/12
2Bt.O0
O014O30'4231V-'
L'CnG�
22.38
0014010-42325—
MTG/CHM�9 9RKFSr'6/1�
31,15
0�14O30'42325'
OO14010-42325-'
MTG CONNOP
0O14010-4��5'
�TG5-STA��/MPT'HERRERA
-77 7.
O014010-42330''
LEAG CO/�F A[RFARE-6/12
28�.00
0014C\;-42333''
�EA��NF �/2�-3C-O'C8wN0R
423.59
00L403O-42335-
TRAE«PRES� �AmES-CMG�
35.35
0O�4O30'��3O-
�AG CONF-���2'CMGC
286.00
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.O0
TOTAL
YOUCHERS
45
TGTAL
DUE VENILOR
1,638.45
�EST COF6� �ORPnRATION
0015558-45509''
7089
13962
TREE PLANTG SVCS -JUNE
2,125.00
0O15558-��09'
708Y
13963
JUNE -CITY WIDE T�� MAlNT
880.0O
TOTAL
PREPAIDG
,OO
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
3,0�5.O0
TOTA�
DUE VENDOR
3,0O5,O0
THE �ORK STAT�ON LL�
O01-230�0-
COplES'FPL 96-49
140.67
TOTAL
PREPAI�S
.00
TOTA�
VOUCHBRS
14O,6�
TDTAL
DLE VE%33�
14O.67
PA�� WRI2HT
0')l�0;�'44V��—
7584
AUDI�/VlS SYC�^7/14,21,22
5�7.5�
0�1����-+40m>—
7438
�0IO/VISL SVCS'JUNE 2�
1O5,OO V8/V4/�99O 3024
4F-
0-O
LF
TOTAL
VD;CHERE
raE VENDOR
507.50
1.015.00
YOSE��T� WATER�
�015314-4120O''
614 WPTERS�PPLS-HRTG COn CTR
123.38
TDTALPR[PAID5
.V0
TOTAL
VGU��RS
L23.38
TOTAL
D�E VENDO�
123.38
lLi- 66822.47
��ORT "TA! VOUCHERS Y96,��.79
CITY OF BIAMC 12 BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 4, 1998 REPORT DATE: July 30, 1998
FROM: Joann M. Gitmed, Senior Accountant
TITLE:
Treasurer's Report - June 30, 1998
SUMMARY:
Submitted for the City Council's review and approval is the Treasurer's Statement for the month of June 30,
1998.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review and approve.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report
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 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? NIA
_ Yes
_ No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report? NIA •
_ Yes
—No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
Terrence L. Belanger Linda G. Magnuson) CCa�
City Manager Assistant Finance Director
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 4, 1998
AGENDA NO.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Treasurer's Statement - June 30, 1998
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 June, 1998 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 June,
1998. 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 June 30,
1998.
PREPARED BY:
Joann M. Gitmed
TREASURER'S MONTHLY CASH STATEMENT
June 30, 1998
GENERAL FUND
$13,300,046.59 $926,908.84
$1,100,494.79
$13,126,460.64
LIBRARY SERVICES FUND
109,348.06
496.03
108,852.03.
COMMUNITY ORG SUPPORT FD
(1,125.03)
0.00
(1,125.03)
GAS TAX FUND
2,861,712.07 230,223.26
3,091,935.33
TRANSIT TX(PROPA) FD
1,705,956.62 71,965.20
62,476.32
1,715,445.50
TRANSIT TX (PROP C) FD
2,136,901.71 44,035.00
2,180,936.71
ISTEA FUND
10,280.43
10,280.43
INTEGRATED WASTE MGT FD
178,738.35
3,652.90
175,085.45
AIR QUALITY IMPRVMNT FD
120,307.35 16,150.01
2,549.48
133,907.88
TRAILS & BIKEWAYS FD (SB 821)
28,838.65
28,838.65
PARK FEES FUND
448,685.91
448,685.91
S PARKS GRANT (PRP A) FD
(455,097.32)
(455,097.32)
FACILITIES & PARK DEVEL. FD
1,337,215.32
1,337,215.32
COM DEV BLOCK GRANT FD
51,513.96
9,851.81
41,662.15
CITIZENS OPT -PUBLIC SAFETY FD
267,394.30
2,142.40
265,251.90
NARCOTICS ASSET SEIZURE FD
314,918.61
314,918.61
LANDSCAPE DIST #38 FD
455,400.71
14,793.48
440,607.23
LANDSCAPE DIST #39 FD
149,162.77 19.27
12,616.39
136,565.65
LANDSCAPE DIST #41 FD
297,848.70
7,549.31
290,299.39
GRAND AV CONST FUND
139,130.78
139,130.78
CAP IMPROVEMENT PRJ FD
(335,803.97) 675.00
209,594.52
(544,723.49)
SELF INSURANCE FUND
747,577.41 38,041.00
785,618.41
TOTALS
OF CASH:
$23,868,951.98 $1,328,017.58
$1.426.217.43 $0.00
$23,770,752.13
SUMMARY
DEMAND DEPOSITS:
GENERAL ACCOUNT
$57,696.86
PAYROLL ACCOUNT
(19,718.85)
CHANGE FUND
200.00
PETTY CASH ACCOUNT
500.00
TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS
$38,678.01
INVESTMENTS:
US TREASURY Money Market Acct.
$3,732,074.12
TIME CERTIFICATES
0.00
COMMERCIAL PAPER
0.00
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FD
20,000,000.00
TOTAL INVESTMENTS
$23,732,074.12
TOTAL CASH
$23,770,752.13
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.
In May, 1997, the City's amount of investable surplus exceeded the LAIF limit of $20,000,000. As a result, the City had to
invest money In an attemative investment option. While other investments options are being evaluated, these funds have
been invested in a US Treasury sweep account through Wells Fargo Bank. These funds are "swept" on a daily basis from
the City's bank accounts and invested overnight into an investment pool of US Treasury notes. Interest will be creditied
to the City's bank account on a monthly basis.
L.A.I.F - Effective Yield for June 1998 5.667%
Money Market -Effective Yield for April 1998 4.730%
Money Market -Effective Yield for May 1998 4.943%
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TREASURER'S MONTHLY CASH STATEMENT
June 30, 1998
INVESTMENT: DEFERRED COMPENSATION ACCOUNT (AS OF 6/30/98)
ICMA Retirement Comoration - 457 Plan:
AGGRESSIVE OPPORTUNITY FUND
5,912.69
INTERNATIONAL FUND
9,493.73
OVERSEAS EQUITY INDEX FUND
6,559.56
GROWTH STOCK FUND
111,053.49
MID/SMALL CO. INDEX
6,301.08
BROAD MARKET FUND
8,880.67
500 STOCK INDEX FUND
6,638.82
EQUITY INCOME FUND
13,318.72
ASSET ALLOCATION FUND
49,970.63
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FUND
0.00
CORE BOND FUND
15,573.18
US TREASURY FUND
12,074.95
CASH MANAGEMENT FUND
3,370.14
PLUS FUND
369,322.67
GUARANTEED FUND
0.00
CONSERVATIVE GROWTH
2,640.39
TRADITIONAL GROWTH
52,836.74
LONG TERM GROWTH
11,134.82
MS MOMTM GROWTH
6,929.68
MS CAPITAL APPRECIATION
14,683.84
MS GROWTH
4,403.22
MS CONTR GROWTH
3,717.57
MS GROWTH & INCOME
18,320.85
MS SP SITUATION
10,061.27
TOTAL OF DEPOSITS 743,198.71
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
$24,513,950.84
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.
1
Terrence L. Belanger, Treasurer
Fair Value Including Accrued Interest $ 32,107,563,737.81
Repurchase Agreements, Time Deposits, AB 55 & General Fund loans, and
Reverse Repurchase agreements are carried at portfolio book value (carrying cost).
The value of each participating dollar equals the fair value divided by the amortized cost (1.000383055).
As an example: if an agency has an account balance of $20,000,000.00, then the agency would report its
participation in the LAW valued at $20,007,661.10, or $20,000,000.00 x 1.000383055.
State of California
Pooled Money Investment Account
Market Valuation
6/30/98
y::......}j�
Qili•;::Y::".n,,�•+2:: �:,::;9. h`.:.. �tEt1::Riilltl:•«'t^ #;':i;��£:`Y:
.'::.::n ::......:.......k Kk:Yb. k:f �' •.n .ff :n..• :: •:.... ..... r" :r .w.,, .::.: ,#,: iii:`i:`:::k:i#:.:'y:
v
.....n:.;�n4.fu:..:.v:" }�'Oi°.„�,'`•`�` x, : .v � a::,µdj�fFf�
,..:,,, •�.;: ...iii.........::...:.:... x�£k'�4%LtWSiI�I�FiFS'.,�';�'3'.: �
'b�iii�;F�(���5�;:
United States Treasury:
Bills
$
2,718,452,394.88
$ 2,772,839,358.99
$
2,774,036,860.00
NA
Notes
$
5,617,925,693.11
$ 5,611,215,275.65
$
5,619,382,200.00
$ 71,157,557.78
Federal Agency:
Bonds
$
1,635,102,703.52
$ 1,634,862,025.66
$
1,635,160,723.35
$ 27,859,512.20
Floaters
$
170,000,000.00
$ 170,000,000.00
$
169,910,400.00
$ 1,284,069.40
MBS
$
127,080,948.95
$ 127,080,948.95
$
127,925,146.97
$ 74B,631.94
GNMA
$
2,301,732.52
$ 2,301,732.52
$
2,625,536.00
$ 22,743.99
SBA
$
236,728,529.53
$ 236,643,762.07
$
238,275,333.90
$ 2,362,434.92
FHLMC PC
$
22,483,531.74
$ 22,483,531.74
$
24,038,836.16
$ 361,117.16
Discount Notes
$
519,566,096.12
$ 522,530,474.63
$
522,114,450.00
NA
Bankers Acceptances
$
20,758,063.33
$ 20,841,535.61
$
20,844,646.17
NA
Corporate:
Bonds
$
1,001,231,468.03
$ 1,000,471,876.43
$
1,000,306,475.78
$ 16,474,442.82
Floaters
$
722,661,949.38
$ 722,605,494.83
$
722,752,075.50
$ 3,624,915.13
CDs
$
4,767,683,438.61
$ 4,762,147,667.93
$
4,761,260,156.14
$ 41,562,598.35
Bank Notes
$
1,270,976,190.00
$ 1,270,976,190.00
$
1,270,738,665.89
$ 9,877,744.46
Repurchase Agreements
NA
NA
NA
NA
Time Deposits
$
1,544,890,000.00
$ 1,544,890,000.00
$
1,544,890,000.00
NA
AB 55 & GF Loans
$
2,051,393,401.29
$ 2,051,393,401.29
$
2,051,393,401.29
NA
Commercial Paper
$
9,387,431,190.24
$ 9,446,717,564.45
$
9,446,571,062.51
NA
Reverse Repurchase
NA
NA
NA
NA
TOTAL
$
31,816,667,331.25
$ 31,920.00 840.75 1
$
31,932,227,969.66
$ 175,335,768.15
Fair Value Including Accrued Interest $ 32,107,563,737.81
Repurchase Agreements, Time Deposits, AB 55 & General Fund loans, and
Reverse Repurchase agreements are carried at portfolio book value (carrying cost).
The value of each participating dollar equals the fair value divided by the amortized cost (1.000383055).
As an example: if an agency has an account balance of $20,000,000.00, then the agency would report its
participation in the LAW valued at $20,007,661.10, or $20,000,000.00 x 1.000383055.
POOLED MONEY INVESTMENT ACCOUNT
SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT DATA
A COMPARISON OF JUNE 1998 WITH JUNE 1997
(Dollars in Thousands)
Average Daily Portfolio
Accrued Earnings
Effective Yield
Average Life—Month End (in days)
Total Secunty Transactions .
Amount
Number
Total Time Deposit Transactions
Amount
Number
Average Workday Investment Activity
Prescribed Demand Account Balances
For Services
For Uncollected Funds
JUNE 1998 JUNE 1997
$33,843.340
$157,742
5.671
212
$26,644,272
591
$542,380
56
$1,235,757
$168,322
$177,571
$30,295.908
$141,109
5.667
232
$21,569,932
489
$186,100
32
$1,036,001
$140,675
$175,698
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND*
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY
JUNE 1998
BEGINNING BALANCE DEPOSITS WITHDRAWALS
$11,962,203,080.28 $1,073,043,000.00 $1,302,719,459.66
*Local Agency Investment Fund Invested Through Pooled Money Investment Account
CHANGE
+ $3.547.432
+$16,633
+.004
-20
+$5,074,340
+102
+$356,280
+24
+$199,756
+$27,647
+$1,873
MONTH END BALANCE
$11,732,526,620.62
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
NO. 6, S_
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: August 4, 1998 REPORT DATE: July 28,1998
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Extension of Consulting Services Agreement with J. Michael Huls, R.E.A., for Environmental
Management Services
SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar has retained the services of a consulting firm with experience in solid
waste planning and integrated environmental managemerd program implementation. The City's agreement
with this firm, J. Michael Huls, R.EA., will expim on August 15,1998. The existing contract allows the City to
extend the contract Consequently, the Cly is prepared to extend the contract for another year. This
extension will represent the third year of contract extension.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council (1) And that it is in the City's best interest to
extend the existing contract and (2) approve and authorize the Mayor to extend the Consulting Services
Agreement with J. Michael Huls, R.EA, in an amount noWD-exceed $43,276 for services relating to the
administration of the City's solid waste permit system, the coordination of AB 939 and program activities, and
the implementation of the NPDES permit requirements.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report
_ Resolution
_ Ordinances(s)
L Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specifications
.X Other J. NdmW Huls Proposal, dated Juy 14,1998
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
Yes _
No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 415 vote?
Majority
3. Has environmental intact been assessed?
WA —Yes —No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
WA —Yes —No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
WA —Yes —No
Report discussed with the following affected deoartm;nts:
REVIEWED BY:
memo
Terrence L. BelarW Jims DeStefano David 6 Liu
City Manager Deputy City Managir Deputy Director of Public Works
C AW PW LINDAKAYV,GENA81h A*.804
CITY COUNCIL. REPORT
Agenda No.
MEETING: August 4, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Extension of Consulting Services Agreement with J. Michael Huls, R.E.A., for
Environmental Management Services
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The City of Diamond Bar has retained the services of a consulting firm with experience in solid
waste planning and integrated environmental management program implementation. The City's
agreement with this firm, J. Michael Huls, R.E.A., will expire on August 15, 1998.
Consequently, the City is prepared to extend the contract for one year.
RECOND4ENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council (1) find that it is in the City's best interest to extend the
existing contract and (2) approve and authorize the Mayor to extend the Consulting Services
Agreement with J. Michael Huls, R.E.A., in an amount not -to -exceed $43,276 for services
relating to the administration of the City's solid waste permit system, the coordination of AB 939
and program activities, and the implementation of the NPDES permit requirements.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The City has budgeted $40,000 of Integrated Waste Management Fund and $10,000 General Fund
in Fiscal Year 1998-99 for environmental management services. As in the past, the major funding
sources are Used Oil Block Grant, AB 939, and the reimbursement program under a recently
executed Memorandum of Understanding with the County of Los Angeles for the NPDES
Educational Site Visit Program.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Since August 15, 1995 the City has retained the services of J. Michael Huls, R.E.A. (JMH), in
integrated environmental management planning and program implementation. As the City's
Integrated Environmental Services Coordinator, JMH has been actively engaged in the day -today
administration of the City's solid waste and recycling permit system and the implementation of
a series of integrated waste management programs including public outreach/education, backyard
composting, multi -family recycling, representative waste evaluation and technical assistance to
J. MICHAEL HULS
August 4, 1998
Page 2
commercial generators, and comprehensive used motor oil collection and recycling programs.
JMH has prepared several important reports including annual compliance reports and an
independent assessment of the City's solid waste permit system. Also, the City recently retained
JMH to facilitate the term -limited Solid Waste Standards Task Force through a series of five fact-
finding meetings designed to develop a strategy that the City Council could consider for meeting
the AB 939 diversion mandate of 50% by the year 2000.
The present professional services agreement will expire on August 15, 1998. The City has
requested JMH to provide its proposal to continue the aforementioned program for purposes of
continuity/consistency and to assist the City with the implementation of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit requirements. The scope of work to be
performed by JMH is shown on the attached JMH proposal, dated July 14, 1998.
As noted earlier, the City's Contract Agreement with JMH for environmental management
services will expire on August 15, 1998. The existing contract provides for written extension and
this extension will represent the third year of contract extension. Staff is recommending that the
extension provisions of the contract with JMH be utilized for this third year extension.
JMH is very familiar with the City's integrated environmental management programs and was
instrumental in the preparation of the City's Source Reduction and Recycling and Household
Hazardous Waste Elements. JMH is very knowledgeable of the local conditions and is currently
consulting to 40 cities in Los Angeles County and is providing similar services to the cities of
Baldwin Park, Compton, and San Dimas. Furthermore, having a consultant who is familiar with
the City and the type of programs that have been implemented will insure that current and planned
program activities are not disrupted or delayed.
For all of the foregoing reasons, staff believes JMH is the most qualified consultant to assist the
City; and, it is in the City's best interest to extend the existing contract to ensure consistency and
continuity of the servioes pursuant to DBMC Section 3.24. 1 10(d). The proposed fee of $43,276
is at the same level as last year.
Prepared by:
David G_ LiL
C:1WP601L INDAKAY\CCR-981HULS#6.804
AMB<1IDI�+lT NO. 6 TO THE CITY'S PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES FOR EWIROMMENTAL MANAGEKMT SERVICES
This Agreement (Amendment No. 6) is made and entered into this
day of , 1998, between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a
Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and J.
Michael Huls (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT").
A. Recitals
(i) The CITY entered into an Agreement, with J. Michael
Huls to provide Enviromme+tal Management Services with Respect to
the Development and Implementation of an Integrated Environmental
Management Program, which the Agreement was dated August 15, 1995,
and was amended by Amendment No.l dated June 18, 1996, Amendment
No. 2 dated July 16, 1996, Amendment No. 3 dated August 5, 1997,
Amendment No. 4 dated February 3, 1998, and Amendment No. 5 dated
June 2, 1998(as amended, the "Agreement").
(ii) The term of Agreement expires August 15, 1998.
(iii)CONSULTANT submitted a proposal, a full, true and
correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "G' to continue
to provide environmental management services from August 15, 1998
to August 15, 1999 at a not -to -exceed cost of 543,276.
(iv) It is in the City's best interest to extend the
Agreement rather than request bids for the services in order to
ensure consistency and continuity of the services already being
provided by CONSULTANT.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and CONSULTANT:
Section 1: Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"2. Term of Agreement. This contract shall take
effect August 15, 1998 and shall continue until August 15, 1999
unless earlier terminated pursuant to the provisions herein."
Section 2: Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended
to read as follows:
03. Comopensation. CITY agrees to compensate
Consultant for each service which CONSULTANT performs to the
satisfaction of City in compliance with the schedule set forth in
Exhibit "G•. Payment will be made only after submission of proper
monthly invoices in the form specified by City. Total payment to
Jul 28 98 03:,Jbp -ity of .Diamond gar 3CS-861-3l."i p.3
CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed FDBTY
Cae+*inn 3 ■
replaced with Exhibit G attached hereto and incorporD of the ated
is hereby
rporated herein.
Section 9. Each party to this Amendment No. 6
acknowledges that no representation by any party which is not
, o
embodied herein nor any other agreement, statementr promise not
contained in this Amendment No. 6 shall bs valid and binding, Any
modification of this Amendment No. 6 shall be effective only if it
is in writing signed by the parties.
=N WITNESS WiIEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Amendment No. 6 as of the day and year first set forth above:
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT:
- UrCHUM HULS
By:
City Attorney Michael Huls
Principal
ATTEST:
Cit— Cl k
DATE:
C 804 2
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Mayor
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
flG�VflIIGPV6
1
CITY OF 1DI11M10IY1r "C*Al
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. �o
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: August 4, 1998 REPORT DATE: July 29, 1998
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Resolution No. 98 -XX entitled: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar Approving the Installation of a Stop Sign at the Intersecting Leg of Golden Prados
Drive at Bridle Drive.
SUMMARY: On July 9, 1998, the Traffic and Transportation Commission discussed and
recommended to the City Council the installation of a stop sign at the intersecting leg of Golden
Prados Drive at Bridle Drive. The intent of the sign will be to ensure motorists on Golden Prados
Drive come to a complete stop at Bridle Drive.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX entitled: "A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar Approving the Installation of a Stop
Sign at the Intersecting Leg of Golden Prados Drive at Bridle Drive".
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report — Public Hearing Notification
X Resolution(s) — Bid Specification (on file in City
Clerk's office)
— Ordinance(s) X Other: 7/9/98 T&T Minutes
— 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? Majority — Yes — No
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A — Yes — No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes — No
Which Commission? T&T Commission
5. Are other departments affected by the report? N/A — Yes —No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
'ISLAU
4A AV
Terrence L. BelatIr es DeSt o VA. G. Liu
City Manager Deputy City ager Deputy Director of Public Works
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: August 4, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 98 -XX entitled: "A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar Approving the Installation of a Stop Sign at the
Intersecting Leg of Golden Prados Drive at Bridle Drive".
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Install a stop sign at the intersecting leg of Golden Prados Drive at Bridle Drive.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX entitled: "A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar Approving .the Installation of a Stop Sign at the Intersecting Leg of
Golden Prados Drive at Bridle Drive".
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The proposed recommendation, which will cost approximately $200, will be funded by the City's
traffic signing/striping maintenance account.
BACKGROUNDMISCUSSION:
On July 9, 1998, the Traffic and Transportation Commission discussed the request to install a stop
sign at the intersecting leg of Golden Prados Drive at Bridle Drive. Golden Prados Drive is a
residential street that intersects Bridle Drive at a T -intersection. A tendency by motorists to fail to
stop at this intersection was observed by staff and residents in the area. Section 21800(b)(1) of
the California Vehicle Code states that "...the driver of any vehicle on a terminating highway
(street) shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle on the intersecting continuing highway
(street)." In order to encourage motorists on Golden Prados Drive to stop when approaching
Bridle Drive, the Commission and staff recommend to the City Council the installation of a stop
sign at the intersecting leg of Golden Prados Drive at Bridle Drive.
Residents within a 500' radius of the intersection of Golden Prados Drive and Bridle Drive have
been informed and invited to attend tonight's meeting.
Prepared By: David G. Liu/Tseday Aberra
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF A STOP SIGN AT THE
INTERSECTING LEG OF GOLDEN PRADOS DRIVE AT BRIDLE DRIVE
A. RECITALS.
(i) The Traffic and Transportation Commission considered this
matter at a public meeting on July 9, 1998.
(ii) At the meeting of July 9, 1998, the Traffic and Transportation
Commission determined that the installation of a stop sign at the intersecting leg of Golden
Prados Drive at Bridle Drive is appropriate.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Said action is pursuant to Section 10.08.010 of the Diamond Bar City Code, as
heretofore adopted;
2. The City Council hereby finds that the public health, safety, and welfare will be
best protected by the installation of a stop sign at the intersecting leg of Golden Prados Drive
at Bridle Drive as herein prescribed; and
3. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby authorize and direct the
City Engineer to cause said stop sign to be installed.
-1-
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this
day of , 1998.
MAYOR
I, TOMMYE CRIBBINS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on day of , 1998 by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
JULY 9, 199 ) PAGE 6
.� DRAFT
NOES:
ABSENT:
VL NEW BUSINESS:
one
A. Installation of a stop sign at the intersecting leg of Golden Prados Drive at Bridle
Drive.
DDPW/Liu presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Traffic and Transportation
Commission concur with staff to recommend to the City Council the installation of a stop sign
at the intersecting leg of Golden Prados Drive at Bridle Drive.
Following discussion, VC/Morris moved, C/Lin seconded, to concur with staffs to
recommend to the City Council the installation of a stop sign at the intersecting leg of Golden
Prados at Bridle Drive. C/Istik stated he would not favor a stop sign on Golden Prados at
Bridle Drive because the Vehicle Code allows motorists to roll through the intersection.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, VC/Morris, Chair/Leonard-Colby
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Istik
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Virginkar
,S,TATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS:
DDPWJM1t4,t.ed that the northern portion of the Diamond Bar Boul d resurfacing project
is slated to comm on July 13, 1998. The Diamond Bar Lib reopening is scheduled for
10:00 a.m. on August 131,-1,998. The Pantera Park Grand Ceremonies will be held at
10:00 a.m. on July 25, 1998.
VIM ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS:
VC/Morris stated that a resid inted out to him thatja'' ' is converting an MCI bus to
a motorhome and the a has been parked continuouon dro Drive for two
months. He asked to look at placing consistent strsigns at front of the City's
churches.
IX. ITk*S FROM STAFF:
A. Monthly Traffic Enforcement Update: June, 1998.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA N0. G -2
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 4, 1998 REPORT DATE: July 29,1998
FROM: Bob Rose, Community Services Director
TITLE: Extension of Vendor Services for Bus Excursion Recreation Program
SUMMARY: Under the purchasing guidelines, awards for services to a single vendor shall not exceed
$10,000 without prior authorization from the City Council. The City offers 24 bus excursions for adults and
seniors as apart of the recreation program each year. Requests for bids for providing bus excursion services
are obtained from vendors prior to each excursion. Two vendors, Inland Empire Stages, Limited and Main
Street Tours consistantly submit the low bids for these services. Expected use of these vendors for the
1998/99 fiscal year will result in the $10,000 ceiling being exceeded. In order to utilize the most qualified
vendors, at the lowest possible price, it is necessary to extend the $10,000 ceiling for these two vendors.
Funds to provide the bus excursion services are already included in the 1998199 fiscal year budget and will
have no financial impact on the budget
RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize additional work to be performed
by Inland Empire Stages, Lid and Main Street Tours (consistantly the two low bidders for this service) for
the provision of bus excursion servioes for the 1998199 fiscal year. The total amount awarded to these vendors
for se vka rendered this fiscal year shall not exceed $11,000 for Inland Empire Stages, Limited and $49,000
for Main Street Tours.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's office)
_ Ordinance(s) _ Other:
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1.
Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been
reviewed by the City Attorney?
_ Yes
X
No
2.
Does the report require a majority vote?
X Yes
_
No
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed?
_ Yes
X
No
4.
Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
_ Yes
X
No
What Commission?
5.
Are other departments affected by the report?
_ Yes
X
No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: None
REVIEWED BY:
Terrence L. Belangekpj
City Manager
James DeStef o
Deputy City Manager
/I
b Rose
Community Services Director
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Manager
MEETING DATE: August4,1998 REPORT DATE: July 29,1998
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar Approving Program Supplement No. 002
to the State -Local Transportation Partnership Agreement No. SLTPP 5455 for Grant Funds under the State -
Local Transportation Partrr nhip Program for the Diamond Bar Boulevard Street Rehabilitation Project
SUMMARY: The State -Local Transportation Partnership Program (SLTPP) was implemented in 1989 to
encourage local agencies b fund and construct transportation improvement projects both on and off the State
Highway System On December 4,1994, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9457 approving the State -
Local Entity Master Agreement No. 07-5455 for grant funds for the SLTPP under Section 2600 et seq. of the
Streets and Highways Code. In March of 1997, a grant was applied for and approved by the State for Cycle
8 of the SLTPP Program The City will receive $153,192.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX approving Program Supplement No.
002 to the State -Local Transportation Partnership Agreement No. SLTPP 5455 and direct the City Clerk to
forward the two originals to the State of Catifomia Department of Transportation for final execution.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
Resolution _ Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's Office)
_ Ordinances(s) _S Other: SLTPP Program Supplement No. 002
_ Agreement(s)
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a m*ft or 415 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? I 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 I No
ReDort discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
Terrence L. Belang J s DeStefano avid G. Liu
City Manager Deputy City Manager Deputy Director of Public Works
C1WPMNDMAY%G'EN49WB&TPP.W4
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO. _
MEETING DATE: August 4,1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the C4 Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar Approving Program
Supplement No. 002 to the State -Local Transportation Partnership Agreement No.
SLTPP 5455 for Grant Funds under the State -Local Transportation Partnership
Program for the Diamond Bar Boulevard Street Rehabilitation Project
ISSUE STATEMENT:
To approve Program Supplement No. 002 to the State -Local Transpatadon Partnership Agreement No. SLTPP
5455 in order to receive the $153,192 State Share funds for the Diamond Bar Boulevard Street Rehabilitation
Project
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX approving Program Supplement No. 002 to the State -Local
Transportation Pa whip Agreement No. SLTPP 5455 and direct the City Clerk to forward the two originals
to the State of Cafifomia Department of Transportation for final execution.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The $153,192 State Share funds from the State -Local Transportation Partnership Program will be
allocatedlcontributed towards the improvements of Diamond Bar Boulevard Street Rehabilitation Project
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION:
The State -Local Transportation Partnership Program (SLTPP) was implemented in 1989 to encourage local
agencies to fund and construct transportation improvement projects both on and off the State Highway System.
The legislative intent of the SLTPP is to contribute funds to eligible locally -funded transportation projects which
can be made ready to constructwith rnir*nW State planning and review. Each cycle within the program begins
with application submittal on July 1 and could require a maximum of 6 years to complete. With this opportunity,
staff submitted the Diamond Bar Boulevard Street Rehabilitation Project in March of 1997 for Cycle 8 of the
Program.
SLTPP PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. 002
AUGUST 4, 1998
The SLTPP is a continuous program funded from the State Highway Account at a level of two hundred million
dollars ($200,000,000) per fiscal year. SLTPP projects are nominated by the local agencies and are not
prioritized. AN eligible projects are placed on a statewide list The State reimbursement ratio is based on the
total cost of all projects and varies from year to year.
For Cycle 8, the reimbursement ratio is 24.54%. Based on eligible construction cost of $624,256, $153,192
State Share funds will be provided towards the improvements of Diamond Bar Boulevard Street Rehabilitation
Project
Prepared By:
David G. Liu
CAWP6auNDAKAY CR-asDedIPP.ea
2
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR APPROVING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. 002 TO THE SLTPP-
5455 FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE STATE -LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FOR THE DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD STREET
REHABILITATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, as provided by Section 2600 et seq. of the
Streets and Highways Code, the City of Diamond Bar has applied for
State Share funds to be used for the Diamond Bar Boulevard Street
Rehabilitation Project between Palomino Drive and Temple Avenue,
herein referred to as "PROJECT"; and
WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar is required to approve
and incorporate Program Supplement No. 002 into the State -Local
Transportation Partnership Agreement No. SLTPP-5455 with the State
of California Department of Transportation, herein referred to as
"STATE", to delineate certain responsibilities relative to
prosecution of the said PROJECT.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar:
1. Approves Program Supplement No. 002 to the State -
Local Transportation Partnership Agreement No. SLTPP-5455 for the
State and Local Transportation Partnership Program grant
assistance.
2. Certifies that said PROJECT will be constructed in
accordance with the State -Local Transportation Partnership
Agreement No. SLTPP-5455 and as described in the Project Termini,
1
and Type of Work of the Program Supplemental Agreement No. 002.
3. Appoints Terrence L. Belanger as agent of the City
of Diamond Bar to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all
documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements,
amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for
the completion of the aforementioned project.
PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED this day of ,
1998.
Mayor
2
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and
approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar held on the
1998, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
C:\WP60\LINDAKAY\RESO-98\DBSLTPP.809
ATTEST:
3
day of ,
City Clerk of the
City of Diamond Bar
PROGRAM SUPPLSHBNT NO. 002 Date: July 17, 1998
to Location: 07 -LA -0-DM13R
STATE -LOCAL TRANSPORTATION Project Number: SB98-5455(001)
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT NO. SLTPP-5455 E.A. Number: 07-931120
This Program Supplement is hereby incorporated into the State -Local Transportation Partnership Program Agreement for State
Share Funds which was entered into between the Local Entity and the State on 12/19/94 and is subject to all the terms and
conditions thereof. This Program Supplement is adopted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of Article I of the aforementioned
Master Agreement under authority of Resolution No. approved by the Local Entity on (See copy
attached).
The Local Entity further stipulates that as a condition to payment of funds obligated to this project, it accepts and will comply
with any covenants or remarks setforth on the following pages.
PROJECT TERMINI:
Diamond Blve: Palomino Dr to Temple Ave
TYPE OF WORK: pavement Rehab LENGTH: 0 (MILES)
PROJECT CLASSIFICATION OR PHASES) OF WORK
[X] Construction
Estimated os
State 8 are Funds
Matching Funds
.-7 r Z p _q
FY1998 $153,192.00
LOCAL
tem Year
OTHER
$628,226.00
NoUNT
$475,034.00
$0.00
$0.00
C 258010 042-T
FY1999 $0.00
%-:i r i Ua ".LAMUMM gnat
By
Date
Attest
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
By
Chief, Office of Local Programs
Project Implementation
Date
Title
I hereby certify upon my personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance:
Accounting Officer
Date
.-7 r Z p _q
$153,192.00
Chapter Statutes
tem Year
Program
BC Fund Source
NoUNT
282 1997
2660-125-042 97-98
20.25.010.100
C 258010 042-T
153,192.00
Program Supplement SLTPP-5455-002- Page 1 of 3
07-LA-0-DMBR
SB98-5455(001)
SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS
07/17/1998
1. It is mutually understood between the parties that this contract
may have been written before ascertaining the availability of
legislative appropriation of funds, for the mutual benefit of
both parties, in order to avoid program and fiscal delays that
would occur if the agreement were executed after that
determination was made.
The total amount of State -Local Transportation Partnership funds
payable by the State shall not exceed the sum of the "State Share
Funds" column on page 1 of this Program Supplement. The funds to
be encumbered and reimbursed are according to the schedule shown
under the aforementioned column.
Any increase in State Partnership funds will require a revised
program supplement.
Any decrease in State Partnership funds will require a revised
finance letter.
2. The State Funds Share is calculated based on the lower of the
approved eligible application amount or the eligible award
amount.
3. In accordance with the State -Local Transportation Partnership
Program Guidelines dated June 8, 1994, project eligibility is
limited to contract items plus locally funded State or Local
Entity furnished materials and Supplemental Work. Supplemental
Work eligibility is further defined under the Project Eligibility
section of the Guidelines as limited to certain maximum costs and
to non -early reimbursement projects of $300,000 or less.
4. SPECIAL COVENANTS FOR SLTPP PROJECTS UNDER EARLY
REIMBURSEMENT PLAN AND UNDER $300,000 STATE SHARE
These Covenants supersede any conflicting provisions of the
Master Agreement:
A. The LOCAL ENTITY agrees that the payment of "State
ShareFunds" will be limited to the lesser of the product of
multiplying the calculated pro rata percentage as determined by
the STATE by either:
Program Supplement SLTPP-5455-002- Page 2 of 3
07-LA-0-DMBR
SB98-5455(001)
07/17/1998
SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS
(a) The eligible award amount or
(b) The total eligible State/Local Partnership Project
cost in the approved State/Local Partnership Program
Application and accepts any consequent increase in
LOCAL ENTITY funding requirements.
B. The LOCAL ENTITY will invoice the State for the full "State's
Share" after the contract award or upon the State Budget Act
appropriation of funds, whichever occurs later. "State's Share"
is considered a grant and will be reimbursed as a lump sum
payment regardless of final project cost.
C. Prior to reimbursement under this Program Supplement, a
Request For Early Reimbursement form, executed by the LOCAL
ENTITY, must be on file with the STATE.
D. The financial audit and Final Project Expenditure Report
provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of ARTICLE I of the Master
Agreement are not applicable to this PROJECT.
5. The Reimbursement Ratio for this Cycle 8 (97/98) Project is
24.54%.
Program Supplement SLTPP-5455-002- Page 3 of 3
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. q
TO: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: August 4, 1998 REPORT DATE: July 29, 1998
FROM: Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
TITLE: RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE DESTRUCTION BY THE
CITY CLERK OF CITY RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NO
LONGER REQUIRED AS PROVIDED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 34090
SUMMARY: Government Code Section 34090 provides that, "with the approval of the
legislative body by resolution and the written consent of the city attorney the
head of a city department may destroy any city record, document, instrument,
book or paper, under his charge, without making a copy thereof, after the same
is no longer required." Destruction of the materials referenced in Exhibit "A"
attached to the proposed resolution is determined necessary in order to
conserve storage space, reduce staff time, expense and confusion in handling
information and informing the public.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX approving
the destruction of certain records which are no longer required as provided by
Government Code Section 34090.
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?
X Yes
_ No
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed?
_ Yes
X No
4.
Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
_ Yes
& No
Which Commission?
5.
Are other departments affected by the report?
_ Yes
ZC No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD:
TerreAce L. Belaner Ly a Burgess
City Manager City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY
RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NO LONGER
REQUIRED AS PROVIDED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 34090
WHEREAS, it has been determined that certain City records under the
charge of the following City Department are no longer required for public or private
purposes:
CITY CLERK
WHEREAS, it has been determined that destruction of the above-mentioned
materials is necessary to conserve storage space and reduce staff time, expense and
confusion in handling, and informing the public; and
WHEREAS, Section 34090 of the Government Code of the State of California
authorizes the head of a City department to destroy any City records and documents which
are over two years old under his or her charge, without making a copy thereof, after the
same are no longer required, upon the approval of the City Council by resolution and the
written consent of the City Attorney; and
WHEREAS, it is therefore desirable to destroy said records as listed in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, in storage, without making a copy
thereof, which are over two years old; and
WHEREAS, said records have been approved for destruction by the City
Attorney.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar as follows:
SECTION 1. That approval and authorization is hereby given to destroy
those records described as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
SECTION 2. That the Deputy City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 4th day of August, 1998.
Mayor
I, TOMMYE NICE, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 4th day of August,
1998, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk of the City
of Diamond Bar
.� )
L
m
MQ m
W v
C3 .a
za
0 4.
C
Q
C) C—
LL
Cr
m
U)
c
U)
c
13
ui
caU
gc-
t�
117CL
a
to N 3tl'
(MMM
d Cl) N to
�
C6 C6
m
G
Ld tm
CO
Lf) CU
r
C
C
Q.p Cd
L(7
Q
�
C.
C13
mc cr)
CU
� C
N
T
N
N'
C o
d ttL��
p
cis.
�
Q7�
c U
Co Cj 'D
0) CCO
N
� —
(Ul)
C U
C
W
E�
.9 c0 LL H-
'� U
C, a) N
w
M r�
m �o
CJ C7 C7
N
Q)
F°
N
C
N
C
0
O
co
ca
L
CY)
ca c UEl
CY
N
N
3
r cu
N
cu
M
W
f0
a
CDw
CD a
a L
J
CJo
cd
CL CU CU
W
�m
F"
,�Cr
_
�-9(cpp
Q
co
,
c�s'Q�j
U7 'Lo
CII
•�
o0
� 3 09m'
M
rn
11,10
a
IC1
00
m
`a `m
r
m
�m �m
���--tttt• cw
•
W w
L
w
O)
co
9
0
�N
U
H,
t
L
U
m
Jm+
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
via: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
From: James DeStefano, Deputy City Man
Subject: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM No 6.10 -
Landscape Maintenance Agreement with Standard Pacific
Date: August 3, 1998
Page 1 and page 6 of the referenced Agreement have been revised
to correct two typographic errors and to identify the City
Manager as the contact for the City.
Attachment
jds
LATHAM & WATMS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
690 TOWN C/NTIN OIUVI. TW/NTIITM FLOOR
COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA 92624-1925
MAIN OfFICI (7141 540.1235
Fat% I (7141 755.5290
RUSH DOCUMENT: PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
ATTENTION FAX RECIPIENT:
DUE TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT, VERIFICATION OF RECEIPT IS
IMPERATIVE. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS DOCUMENT BY CALLING
(714) 755-8292 IMMEDIATELY.
DATE: I —s ---�
TO:
FROM:
FAX NUMBER:
ATTORNEY BILLING NUMBER:
MATTER:
CLIENT NUMBER: -S 3— � TOTAL PAGES SENT:
((ndu0mq Cover Sheol)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR INSTRUCTIONS:
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTWED THAT ANY COI PING OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR DISSEMINATION OR
DISTRIBUTION OF IT TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIMENT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE
RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE
ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE.
OPERATOR:
TIME IN:
CONFIRMATION NAMEMME:
TIME OUT:
c^xvAmo-oC
vER 044/ 94
1 4 2ZL8IZ098v'ON-9fi 51 LS'6c SI 86.E 8 (NOWT SNI}LLVM (INV WVH.LV'I WoHl
transmission. All notices, communications and/or payments should be addressed to the party for
whom intended, as follows:
If to Standard Pacific: 1565 West MacArthur Boulevard
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Attention: Dana Bieber
If to City: City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California 91765-4117
Attention: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
Any party hereto may from time to time, by written notice to the other, designate a different
address which shall be substituted for the one above specified. Any notice, document or
payment sent by registered or certified mail shall be deemed served or delivered seventy-two
(72) hours after the mailing thereof as above provided. Any notice, document or payment sent
by overnight service shall be deemed delivered twenty-four (24) hours after delivery of the same,
charges prepaid, to the U. S. Postal Service or private courier. If any notice is telegraphed, the
same shall be deemed delivered forty-eight (49) hours after the transmission thereof.
Any notice transmitted by facsimile transmission shall be deemed served or delivered upon
confirmation of transmission.
Section 4.2. TerminoloP,y. Where the context requires, the masculine gender includes the
feminine and neuter, and the singular case plural.
Section 4.3. Cagtions. Captions are used in this Agreement are for information purposes only
and do not alter, modify or add to the terms of this Agreement.
Section 4.4. Invalidity. If any tenor, covenant or condition of this Agreement is determined to
be invalid, it will not affect the validity of the remaining terms, covenants and conditions of this
Agreement.
Section 4.5. Waiver. The waiver of any breach of any provision hereunder shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any proceeding or subsequent breach hereunder. No waiver shall be
binding unless in writing and signed by the party making the waiver.
Section 4.6. erning IThis Agreement will be governed and interpreted pursuant to
the laws of the State of California.
Section 4.7 Pamffanh Headings. All paragraph headings are inserted for convenience only
and shall not be used in any way to modify, limit, construe or otherwise affect this Agreement.
Section 4.9. Severability. If any terms or provisions of this Agreement or the application
thereof to any persons or circumstances shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the
remainder of this Agreement or the application of such terms or provisions to persons or
circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable shall not be
affected thereby. Each and every term of this Agreement shall be valid and enforced to the
fullest extent permitted by law.
Section 4.9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the exhibit attached hereto constitute the
entire agreement betwmm the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof and all prior and
contemporaneous agreements, representations, negotiations, and understandings of the parties,
oral or written, are hereby superseded and merged herein.
6
OC DOCS\145500.8
S d 8ZL81Z0986-ON.%8E : S 1 'IS', O'V: 5 1 86 .E 'E (NOVO SNINIVM QNV YiVH.LV'I WOH3
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. 6.10
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 4, 1998 REPORT DATE: July 31, 1998
FROM: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
TITLE: Landscape Maintenance Agreement with Standard Pacific Corporation for property
located on Brea Canyon Road at Diamond Crest Lane
SUMMARY: Standard Pacific Corporation has requested approval of an agreement granting
permission to construct and maintain landscaping, decorative walls and a water
element on City -owned property adjacent to their 107 -home development currently
under construction.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the city Council authorize the Mayor to enter into an
agreement with Standard Pacific Corporation for Landscape Maintenance.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's
office)
_ 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? X Yes
_ No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes
_ No
Which Commission? NIA
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes
_ No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
Terrence L. Belanger
City Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
JNrrfeS DeStefano
Deputy City Mana
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: August 4, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Landscape Maintenance Agreement with Standard
Pacific Corporation for property located on Brea
Canyon Road at Diamond Crest Lane.
ISSUE STATEMENT: Shall the City enter into an agreement with Standard
Pacific to permit the installation and maintenance
of landscaping and other improvements on City
property?
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to enter into
the agreement with Standard Pacific.
BACKGROUND:
Standard Pacific is the developer of a 107 home project currently under
construction at the intersection of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Crest
Lane. The road alignment design of Diamond Crest Lane resulted in the
creation of two irregular shaped remnant pieces of property at Brea
Canyon Road. The remnant property is in part owned by the City and the
Walnut Valley Unified School District.
Standard Pacific has requested permission to improve the properties owned
by the City and District with landscaping, decorative walls and a water
element. The City portion of the property consists of 16,638 square
feet. The property is located within Planning Area 4 identified in the
General Plan as an 82 acre site designated for future use as park, public
facilities and open space. The .38 acre City property is zoned
residential and contains a map restriction prohibiting the construction
of residential dwelling units.
The proposed Easement and Agreement would permit the developer to
construct and maintain the proposed landscape improvements at no cost to
the City. The ability to terminate the Agreement is the exclusive right
of the City. Upon termination all improvements become the sole property
of the City or will be removed at no expense to the City. Standard
Pacific is required by. the Agreement to indemnify the City and carry
appropriate insurance. The School District has approved a similar
agreement with Standard Pacific.
Prepared by:
James DeStefano
ATTACHMENTS: Agreement
Landscape Plans
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 3, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lynda Burgess, City Clerk Q�
VIA: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager ` � `-�'
SUBJECT: August 4, 1998 Council Agenda Item No. 8.1
Ordinance Revising the Health Code
The City Attorney has advised that, due to substantial changes made during City
Council discussion of Ordinance No. 3(98) on July 21, 1998, the Council must re-
introduce the Ordinance and conduct first reading again. Attached is the revised
recommended action for this matter.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AMENDING CHAPTER 8.24 OF TITLE 8 OF THE
DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 8 AND DIVISION 1 OF TITLE
11 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AND
REVISING THE CITY HEALTH CODE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I.. Chapter 8.24 of Title 8 of the Diamond Bar
City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 8.24 PUBLIC IM.ALLTH
"Sec. 8.24.010. Adoption by reference.
Division 1 of Title 8 (Public Health Licenses) and
Division 1 of Title 11 (the Health Code) of the Los Angeles
County Code, as amended and in effect on August 1, 1998, are
hereby adopted by reference and shall henceforth collectively be
known as the Health Code of the City of Diamond Bar.
"See. 8.24.020. Copies available for inspection.
A certified copy of Division 1 of Title 8 and Division
1 of Title 11, as adopted in Section 8.24.010, have been
deposited in the office of the City Clerk and shall be at all
times maintained by the City Clerk for use and examination by the
public.
"Sec. 8.24.030. Division 1, Title 8 - Amendments.
"(a) Section 8.04.165 amended. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 8.24.010 of this Chapter, Section 8.04.165
of Chapter 8.04 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the Loa Angeles
County Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
`section 8.04.165 Food Official Inspection
Report. "Food Official Inspection Report" means the
written notice prepared and issued by the county health
officer after conducting a routine inspection, and/or
reinspection in the event a timely request for
reinspection has been filed, of a food facility to
determine compliance with all applicable federal. state
and local statutes, orders, ordinances, quarantines,
rules, regulations, or directives relating to the
public health.,
"(b) Subsections A and B of Section 8.04.225 amended.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.24.010 of this
930336 10672-00001 163 1950160.2 (2)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR r
_IDI1IIIl l IZ 1ZLI111I1m it
AGENDA NO.,_L__
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 4, 1998 REPORT DATE: July 30, 1998
FROM: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
TITLE: Ordinance No. 98-03. An Ordinance of the City of Diamond Bar
amending Chapter 8.24 of Title 8 of the Diamond Bar City Code, adopting
by reference Division 1 of Title 8 and Division 1 of Title 11 of the Los
Angeles County Code, and revising the City Health Code (continued from
July 21, 1998).
SUMMARY: The County of Los Angeles has adopted an ordinance enhancing the current
public health requirements for the operation of food establishments.The
City is considering adoption to ensure continuity with County regulations
and effective enforcement. On July 21, 1998 the City Council concluded
its public hearing and requested amendments to the Ordinance relating to
the posting of inspection grades.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review the proposed
amendments and adopt Ordinance No. 98-03.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:_ Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City
Clerk's office)
Ordinance(s) x Other: Memorandum dated 7-29-98
Agreement(s) Staff Report dated 7-21-98
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1.
Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been
-1L Yes
_ No
reviewed by the City Attorney?
MAJORITY
2.
Does the report require a majority vote?
Yes
_ No
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed?
_ Yes
_ No
4.
Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
_ Yes
_ No
Which Commission?
N/A
5.
Are other departments affected by the report?
— Yes
X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
Terrence L. Belanger Jam DeStefano
City Manager Deputy City Manager
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
MEMORANDUM
To: Jim DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
City of Diamond Bar
FROM: D. Craig Fox, Deputy City Attorney
DATE: July 29, 1998
SUBJECT: Ordinance adopting Los Angeles Health Code
As discussed, I have revised the ordinance previously
provided to you which would adopt Division 1 of Title 8 and
Division 1 of Title 11 of the Los Angeles County Code, providing
for inspections of restaurants and posting of inspection grades.
Briefly, the ordinance being provided differs from the previous
version in several respects. First, I have deleted the "double
negative" language appearing in the second paragraph following
subsection B of Section 8.04.225 (page 2 of the original) and
subsection A of Section 8.04.275 (page 3 of the original.) In
revising the foregoing paragraphs, I have provided that posting
shall occur immediately upon completion of a routine inspection,
and shall remain unless and until a reinspection is timely
requested. If so requested, posting shall be suspended pending
regrading following the reinspection. This will serve to
minimize the number of trips by a health inspector to an
inspected food establishment. The second substantive change is a
revision from 7 calendar days to 3 business days within which a
restaurant operator may request reinspection. The rest of the
changes have been made to retain consistency with the foregoing
revisions.
As now written, the ordinance provides that upon
completion of a routine inspection and posting of a grade, a
restaurant operator may immediately request reinspection by
filing a request with the inspector or with the office of the
county health officer and a written acknowledgment of receipt of
the request must be provided. If a request for reinspection is
timely made, then the letter grade may be removed from the
posting location, pending reinspection and regrading. If the
request for reinspection is immediately made, then as a practical
matter, the health officer may simply choose not to post, pending
reinspection. If the request is filed with the office of the
county health officer, then the restaurant operator may remove
the letter grade, pending reinspection.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any
questions concerning the revised ordinance, or desire any further
modifications.
DCF:gg
10572-00001 1950299
Chapter, subsections A and B of Section 8.04.225 of Chapter
8.04 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the Los Angeles County Code
are hereby amended to read as follows:
`A. "Grading" means the letter grade issued by the
county health officer at the conclusion of the routine
inspection, and/or reinspection in the event a timely
request for reinspection has been filed, of a food
establishment. The grade shall be based upon the scoring
method set forth in this section resulting from the Food
Official Inspection Report and shall reflect the food
establishment's degree of compliance with all applicable
federal, state and local statutes, orders, ordinances,
quarantines, rules, regulations, or directives relating to
the public health.
B. "Letter Grade Card" means a card that may be
posted by the county health officer at a food establishment
upon completion of a routine inspection, and/or reinspection
in the event a timely request for reinspection has been
filed, that indicates the letter grade of the establishment
as determined by the county health officer using the scoring
method set forth in this section. For the purposes of this
provision, a food establishment shall include a food
establishment operating in conjunction with a food
processing establishment.
Upon completion of a routine inspection of a food
establishment, the county health officer shall advise the
owner or operator thereof, in writing, of the actual grading
and basis therefor as determined by the health officer. The
Letter Grade Card shall be immediately posted by the health
officer and shall remain posted unless and until
reinspection is timely requested as provided herein. If
reinspection is timely requested, posting shall be
immediately suspended pending regrading following the
reinspection.
Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit the county
health officer from creating, posting or otherwise using an
Inspection Score Card in combination with a Letter Grade
Card. The county health officer, in his discretion, shall
determine whether to post the Inspection Score Card, the
Letter Grade Card, or both.'
"(c) Section 8.04.275 amended. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 8.24.010 of this Chapter, Section
8.04.275 of Chapter 8.04 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the Los
Angeles County Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
`Section 8.04.275 Inspection Score Card.
A. "Inspection Score Card" means a card that may
be posted by the county health officer at a food
983326 10572-.00001 lsj 1950180.2 (2) 2
establishment, upon completion of a routine inspection,
and/or reinspection in the event a timely request for
reinspection has been filed, that indicates the total
numerical percentage score for the establishment as
determined by the county health officer and as set forth in
the Food Official Inspection Report. For the purposes of
this provision, a food establishment shall include a food
establishment operating in conjunction with a food
processing establishment.
Upon completion of a routine inspection of a food
establishment, the county health officer shall advise the
owner or operator thereof, in writing, of the actual grading
and basis therefor as determined by the health officer. The
Inspection Score Card shall be immediately posted by the
health officer and shall remain posted unless and until
reinspection is timely requested as provided herein. If
reinspection is timely requested, posting shall be suspended
pending regrading following the reinspection.
Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit the county
health officer from creating, posting or otherwise using an
Inspection Score Card in combination with a Letter Grade
Card. The county health officer, in his discretion, shall
determine whether to post the Inspection Score Card, the
Letter Grade Card, or both.
B. The county health officer, in his discretion,
may immediately close any food establishment which, upon
completion of the routine inspection, or reinspection where
applicable, achieves a total numerical percentage score less
than seventy percent (700) as set forth in Section 8.04.225.
Nothing in this provision shall prohibit the county health
officer from immediately closing any food establishment if,
in his discretion, immediate closure is necessary to protect
the public health.'
"(d) Section 8.04.402 added. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 8.24.010 of this Chapter, a new
Section 8.04.402 is hereby added to Chapter 8.04 of Division
1 of Title 8 of the Los Angeles County Code to read as
follows:
18.04.402 Request for Reinspection. Request for
Reinspection" means a written request, filed with the office
of the county health officer or a county health department
inspector while present on an inspected premises, within
three (3) business days of a routine inspection of a food
establishment conducted for purposes of preparing a Food
Official Inspection Report, Letter Grade Card, and/or
Inspection Score Card, therein requesting reinspection of
such establishment. A written acknowledgment of receipt of
the reinspection request shall be provided.
960326 10572-OOJJ1 1sj 195018.0 .2 (2) 3
Reinspection shall be conducted not less than
fourteen (14) calendar days following the timely filing of a
request for reinspection and shall be limited to those
violations and areas and items of noncompliance identified
during the prior routine inspection. Following
reinspection, a revised Food official Inspection Report
shall be prepared and the establishment shall be regraded
and posted based upon the revised Report. The scores
obtained with respect to areas and items which were found to
be in compliance during the prior routine inspection,
combined with scores obtained as a result of the
reinspection, shall be the sole basis upon which a Letter
Grade Card and/or Inspection Score Card may be prepared and
posted following reinspection.
A request for reinspection may only be filed by the
owner or operator of the food establishment of which such
routine inspection was conducted. Said three (3) day period
within which to request reinspection shall not commence
unless and until posting following a routine inspection has
occurred or the owner or operator has otherwise been
provided written notice of the actual grading and basis
therefor as determined by the county health officer
following the routine inspection, whichever occurs first.'
"(e) Subsections A, C and E of Section 8.04.752
amended. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.24.010
of this Chapter, subsections A, C and E of Section 8.04.752
of Chapter 8.04 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the Los Angeles
County Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
`A. Subject to the provisions of Sections
8.04.225 and 8.04.275 of this Chapter, following a routine
inspection, or reinspection if timely requested, or
otherwise as permitted or required by this Code, the health
officer shall post at each inspected food establishment the
Letter Grade Card, the Inspection Score Card, or both, as
determined by the health officer, so as to be clearly
visible to the general public and to patrons entering the
establishment. "Clearly visible to the general public and to
patrons" shall mean posted in the following order of
priority:
1. Posted in the front window of the
establishment within five (5) feet of the front door.
If such posting is not reasonably possible in the
determination of the health officer, then posting shall
occur as provided in subsection 2, below.
2. Posted in a display case mounted on the
outside front wall of the establishment within five (5)
feet of the front door. If such posting is not
reasonably possible in the determination of the health
980326 10572-00001 Is] 1950180,2 ,2) — 4
officer, then posting shall occur as provided in
subsection 3, below.
3. Posted in such location as directed and
determined in the discretion of the health officer to
ensure the most effective notice to the general public
and to patrons.'
`C. Except as provided in Sections 8.04.225 and
8.04.275 of this Chapter, and subsection A of this Section,
neither the Letter Grade Card nor the Inspection Score Card
shall be defaced, marred, camouflaged, hidden or removed,
and it shall be unlawful to operate a food establishment
unless posting of either Card, or both Cards, as determined
by the county health officer, has occurred. Removal of the
Letter Grade Card, the Inspection Score Card, or both, is a
violation of this Chapter and may result in the suspension
or revocation of the public health permit and shall be
punishable as specified in Section 8.04.930.'
`E. The Food Official Inspection Report upon
which the Letter Grade Card, the Inspection Score Card, or
both, are based and all subsequent reports issued by the
county health officer shall be maintained at the food
establishment and shall be available to the general public
and to patrons for review upon request. The food
establishment shall keep the Food Official Inspection Report
and all subsequent reports until such time as the county
health officer completes the next routine inspection, or
reinspection as provided in this Chapter, of the
establishment and issues a new Food Official Inspection
Report.'
"(f) Section 8.04.755 amended. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 8.24.010 of this Chapter, Section
8.04.755 of Chapter 8.04 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the Los
Angeles County Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
`Section 8.04.755 Letter Grade Card and Inspection
Score Card - Period of Validity. A Letter Grade Card, an
Inspection Score Card, or both, shall remain valid until the
county health officer completes the next routine inspection,
or reinspection as provided in this Code, of the food
establishment."'
SECTION 2. Penalties for Violation of Ordinance.
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership
or corporation to violate any provision or to fail to comply with
any of the requirements of the Ordinance, Codes or portions
thereof hereby adopted. Any person, firm, partnership or
corporation violating any provision of this Ordinance, or the
Codes or portions thereof hereby adopted, or failing to comply
with any of their requirements shall be deemed guilty of a
980226 10572-00001 isj 1950180.2 (2) 5
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a
fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine
and imprisonment. Each and every person, firm, partnership, or
corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each
and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation
of any of the provisions of this Ordinance, Codes or portions
thereof hereby adopted, is committed, continued or permitted by
such person, firm, partnership or corporation, and shall be
deemed punishable therefor as provided in this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. Civil Remedies.
The violation of any of the provisions of the
Ordinance, Codes or portions thereof hereby adopted shall
constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City through civil
process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent
injunction or in any other manner provided by law for the
abatement of such nuisances.
SECTION 4. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, portion,
or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, portions, or
phrases of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that
it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section,
subsection, sentence, clause, portion, or phrase thereof
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, portions, or phrases of the
Ordinance might subsequently be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of
. 1998.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
CITY CLERK
980326 10572-00001 1st 1950180.2 (2) 6
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: July 21, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 98-03. An Ordinance of the City of Diamond Bar amending Chapter
8.24 of Title 8 of the Diamond Bar City Code, adopting by reference Division 1 of
Title 8 and Division 1 of Title 11 of the Los Angeles County Code, and revising the
City Health Code.
ISSUE STATEMENT: This report requests approval of a proposed code amendment which would adopt by
reference Los Angeles County Ordinance No. 97-0071 which relates to an inspection
system for food establishments. Adoption of the Ordinance would ensure countywide
" enforcement.
]RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, receive testimony,
close the public hearing and adopt Ordinance No. 98-03.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: NIA
BACKGROUND: The City of Diamond Bar contracts with the County of Los Angeles for public health
services. The County of Los Angeles has adopted Ordinance No. 97-0071 enhancing the current public health
requirements for the operation of food establishments. The Ordinance sets forth an inspection scoring system
requiring the posting of a letter grade card and a mandatory food handler certification for all food establishments. A
copy of the ordinance has been forwarded to the City for adoption in order to ensure continuity with County
regulations and to provide more effective enforcement of its provisions.
It is recommended that the City Ordinance include provisions setting forth the location of the posting of the letter grade
card and an opportunity for a right of reinspection by the restaurant operator. The current County Code is silent on
both issues relying on County Department staff for implementation. The County is suggesting that the posting and
reinspection issues be addressed by the Health Code Officer. Staff recommends the inclusion of the additional
provisions to firmly establish our City policy which is not subject to a unilateral change by County staff.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 50022 a public hearing has been scheduled for July 21, 1998 with notice
published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune.
PREPARED BY:
James DeStefano
Community Development Director
attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance No. 98-03
2. County Ordinance No. 97-0071
ANALYSIS
An ordinance amending the Los Angeles County Code,
Title 8 - Consumer Protection and Title 11 - Health and Safety,
relating to the operation of food establishments by:
1. Establishing a letter grade and inspection score system
for all food establishments and requiring the posting of_a letter
grade czrd or inspection score card, or both;
2.• Requiring all food establishments to keen copies of
inspection reports for review by the general public;
3. Requiring all food establishments for which the public
health permit has been suspended or revoked to post a notice of
closure and requiring these establishments to remain closed until
further action of the county health officer;
4. Requiring all food establishments to post a notice
providing the address and -telephone number of the local
environmental health office responsible for oversight of the
establishment;
5. Establishing a food handler's. training certification
program and requiring all food establishments to have a person
certified in safe food handling practices on the premises 'at all
times; and
6. Making other, technical changes.
DE WITT W. CLINTON
County Counsel
By
SHARON A. REICHMAN
Deputy County Counsel.
Public Services Division
SAR:sar
12-3-97
ORDINANCE NO.. 97-0071
An ordinance amending the Los Angeles County Code•, Title 8 -
Consumer Protection. and Title 11 - health and Safety, relating to
food establishments.
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles
ordains as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 8.04.165 is added to read as follows:
Section 8.04.165 Food Official Inspection Report. "Food
Official Inspection Report" means the written notice prepared and
issued by the county health officer after conducting an
inspection of a food facility to determine compliance with all
applicable federal, state and local statutes, orders, ordinances,
quarantines, rules, regulations, or directives relating to the
public health.
SECTION 2. Section 8.04.225 is added to read as follows:
Section 8.04.225 Grading & Letter Grade Card. -
A. "Grading" means the letter grade issued by the county
health officer at the conclusion of the routine inspection of a
food establishment. The grade shall be based upon the scoring
method set forth in this section resulting from the Food Official
Inspection Report and shall reflect the food.establishment's
degree of compliance with all applicable federal, state and local
statutes, orders, ordinances, quarantines, rules, regulations, or
directives relating to the public health.
B. "Letter Grade Card" means a card that may be posted by
the county health officer at a food establishment upon completion
of a routine inspection that indicates the letter grade of the
establishment as determined by the county health officer using
the scoring method set forth in this section. For the purposes
of this provision, a food establishment shall include a food
establishment operating in conjunction with a food processing
establishment. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the county
health officer from creating and using a Letter Grade Card in
combination with an Inspection Score Card. The county health
officer,' in his discretion, shall determine whether to post the
Letter Grade Card, the Inspection Score Card, or both.
C. The county health officer, in his discretion, may
immediately close any food establishment which, upon completion
of the routine inspection, does not achieve a "C" grade as
defined herein. Nothing in this provision shall prohibit the
county health officer from immediately closing -any food
establishment if, in his discretion, immediate closure is
necessary to protect the public health.
D. The letter grade shall be based upon the final numerical
Percentage score set forth in the Food Official Inspection
Report, as follows:
1. A grade of "A" shall indicate a final score of
ninety percent (90%) or higher as determined by--the-county health
officer;
2. A grade of "B" shall indicate a final score less
than ninety percent (90%) but not less than eighty percent (80%)
as determined by the county health officer;
3. A grade of "C" shall indicate a final score less
than eighty percent (80%) but not less than seventy percent (70$)
as determined by the county health officer.
SECTION 3. Section 8.04.275 is added to read as follows:
Section 8.04.275 Inspection Score Card.
A. "Inspection Score Card" means a card that may be posted
by the county health officer at a food establishment, upon
completion of a routine inspection, that indicates the total
numericcvl percentage score for the establishment as determined by
the county health officer and as set forth in the Food Official
Inspection Report. For the purposes of this provision, a food
establishment shall include a food establishment operating in
conjunction with a food processing establishment. Nothing in
this chapter shall prohibit the county health officer from
creating and using an Inspection Score Card in combination with a
Letter Grade Card. The county health officer, in his discretion,
shall determine whether to post the Inspection Score -Card, the
Letter Grade Card, or both.
B. The county health officer, -in his discretion, may
immediately close any food establishment which, upon completion
of the routine inspection, achieves a total numerical percentage
score less than seventy percent (70%) as set forth in Section
8.04.225. Nothing in this provision shall prohibit the county
health officer from immediately closing any food establishment
if, in his discretion, immediate closure is necessary to protect
the public health.
SECTION 4. Section 8.04.337 is added to read as follows:
Section 8.04.337 Notice -of Closure. "Notice of Closure"
means a public notice that may be posted by the county health:
officer at a food establishment upon suspension or revocation of
the establishment's public health permit and -that results in the
immediate closure of the establishment and the discontinuance of
all operations of the food establishment, by order of the public
health officer, because of violations of applicable federal,
state ano local statutes, orders, ordinances, quarantines, rules,
regulations, or directives relating to the public health.
SECTION S. Section 8.04.405 is added to read as follows:
Section 8.04.405 Routine Inspection. "Routine Inspection"
means a periodic, unannounced inspection of any business or
occupation specified in.Section 8.04.720 to determine compliance
with all applicable federal, state and local statutes, orders,
ordinances, quarantines, rules, regulations, or directives
relating to the public health. A Routine Inspection shall not
mean an inspection conducted by the county health officer to
determine compliance with a previously issued Food Official
Inspection Report or any interim inspection conducted to
determine compliance with specific regulations or legal
requirements.
SECTION 6. Section 8.04.752 is added to read as follows:
Section 8.04.752 Posting Requirements - Penalty for Non-
Compliance- Documents Available for Public Review.
A. Upon issuance by the county health officer, the health
officer shall post at every food establishment the Letter Grade
Card, the Inspection Score Card, or both, as determined by the
county health officer, so as to be clearly visible to the aeneral
public and to patrons entering the establishment. "Clearly
visible to the general public and to patrons" shall mean:
1. Posted in the front window of the establishment
within five (5) feet of the front door;
2. Posted in a display case mounted on the outside
front will of the establishment within five (5) feet of the front
door; or
3. Posted in a location as directed and determined in
the discretion of the county health officer to ensure proper
notice to the general public and to patrons.
B. In the event that a food establishment is operated in
the same building or space as a separately licensed or permitted
business, or in the event that a food establishment shares a
common patron entrance with such a separately licensed or
Permitted business, or in the event of both, the county health
officer shall post the Letter Grade Card, the Inspection Score
Card, or both, in the initial patron contact area, or in a
location as determined in the discretion of the county health
officer.
C. The Letter Grade Card and the Inspection Score Card
shall not be defaced, marred, camouflaged, hidden or removed. It
shall be unlawful to operate a food establishment unless the
Letter Grade Card, the Inspection Score Card, or both, as
determined by the county health officer, is or are in place as
set forth hereunder. Removal of the Letter Grade Card, the
Inspection Score Card, or both, -is a violation of this chapter
and may result in the suspension or revocation of the public
health permit and shall be punishable as specified in Section
8.04.930.
D. Every food establishment shall post a legibly lettered
sign which displays the following information so as to be clearly
visible to the general public and to patrons entering the
establis4ment:
"Any, public health concerns regarding this
establishment should be directed to the County of Los
Angeles, Environmental Health office located at:
(local office address and telephone number to be
provided by the county health o fir)."
E. The Food Official Inspection Report upon which the
Letter Grade Card, the Inspection Score Card, or both, are based
and all subsequent reports issued by the county health officer
shall be maintained at the food establishment and shall be
available to the general public and to patrons for review upon
request. -The food establishment shall keep the Food Official
Inspection. Report and all subsequent reports until such time as
the county health officer completes the next routine inspection
of the establishment and issues a new Food Official Inspection
Report.
SECTION 7. Section 8.04.755 is added to read as follows:
Section 8.04.755 Letter Grade Card & Inspection Score
Card - Period of Validity. A Letter Grade Card, an Inspection
Score Card, or both, shall remain valid until the county health
cf`ice_ completes the next routine inspection of the food
establishment.
SECTION 8. Section 8.04.943 is added to read as follows:
Section 8.04.943 Public Health Permit Suspension or
Revocation - Notice of Closure
A. Upon issuance of a written notice of suspension or
revocation of the public health permit by the county health
officer,'the health officer shall post a Notice of Closure at the
food establishment so as to be clearly visible to the general
public and to patrons.
B. Upon issuance of the written notice of suspension or
revocation of the public health permit by the county health
officer, the food establishment shall immediately close to the
general public and to patrons and shall discontinue all
operations until the public health permit has been reissued or
reinstated by order of the county health officer or until the
establishment no loner operates as a food establishment.
C. The Notice of Closure shall remain posted until removed
by the county health officer. 'Removal of the Notice of Closure
by any person other than the county health officer or the refusal
of a food establishment to close upon issuance of the written
notice of suspension of the public health permit is a violation
of this chapter and may result in the suspension or revocation of
the food establishment's public health permit and shall be
Punishable as specified in Section 8.04.930.
SECTION 9. Chapter 11.11 is added to read as follows:
Chapter 11.11 FOOD HANDLER'S TRAINING CERTIFICATION
Section 11.11.010 Definitions. As used in this
chapter:
A. "Certified Food Handler" means an owner, operator, or
any other person at least eighteen (18).years of age who
supervises all or part of the food service operations within a
Food Ser -Vice Operation and is responsible for training the
operation's employees in the areas set forth in Section
11.11.190. At the discretion of the Director, and upon a showing
of good cause, the Director may waive the requirement that a
Certified Food Handler be at --least --eighteen----J-1-8,)---years-.-of- -age. - -
i
B. "Department" means the County of Los Angeles, Department
of Health Services.
C. "Director" means the Director of the Department of
Health Services or his duly authorized designee.
D• "Food Handler's Training Certificate" means a
ce.rtificate issued by the Department, certifying that a Food
Handler has satisfactorily demonstrated competency in food
protection and practices by passing a written examination
administered by the Department or by completing a food handler's
training course approved by the Director.
E. "Food Service Operation" means any food service business
which prepares any potentially hazardous food on the premises for
sale or gift to the public and includes but is not limited to all
restaurants, markets, bakeries, mobile food preparation units,
commissaries, and food processing establishments.
F. I�Potenz:ially Hazardous Food" shall mean those foods set
forth in California Health and Safety Code section 113845 as it
currently exits or hereafter may be amended:
Section 11.11.020 Application & Effect.
A. Within one (1) year of the effective date of this
ordinance, each Food Service Operation as defined in Section
11.11.150 shall have at least one Certified Food Handler on the
premises at all times during operating hours.
B. Failure to have a Certified Food Service Handler on site
at all times during the operating hours of the Food Service
Operation and as specified in this section within one (1) year
from the effective date of this ordinance shall be grounds for
the suspension or revocation of the operation's public health
permit pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 8.04 of
this Code and shall be punishable as set forth in Section
8.04.930.
Section 11.11.030 Procedure for Obtaining a Food Handler's
Training certificate.
A. Every person desiring certification as a Certified Food
Handler shall file with the Department an application for
certification, accompanied by an application fee. Upon
applicat-ion, each person desiring certification shall provide:
1. Proof of successful completion of a food handler's
training course approved by the Department;
2. A food handler's training certificate which
indicates passage of an examination developed and administered by
The Center for Occupational and Professional Assessment of t^e
Educational Testing Service; or
3. Any other food handler's training certificate
which, in the discretion of the Director, is ecuivalent to either
(1) or ( 2 ) above.
B. In the alternative to the procedure set forth in
.subdivis}on A, any person desiring certification as a Certified
Food Handler, upon payment of an examination fee, may take an
examination administered by the Department. The Department shall
certify only those persons who receive a score of seventy-five
percent (75%) or higher on its examinations. The payment of any
examination fee shall be in addition to the application fee set
forth in this section.
Section 11.11.040 Food Handler s Training course. Any
food handler's training course-- taken -v -b - ---- ------
yam— pe�s�z�"ziesring_----
certification as a Certified Food Handler shall be a minimum of
four (4) hours in duration. The Bourse of instruction shall
include, but not be limited to, -the following subject matter:
microorganisms, sources of foodborne illness -microorganisms,
foodborne illness, the means by which food is contaminated by
microorganisms and toxic substance, the methods for protection of
food to prevent foodborne illnesses, personal hygiene for food
handlers, proper utensils and equipment washing and sanitizing,
and proper receiving and storage of food.
Section 11.11.050 Multiple Food Service Operations.
Persons who operate more than one Food Service Operation shall be
required to have a Certified Food Handler at each operation at
all times during operating hours.
Section 11.11.060 Exemptions. Food -Service Operations
which deal exclusively in non -potentially hazardous prepackaged
food and beverages or Food Service Operations required by the
Department to have only temporary operating permits shall be
exempt fpom the provisions of this chapter.
Section 11.11.070 Display of Food Handler's Training
Certificate. The Food Handler's Training Certificate shall be
posted in a conspicuous place within the Food Service Operation,
or in a location designated and approved by the Director.
Section 11.11.080 Change of Certified Food Handler. A
Certified Food Handler who changes his or her place of employment
after obtaining a Food Handler's Training Certificate may display
the certificate in any other Food Service Operation in which he
or she subsequently is .employed. A Food Service Operation which
loses its Certified Food Handler must obtain another Certified
Food Handler within thirty days.
Section 11.11.090 List of Certified Food Handlers. The
Department shall maintain a current list of all Certified Food
Handlers within the County of Los Angeles.
Section 11.11.100 Expiration. The Food Handler's
Training Certificate shall be valid for four (4) years from the
date of issuance. Upon the expiration of the Food Handler's
Training Certificate, all persons must re -apply for a new
certificate according to the procedure set forth in Section
11.11.030.
Section 11.11.110 Duplicate Food Handler's Training
Certificate. The Director, upon a showing of good cause, may
issue duplicate Food Handler's Training Certificates upon payment
of a duplicate certificate fee.
Section 11.11.120 Revocation of Food Handler's Training
Certificate.
A. I The Director may immediately revoke any Food Handler's
Training- Certificate when anv of the 4- --
Section 11.11.130 Right to Appeal Following Revocation.
A. Any Certified Food handler whose certificate has been
revoked may make a written request for hearing within fifteen
(15) calendar days after receipt of the notice specified in
Section 11.11.230 to show cause why the certificate should be
reinstated. A failure to request a hearing within fifteen (15)
calendar days after receipt 'of the notice shall be deemed a
waiver of the right to a hearing. When circumstances warrant,
the Director may order a hearing at any reasonable time within
this fifteen (15) day period to expedite the certification
revocation process.
B. The hearing shall be held within fifteen (15) calendar
days of the receipt of the request for a hearing. Upon written
request of the Certified Food Handler, the Director may postpone
any hearing date, if circumstances warrant such action.
Metrocolitar. News Enterarise
a newspaper printed and published in the County of as Angeles.
ATTEST:
'W /' w' t 7I'%-/ I U C
€�ecutive Officer - Clerk:If The Board of
Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles
I hereby certify that at its meeting of December 16, 1997 , the foregoing
ordinance was adopted by the Board. of Supervisors of said County of Los Angeles by the
following vote, to wit:
r
Supervisors Gloria Molina
Zev Yaroslayskv
Don Knabe
Mike Antonovich
Yvonne Brathwaite Burke
Effective Date: January 16, 1998
Xr�i4�g�Yaf�iX
I hereby certify that ;nrsnaat to
Section 25103 of the Government Code,
aeiivery of this document has been made.
JOA'VNE STURGES
Executive Officer -
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By
DEPUTY
I-8 2 (Rev 6/97)
Noes
Supervisors No—
ecutive Officer - Cler@of the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DE CLINTON
/County Co sel
By
Raymon . Fortner; Jr.
Chief Deputy County Counsel
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: August 4, 1998 REPORT DATE: July 28, 1998
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: STAFF REPORT ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DIAMOND BAR SOLID
WASTE STANDARDS TASK FORCE
SUMMARY: The final report of the Solid Waste Standards Task Force (SWSTF) was presented
to the City Council on July 21, 1998. The City Council requested staff to evaluate the
recommendations and bring back to City Council the assessment of the time and resources required
to fully evaluate the SWSTF recommendations. Staff finds that five SWSTF recommendations
require additional study, while the rest are already planned for implementation as dictated by the
Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). The five items requiring further study include:
variable rates, automated collection featuring a three barrel system, yard waste collection, selecting
a single hauler for the single-family residence sector, and extending mandatory service to multi-
family residence housing. The time schedule if all studies are selected is estimated at six (6)
months with a combined staff and consultant time of approximately 158 hours.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review the staff report and provide direction to staff
concerning the key findings of the SWSTF.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: A Staff Report Public Hearing Notification
Resolution(s) Bid Specification
Ordinance(s) Other
tic I tKNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the Resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed? N/A _ Yes _ No
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A _ Yes _ No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? N/A Yes No
Which Commission?' -
5. Are other departments affected by the report? N/A
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
KtVIEWED BY:
4
Terrence L. Bela eJ roes DeStefan avi
Dd W.71iu
City Manager Deputy City Man er Deputy Director of Public Works
Q1WP8WNDAKAW IGEN-WTASKF0.804
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: August 4, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DIAMOND BAR
SOLID WASTE STANDARDS TASK FORCE
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The City Council established a Solid Waste Standards Task Force (SWSTF) to examine how best
the City could comply with the goal of 50% diversion by the year 2000 as mandated by the California
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, or AB 939. The SWSTF presented its report of findings
and recommendations on July 21, 1998.
The SWSTF Final Report addressed two key questions: 1) what needs to be done in the way of AB
939 programming to achieve the 50% mandate assuming the continuation of the existing solid waste
system, and 2) if the 50% mandate is not achievable without changes to the solid waste system,
what would the changes consist of? The SWSTF Final Report made several recommendations of
which several had far-reaching implications including implementation of variable rates and an
automated refuse and recycling collection system. The City Council requested that staff review the
recommendations and return to Council with an assessment of the time (schedule) and resources
(hours) needed to fully evaluate the critical elements of the SWSTF Final Report.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council review the staff report and provide direction to staff concerning the key findings
of the SWSTF.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
Staff estimates a potential cumulative total of 158 hours, of which the consultant is expected to
expend up to 88 hours if all aspects described are studied. Current funding derived from AB 939
fees is adequate to meet the demand for such consultant activity.
oswnrumn AYt=-WrAW0MN4
City Council Report
August 4, 1998
BACKGROUND:
Page 2
The City has been engaged since incorporation with development of a practicable solid waste permit
system that complies with applicable sanitation standards and recycling mandates while meeting the
needs of its residents and businesses. The recycling mandate is the result of enactment of AB 939,
the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. This law set in motion a complex set of rules that
mandate that each jurisdiction in Califomia reduce its waste stream (residential and business
sectors) by 25% by the year 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. The City has apparently met the 1995
mandate, and is working to meet the 2000 mandate. Those jurisdictions not complying with the law
could be fined up to $10,000 per day.
Since enactment, the law has been modified, first to change how compliance is measured, and
recently to define °good faith effort" to comply with the law. Also, a recent law (SB 1066) allows
jurisdictions to apply for one year extension(s) up to a maximum of five beyond the year 2000, if the
jurisdiction has met certain criteria. Among these criteria is the requirement that the Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), the plan of action required by AB 939, be implemented
and current.
Through its solid waste and recycling permit system, the City has been able to implement its SRRE
in a voluntary fashion keeping cost and inconvenience to a minimum. The City has been able to
achieve an unofficial diversion rate of about 30%, which exceeds the short term mandate of 25% by
1995. However, achieving the year 2000 mandate of 50% diversion remains a much more difficult
target, not only for Diamond Bar but for many other cities.
Principal among the many issues facing the City is that it is obligated by its SRRE to implement a
more comprehensive and mandatory -type program for what is called the medium term planning
period, years 1996 through 2000. These programs, which include yard waste collection, variable
rates, mandatory planning and reporting by businesses, and much more, have the potential to cause
higher costs and inconvenience to both residents and businesses. These programs were also
adopted almost seven years ago, when circumstances were different, the City was newly
incorporated, and it was not facing the imminent closure of nearby landfills.
Another factor clouding the issue of what to do is the fact that the City is among a small number of
cities who have an open competitive system for collection of residential refuse (of 88 cities in LA
County, only Diamond Bar, Hidden Hills, Calabassas, and Malibu have open residential systems).
rkN1MO9ft4DA A,M«.9NTAS FMCm.
City Council Report Page 3
August 4, 1998
Nearly all cities in LA County either provide for collection or regulate collection activities and rates,
however, the City permits any qualifying hauler (we have two at present) to apply for and receive an
operating permit.
Haulers must indemnify the City against certain liabilities to the amount of $5 million dollars
aggregate value, implement programs designed to meet the 25 and 50 percent mandate, and post
a compliance bond amounting to $50,000.00 to assure adequate performance of the requirements.
However, the City does not regulate rates (haulers are permitted to charge up to their posted
maximum rates), and all diversion programs are voluntary. In fact, this has led to a situation where
every neighborhood features dual collection (more than one hauler per route) and normally two pick-
up days per week. This has caused refuse barrels to be on the street nearly every day in some
neighborhoods.
This has been the situation since incorporation, however, the need to meet 50% diversion and
address looming disposal capacity shortfalls (nearby landfills such as Spadra Landfill are closing)
presents a different and perhaps more difficult challenge. Not only may rates increase dramatically,
but the certainty of compliance liability is very real if the City chooses to ignore its full menu of
options for diversion including waste prevention, composting, intermediate processing, recycling, and
the like.
As a consequence, the Council wished to re-examine its options in an open atmosphere that
incorporated the opinions and insights of residents and businesses alike. To address the issues,
the Council determined that it needed to establish a term -limited Task Force that would be
composed of representatives from several sectors of the community. To guide the SWSTF through
the myriad of technical, environmental, and economic issues, the City also desired an experienced
facilitator. The City's Integrated Environmental Services Coordinator, Mr. J. Michael Huls, facilitated
the SWSTF meetings, and prepared its final report of findings.
This Final Report was presented to the City Council on July 21, 1998. In addition, staff and the City's
Integrated Environmental Services Coordinator provided more detailed information about general
solid waste and recycling issues so as to place the Task Force and the report in an appropriate
context.
'A�U4
City Council Report
August 4, 1998
DISCUSSION:
Page 4
Staff finds that five SWSTF recommendations require additional study, while the rest are already
planned for implementation as dictated by the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE).
The five items requiring further study include: variable rates, automated collection featuring a three
barrel system, yard waste collection, selecting a single hauler for the single-family residence sector,
and extending mandatory service to multi -family residence housing. It is noted that the recently
announced merger of two pemiitted haulers may leave the City with a defacto single -hauler situation
for the single-family residential sector, staff recommends study of the situation to provide City
Council with its options on the matter. Staff has provided a preliminary evaluation of the
recommendations. These are as follows:
1. Implement a variable rate system. In this system, the City will need to work with the
permitted haulers in the residential sector to come up with an acceptable way of specifying
a common variable rate system. Two or more operational scenarios varying in cost and
resources could be developed. Most likely, this will feature an automated system of at least
three barrels of a standard size (say, 64 or 96 gallon capacity), and each hauler will provide
a rate schedule that identifies the basic charge for service and additional charges as
additional barrels for refuse are collected. The City will then need to codify the system so
that all permitted haulers implement the same program. For commercial sector customers,
the rate structures will need to be revised to require large generators to pay more than they
do traditionally.
This will require about one month for the haulers to propose their rate structures. It will then
take another month for the City to comparatively evaluate the proposed pricing structures
and to generate a report of findings. The staff and consultant together will probably require
about 50 total hours to gather information, conduct research, and develop the report. This
includes about 30 hours of research and coordination to develop background information and
comparative analysis on the part of the consultant. The report is expected to generate
information about operating variable rate systems, diversion results, cost data, and
implementation issues.
c1WP"1&9 AiAYV=-WrAS0MC$N
City Council Report
August 4, 1998
Page 5
2. Implement an automated collection system for single-family residential customers. See
above for specifics; it will take about two months to generate a report of findings. Since this
report will be part of the variable rate study, the staff and consultant time will be held to about
20 hours. The consultant will spend about 10 hours on this aspect. The report will include
information about automated collection systems, the cost of implementation, a review of
design parameters, and details about usage and limitations.
3. Implement a yard waste collection program. As part of the automated collection system,
the yard waste container will be used for grass clippings and yard debris from single-family
homes. It will take about one month to generate a report of findings. It will be implemented
as part of the automated collection system, if so favored by Council. This report will take
about 4 hours to research and to draft by the consultant along with another 4 hours by staff
for review and meetings. The expected output of the report will be a detailed description of
the yard waste program including issues of design (such as odor control designs), cost, and
material markets, (e.g., altemative daily cover or composting).
4. Extend mandatory recycling service to multifamily residence housing. This will take
about four months to develop a working plan because of the need to identify a practicable
approach to storing and collecting recyc fables from bin -served apartments. This process will
take about 40 hours of staff and consultant time including drafting a report of findings. The
consultant will compose about 24 hours. The process will include one or more meetings
with multi -family residence tenants, building owners and managers, and associations,
recyclers and processors, and refuse haulers; and additional research into current viable
systems of storage and transfer, and recycling.
5. Select a single service provider for refuse and recycling for at least the single-family
sector. This item will be researched over a six month period as information is obtained
about automated collection and variable rates. It will take staff a minimal amount of time as
the City now has a defacto situation regarding a single hauler, through the merger of USA
and Waste Management Inc. However, there may be issues regarding this including whether
the City should conduct open bidding for a service provider, franchise fees, diversion
attainment, and rate setting authority, so the City staff and consultant will spend about 40
City Council Report
August 4, 1998
Page 6
hours over six months to prepare a report of findings for Council on the matter. The
consultant expects to expend about 20 hours on this matter.
6. Other programs: educational outreach, avoiding bans and mandatory provisions,
business sector recycling, C&D debris recycling. These programs are already under way.
There is no further need to study or research the alternatives.
There are five studies possible if all of the research activities are selected by the City Council.
Rather than cumulative, the studies can be conducted concurrently. The time schedule if all studies
are selected is estimated at six months; individual reports can be prepared as analysis is completed.
Total consultant time is estimated at 88 hours, while the combined staff and consultant time is
estimated at 158 hours. Please see below for a matrix of probable schedules and level of effort for
completion.
Prepared by:
David G. Liu/J. Michael Huls
RESOURCES
PROGRAM
SCHEDULE
CONSULTANT
STAFF
1. Variable Rate System
2 Months
30 Hours
20 Hours
2. Automated Collection System
2 Months
10 Hours
10 Hours
3. Yard Waste Collection Program
1 Month
4 Hours
4 Hours
4. Mandatory Recycling for MFR
4 Months
24 Hours
16 Hours
5. Single Service Provider
6 Months
20 Hours
20 Hours
6. Other Programs
In Process
V
I
CUMULATIVE TOTAL
6 MONTHS
88 HOURS
70 HOURS
Prepared by:
David G. Liu/J. Michael Huls
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. `LL' t�'
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 4, 1998 REPORT DATE: July 15,1998
FROM: Bob Rose, Community Services Director
TITLE: Selection of Recreation Services Provider
SUMMARY: The extended contract with the City of Brea to provide recreation services in Diamond Bar
expires on August 31, 1998. In response to a Request For Proposals (RFP), Diamond Bar has received
proposals from the City of Brea and the City of Chino Hills. Diamond Bar staff also developed an in-house
proposal as an alternative to contracting with another city for this service. Staff has interviewed each of the
proposers and presented the results of the review process to the City Council at a study session on June 16,
1998. Based on the need to provide high quality service at a reasonable cost, staff believes that the City of
Brea should continue as the recreation services provider. The City of Brea has provided this service to the
Diamond Bar community for the past seven years and continues to provide a quality program. Brea is
responsive to the community's needs and has a well developed system established in Brea that provides the
necessary staff support to operate this contract successfully.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council select the City of Brea as provider of
recreation services in Dimond Bar for the period of September 1, 1998 through June 30, 2001 (3 years). It
is further recommended that the City Council direct staff to bring back the proposed contract with the City of
Brea to the next City Council meeting for approval.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
_ Ordinance(s)
_ Agreement(s)
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Specifications (on file in City Clerk's office)
_ Other:
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been
reviewed by the City Attorney?
Yes X
No
2. Does the report require a majority vote?
X Yes
No
3, Has environmental impact been assessed?
Yes X
No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
_
_ Yes X
No
What Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
_ Yes X
No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: nla
REVIEWED BY:
i
TerrenceLBelange
City Manager
4, IL&40
Aw6es- DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Community Services Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 4,1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Selection of Recreation Services Provider
Issue Statement
The extended Recreation Services contract with the City of Brea expires August 31, 1998. The City Council
needs to determine the provider of these services beyond August 31.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council select the City of Brea as the provider of recreation services in
Dimond Bar for the period of September 1, 1998 through June 30, 2001 (3 years). It is further recommended
that the City Council direct staff to bring back the proposed contract with the City of Brea to the next City
Council meeting for approval.
Financial Summary
The funds necessary to provide recreation services are included in the 1998/99 Fiscal Year General Fund
budget.
Background
The City of Diamond Bar has a contract with the City of Brea for recreation services that is scheduled to expire
on August 31, 1998. In order to continue recreation services in Diamond Bar after August 31, it is necessary
for the City Council to determine the future provider of these services.
The City Council has three options that are available for the provision of recreation services. These options
include:
a. City of Brea contract
b. City of Chino Hills contract
C. In -House Diamond Bar program
Both the City of Brea and the City of Chino Hills responded to a Request For Proposals (RFP) that the City of
Diamond Bar released in January, 1998. City staff submitted an in-house proposal as an alternative to
contracting for recreation services.
The recreation program that will be offered to the Diamond Bar community under all three options would be
essentially the same. Programming includes Contract Classes, Youth and Adult Sports, Tiny Tots, Summer
Day Camp, Bus Excursions for Youth and Teen Leadership Training.
The cost for each of the options is as follows:
City Council Report
Recreation Services
Meeting Date: August 4, 1998
Page 2
Expenditures
City of Brea $518,530
City of Chino Hills $454,368
In -House Diamond Bar $596,844
Revenue
Net Cost
$327,306
$191,224
$334,051
$120,317
$347,806
$249,038
A brief review of each of the options follows. This information was presented to the City Council at study
session on June 16,1998.
Cft of Brea
The City of Brea has successfully provided recreation services in Diamond Bar for the past seven years. Brea
has consistently offered quality programming and service in Diamond Bar during this time with well qualified
staff. Brea has been very responsive to the needs of the Diamond Bar community and reacts quickly to
requests for additional programming. As a full-service city, Brea has the staff necessary to support the
recreation contract Brea has a personnel depart hent to complete staff recruitments, a purchasing department
to purchase equipment and supplies and a central services department to print promotional flyers. Brea has
been contracting its services to other cities for over twenty years and the concept has been embraced by city
management as well as the City Council.
City of Chino Hills
Although this is the least expensive option available, Chino Hills has never provided recreation programming
to another community. Chino Hitls is a relatively new City, having incorporated in 1991. There is limited staff
support from other departments available for the recreation contract. The purchasing function is handled by
a single manager and the printing of promotional flyers will have to be contracted to private businesses. Chino
Hills is proposing to conduct some programs in Diamond Bar that is does not provide to its own residents. The
youth baseball and basketball programs that are proposed for Diamond Bar are not offered in Chino Hills. The
Chino Hills City Council did vote unanimously to support the submission of the recreation services proposal
to Diamond Bar.
In -House Diamond Bar
This is the most expensive option available. With limited support staff from other departments available, the
adnirdstrative recreation staff is proposed as full-time positions. This is the primary reason for the high cost
Also, it is not known how much impact an in-house recreation program will have on the rest of the City
organization. Staff recruitment will be held throughout the year to maintain a staff of 20 to 30 recreation
employees. The Finance Department will be impacted with more paperwork to process because of additional
purchase orders, warrants and time cards. There has been support from the community expressed for an in-
house program, even with its high cost.
Discussion
Section II C. of the RFP for Recreation Services states that the City Council is not obligated to award a contract
to the low proposer. It states that other considerations will include satisfactory performance under other
contracts and evidence that demonstrates which proposer would provide the most effective and reliable service
to the City of Diamond Bar. This is consistent with the City's purchasing ordinance which states that contracts
for professional services, which is what the Recreation Services contract is, should consider the quality of
City Council Report
Recreation Services
Meeting Date: August 4,1998
Page 3
service, not only the cost.
After careful review of these options available, City staff believes that the option most beneficial to the City of
Diamond Bar is to award the Recreation Services contract to the City of Brea. Over the years, Brea has proven
itself to be a quality provider of this service. Also, Brea has the support system necessary to assure quality
service to Diamond Bar for this contract.
The RFP for Recreation Services states that Diamond Bar intends to award a contract for a three year term,
with a 120 day notice for early termination.
Should the City Council determine that one of the other options is in the best interest of the City, staff
recommends that the effective date be stated as January 1, 1999. That would give ample time for the provider
to Ply pfepare i1selffor the delivery of these services. In this scenario, Brea would be offered a final four
(4) month extension on their contract to provide service for the period of September 1 through December 31,
1998.
Prepared by:
Bob Rose
Community Services Director
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA N0.
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 4,1998 REPORT DATE: July 29,1998
FROM: Bob Rose, Community Services Director
TITLE: Extension of Existing Recreation Services Contract with the City of Brea
SUMMARY: This agenda item will not be necessary if staffs recommendation for Agenda Item A is
approved by the City Council. If City Council approves an alternative available in item A, it will be necessary
to contract with the City of Brea until December 31, 1998 (four additional months), as a transition period for the
method of providing recreation services. The proposed four month contract extension with Brea will cost
$160,297 and generate $107,947 in revenue. The four month extension will be added to an existing 12 month
contract that already has a four month extension. Approval of a new four month extension to this contract will
result in a twenty month contract (May 1, 1997 through December 31, 1998) for total expenditures of $737,255
and revenues of $516,311, resulting in a net cost of $220,944.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize a contract extension with the
City of Brea to provide recreation services in Diamond Bar through December 31, 1998, for a total contract
amount of $737,255 (May 1, 1997 through December 31, 1998 - a total period of 20 months).
UST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's office)
_ Ordinance(s) X Other: Current 3 year contract
X Agreement(s) Proposed Four Month Contract Extension
Letter of Agreement for 1997198
Existing Four Month Contract Extension
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: City of Brea
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been
reviewed by the City Attorney? X Yes _ No
2. Does the report require a majority vote? X Yes _ No
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes No
What Commission? Parks & Recreation
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEW BY;
Terrence L. Belanger(I6)4sDeStefano Bob ose
City Manager Deputy City Manager Community Services Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 4,1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Extension of Existing Recreation Services Contract with the City of Brea
Issue Statement
This agenda item will not be necessary if staffs recommendation for Agenda Item A is approved by the City
Council. The extended Recreation Services Contract with the City of Brea expires August 31, 1998.
Approval of this item will extend the contract with Brea through to December 31, 1998 (four addtional months).
This time will serve as a transition period for the method of providing recreation services in Diamond Bar.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council authorize a contract extension with the City of Brea to provide
recreation services in Diamond Bar through December 31, 1998, for a total contract amount of $737,255 (May
1, 1997 through December 31, 1998 - a total period of 20 months).
Financial Summary
The total projected revenues will increase from $408,364 to $516,311 to off set the cost of operating this
contract. Net cost to the general fund for the entire 20 months (May 1, 1997 - December 31, 1998) that the
extended contract will cover will be increased from $168,595 to $220,944.
Background
The City Council awarded a three-year contract to the City of Brea to provide recreation services for the
Dimond Bar community on April 18, 1995. Earlier this year, the City Council extended the existing contract
for four months through August 31, 1998. An additional four month extension to December 31, 1998 will be
necessary to serve as a transition period should City Council select another alternative for providing recreation
services in Diamond Bar.
Discussion
The City of Brea has submitted a proposal for the four month extension for a total cost of $160,297. The
existing contract, plus previous extension, is for $576,958. When extended an additional 4 months, the total
contract amount will be $737,255.
Total revenue for the contract extension will be $107,947. This brings the total revenue for the 20 month
contract (one year plus two four month extensions) to $516,311. The net cost for the 20 month contract will
be $220,944.
Prepared by: Bob Rose, Community Services Director
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal
September 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998
Expenditures
Exhibit "A"
July 21, 1998
Administration
Subtotal:
Benefits
$52,286
Mileage
12882
Training/Memberships
410
Contract Classes
664
Adult Sports
25,000
Youth Sports
19,898
Tiny Tots
821
15,464
Total Revenue Projection: $107,947
Subtotal:
$127,425
22% Overhead:
28,034
Liability Insurance:
4,166
Total Contract Costs:
$159,625
Revenue Projections
Contract Classes
Adult Sports
$45,720
Youth Sports
18,942
Tiny Tots
15,285
28,000
Total Revenue Projection: $107,947
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998
Page 2
Administrative
Community Services Supervisor (FT/18 weeks) $17,859
(Overtime 30 hrs x $34.35) 1,030
Community Services Specialist I/Contract Classes (PT Regular) 8.807
(32 hrs per wk x 18 wks x $15.29/hr)
Community Services Specialist I/Youth and Adult Sports (PT Regular) 9,633
(35 hrs per wk x 18 wks x $15.29/hr)
Community Services Coordinator/Youth and Adult Sports (PT Regular) 3,899
(20 hrs per wk x 18 wks x $I0.83/hr)
Administrative Clerk I (PT Regular) 7,026
(30 hrs per wk x 18 Wks x $13.01 /hr)
Administrative Clerk I/Front Counter Receptionist (PT Intermittent) 4,032
(20 hrs per wk x 18 wks x $11.20/hr)
Total Administrative Costs: $52,286
Benefits
Full Time Staff
PERS
Medicare
Flex Benefits
Vacation Accrual
Sick Leave Accrual
Worker's Compensation
Part Time Staff
PERS
Medicare
Vacation Accrual
Sick Leave Accrual
Worker's Compensation
Liability Insurance
$1,511
293
2,468
612
733
705
Total Full Time Staff Benefits: $6,322
$ 0.00
906
1,903
2,276
1,475
Total Part Time Staff Benefits: $6,560
$4,167
Total Liability Insurance: $4,167
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998
Pana
Mileage
Administration (40 miles/wk x $0.325/mile x 18 wks) $234
Contract Classes (15 miles/wk x $0.325/mile x 18 wks) 88
Youth and Adult Sports (15 miles/wk x $0.325/mile x 18 wks) 88
Total Mileage: $410
Training/Membershinc
CPRS Conference - Santa Clara
a. Registration (1 at $199) 199
b. Travel/Air Fare - San Jose 200
SCMAF Membership (3 at $25/each) 75
SCMAF Sports Institute ( 3 at $30/each) 90
Miscellaneous Staff Training 100
Total Training/Memberships: $664
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998
Page 4
Contract Classes
Provide a variety of fee based classes and instruction for Tots, Youth, and Adults encompassing
Sports, Dance, Music, Computers, Special Events, Martial Arts, Arts and Crafts, Enrichment, and
Fitness. Facilities are available through the City, Homeowner's Associations, and Joint Use
Agreements with Walnut Valley and Pomona Unified School Districts.
Revenue
Contract Classes
Administration Fee
$5 x 1144 participants
Expenditures
Contract Class Instructors
$30,000 x 60%
$10,000 x 70%
$40,000
5,720
Total Revenue: $45,720
$18,000
7,000
Total Expenditures: $25,000
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998
Page 5
Adult Athletics
Participant Estimates:
Basketball:
Volleyball:
Softball:
Adult Men's Basketball
12 teams/ 144 participants
6 teams/72 participants
18 teams/270 participants
League provides three levels/divisions of competitive play. Round robin leagues are 11 weeks long
consisting of one practice and ten league games. Leagues run all year round. Officials are
contracted by the Recreation Department. A team trophy and individual awards are given to the first
place team and the second place team receives a team trophy.
Revenue
12 teams x 1 league x $450 team $5,400
Revenue was taken for summer league under May -August extension
Total Revenue:
$5,400
Expenditures
Senior Leader (office)
7 wks x 2 hrs/wk x 1 league x $8.52 hr
8 wks x 2 hrs/wk x 1 league x $8.52 hr
$119
Senior Leader (on-site/supervisory)
136
7 wks x 7 hrs/wk x 1 league x $8.52 hr
8 wks x 7 hrs/wk x 1 league x $8.52 hr
418
Leader (scorer/timer)
477
7 wks x 7 hrs/wk x 1 league x $7.33 hr
8 wks x 7 hrs/wk x 4 leagues x $7.33 hr
359
Officials
411
7 games/wk x 6 wks x 1 league x 2 officials x $21/game
1,764
8 games/wk x 6 wks x 1 league x 2 officials x $21/game
2,016
Total Expenditures:
$5,700
Adult Coed VolleyWi
Coed volleyball league provides an 11 week round robin format of play consisting of one practice
and ten league games . Leagues run all year round and officials are contracted by the Recreation
Department. A team trophy and individual awards are given to the first place team and the second
place team receives a team trophy.
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998
Page 6
Coed Volleyball (cont)
Revenue
6 teams x 2 leagues x $230 team $2.760
Total Revenue:
$2,760
Expenditures
Officials
3 matches/wk x 11 wks x 1 league x 1 official x $19/match
$627
3 matches/wk x 3 wks x 1 league x 1 official x $19/match
171
Setup/Take down
11 wks x 1 league x 1 official x $10/wk
110
3 wks x I league x 1 official x $10/wk
30
Senior Leader (on-site/supervisory)
11 wks x 3 hrs/league x 1 league x $8.52/hr
281
3 wks x 3 hrs/league x 1 league x $8.52/hr
77
Total Expenditures: $1,296
Adult Softball
Leagues are available for men's teams on Wednesday nights and Sundays. Coed leagues are offered
on Sundays. League play is an 11 week round robin format consisting of one practice and ten league
games. Leagues run all year round utilizing contracted officials from Tri -County. A team trophy
and individual awards are given to the first place team and the second place team receives a team
trophy.
Revenue
8 teams x 1 league x $399 team - Wednesday $3,192
10 teams x 1 league x $399 team - Sunday 3,990
Total Revenue:
$7,182
Expenditures
Senior Leader (office)
18 Wks x 3 hrs/wk x 1 league x $8.52 hr
$460
9 Wks x 3 hrs/wk x 1 league x $8.52 hr
230
Senior Leader (on-site field prep/supervisory)
18 Wks x 11 hrs/wk x 1 league x $8.52 hr
1,687
9 Wks x 11 hrs/wk x 1 league x $8.52 hr
844
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998
Page 7
Adult Softball (cont)
Expenditures (cont)
Leader (scorer)
18 wks x 10 hrs/wk x 1 league x $7.33 hr
$1.320
9 wks x 10 hrs/wk x 1 league x $7.33 hr
Officials
660
18 wks x 9 games x 1 league x $21/game
3,402
9 wks x 9 games x 1 league x $21/game
1,701
Total Expenditures:
$10,304
Adult Soccer - Lorbeer Middle or Pantera Park
Fall league only. League format will be one practice game and 10 league games. A team trophy and
individual awards are given to first place team and the second place team receives a team trophy.
Officials will be contracted by Diamond Bar Recreation staff.
Revenue
8 teams x 1 league x $450 team $3,600
Total Revenue: $3,600
Expenditures
Senior Leader (on-site field prep/supervisory)
11 wks x 8 hrs x $8.52 hr $750
Officials
11 wks x 4 games x 1 league x 2 officials x $21 /game 1,848
Total Expenditures: $2,598
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998
Page 8
Youth Sports
Participant Estimates
Basketball: 24 teams/240 participants
Youth Basketball - South Point Middle School/Boys and Girls 4- 8 yrs
Designed to teach fundamentals and skills and emphasize team work and fun. Ten week program
with games once a week. Shirt, shorts, and trophy provided to participants. Volunteer coaches are
utilized and Recreation Department staff officiate league games. Reduced fee reflects $5.00
discount for additional child in same family.
Revenue
225 participants x $64 each $14,400
15 participants x $59 each 885
Total Revenue:
$15,285
Expenditures
Coaches Training
Senior Leader
8 hrs x $8.52 hr
$68
Skills Day
Senior Leader
5 hrs x $8.52 hr
43
Leader
Shrs x$7.33hr
37
Draft
Senior Leader
4hrs x$8.52hr
34
Practices/Set-up
Senior Leader
3 wks x 5 days x 5 hrs/day x $8.52 hr
639
Total Expenditures: $821
Officials and scorers expenditures are not reflected as the league will not start until January.
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998
Page 9
Tiny Tots
Fall/Pantera - 12 weeks
Revenue
20 participants. x $246 Q. days - MWF mornings) $4,920
20 participants x $174 (2 days - MW afternoons) 3,480
Total Revenue: $8,400
Expenditures
CS Specialist I - Administrative
8 hrs x $14.54 hr x 13 weeks $1,512
Senior Leader
20 hrs x $8.52 hr x 13 weeks 2,174
Leader
20 hrs x $7.35 hr x 13 weeks 1,911
Total Expenditures: $5,597
Fall/Heritage - 12 weeks
Revenue
40 participants x $246 (3 days - MWF mornings and afternoons)
40 participants x $174 (2 days - T/Th mornings and afternoons)
Total Revenue:
Expenditures
CS Specialist I - Administrative
6 hrs x $14.54 hr x 13 weeks
Senior Leader
30 hrs x $8.52 hr x 13 weeks
Leader
2 staff x 19 hrs x $7.35 hr x 13 weeks
$9,840
6,960
$16,800
$1,134
3,323
3,621
Total Expenditures: $8,078
Holiday Workshop Sessions/Pantera and Heritage - 2 weeks
Revenue
40 participants x $35 x 2 wks
$1,400
Total Revenue: $1,400
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998
Page 10
Expenditures
CS Specialist I - Administrative
8 hrs x $14.54 hr $116
Senior Leader
50 hrs x $8.52 hr 426
Leader
50 hrs x $7.35 367
Total Expenditures: $909
Holiday Workshop Sessions/Heritage - 2 weeks
Revenue
20 participants x $35 x 2 wks
Expenditures
CS Specialist I - Administrative
6 hrs x $14.54 hr
Senior Leader
50 hrs x $8.52 hr
Leader
50 hrs x $7.33
$1,400
Total Revenue: $1,400
$87
426
367
Total Expenditures: $880
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998
Page 11
City of Diamond Bar
Budget 1998-1999
Equipment/Supplies List
Adult Basketball
Basketballs -14 $80
First aid
Awards - 12 @ $8.75 x 3 divisions x 1 league
Trophies - 6 @ $15 x 1 league
SCMAF team registration - 12 @ $7
Staff shirts - 2 @ $10
Staff sweatshirts - 2 @ $12
Adult Coed Volleyball
Volleyballs - 1 @ $50
First aid
Awards - 12 @ $8.75 x 1 league
Trophies - 2 @$15 x 1 league
SCMAF team registration - 6 @ $7
Staff shirt - l @ $10
Staff sweatshirt - 1 @ $12
Subtotal:
Subtotal:
Adult Softball
Softballs - 10 @ $4.50 x 15 weeks
Awards 16 @ $8.75 x 3 divisions x I league
Bases
Chalk - 10 bags x $5.50/bag
Trophies - 6 @ $15 x 1 league
First aid
SCMAF team registration - 18 @ $7
Staff shirts - 2 @ $10
Staff sweatshirts - 2 @ $12
Adult Soccer - 8 Teams
Soccer balls - 2 @ $30
First aid
Awards - 18 @ $8.75 x 1 league
Trophies - 2 @ $15
SCMAF team registration - 8 @ $7
Staff shirt - 1 @ $10
Staff Sweatshirt - 1 @ $12
Subtotal:
Subtotal:
Adult Sports Total:
$80
40
315
90
84
20
24
$653
$50
40
105
30
42
10
12
$289
$675
420
120
55
90
40
126
20
24
$1,570
$60
40
158
30
56
10
12
$366
$2,878
Diamond Bar Recreation Proposal - September 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998
Page 12
Youth Basketball - 240 Participants
Basketballs - 15 @ $5.25
Shirts - 240 @ $6
Shorts - 240 @ $6.25
Trophies - 240 @ $3.50, 48 @ $5.75
Equipment
Portable hoops - 2
First aid
Fingerprinting 48 @ $35
Staff shirts - 3 @ $10
Staff sweatshirts - 3 @ $12
Tiny Tots E _Uipment/supplies
Furniture
Craft Supplies
Equipment
$79
1,440
1.500
1,116
210
3.000
40
1,680
30
36
Total: $9,131
$1,000
500
500
Tiny Tot Total: $2,000
co
O)
OD
N
n
L
V C
0 a
O
U O
V C d
O �
W d m m
wU °ao
M — cu 0
O c U
-
>- E c M
i-- Ec
U U E
(`c a (D
m N
V 0
c O'
O 0)
E 0)
0 r
y
- 0 V-
a
O O N M OD OD
M n r N (D r
Q
M
U
N
0
r
O N CV V 00 00 r co M
f-
co
O
O
con
O CO CO r r O O OD 00
In V O V r CO V r
_M
M
V
0)
C V 0 N
NCA
N ('7 Cn V N N N Nod
M I=
r
a, T
LU
a
i1i a
(L
a
�_
In
r
a
co 0) (D
N
O .- N V O CO M MM
00
O
y
E
(O M O N
N
V O N N CO V) o (D co
M
V
.If
O 0
O M CO) co
co 00 co V0
O
Cn Ln N (O l[) N ao r
N O N 00 0 M N N N
CO
O
3
r
E CO m r -CL
=
Q�HZ-� m c c c
C14-
M
Y> 3
N 00 N
r N n
N
r
V m M O N V Cn 0 0
N V CO N cn O 00 n n
fl-
r
N
_V m
CD M n Q
N n N Z
m
N
N M 05 O CD N N N
M
O0
r
y V
N J
V r CV
CO
_N
O fh M 0 Oo n n
Cl) n r r r
OD
O)
a
`n of
n
CM
c
O A
O O Cn
CD r CO
co
N
CD Ln OD V coLO V n fl-
O
fl -
10 `
CD in O a
O)
V
U) N V fn n r r CD CO
O r COO M O (A O O
N
N
n
ti
V
M- Z
co
N (D O V O CD CO t0
V
m
Q
O O n
O M O O)
co
N
r N V (O co O 0) O)
r 0 OD V L
0)
V
O
F-
V V M N
V Cl) to co
V
0)r
V 0) d) M M .- 00 CO
O
V
N
O
L'
01 O Cl) O
0)
r V 0) O n r N N
f� V OD M CD CO M0 O
N
O
N
CY)
7
V CD N
r
N
CD N N OM N N N N
M
O
Cn
V
Cn
r
S3
O
o
d Cr:
O
O
w C
O
06
co
O m
v
V
N
CV
cc
n 000 0)
CM
Cn O v M N O 0) 0)
n
O
C?
p
O CD do,
n (O 0) V
n
N C) f� C� (+D M co N
n
co
U')
d
r
M
r N
co
to
n
V
LLI
O
O
IL
(o
LO
000LI)
to
Oo V 000000
V
CD
w
M N N O
n
CO N OD O 00 Nn N N L
U)
.-
.`
M Cn N CV
N
CD Cl) CA 00 00. r OD Cn 0)
T
n CO O N
N
00 V V N V V n W 0)
n
n n N co
co
Cn r 00 0) n CO N 0) CA
r
n
(n
V CD N
N
Cb N N V M N N r-
O
O
r
V
N
Q) M N C0
M V O N N In C() CC)
m
y
N OD Cn Cl)
O OD Cn N N Cn M M M
N
Cn O 00 n
Cl) N V r 00 00 n n n
LO
m
N — r
V> EA Vi EA
V) V) (A V) V). V). Vi Vi Vi
Vi
NwU
w
O O Cn CO
ti'VV Cl) OD
O O (O O O O O N N
CD 00 O V V r r n r-
V
0
CD W V V M CO N N
LLLL
O 0
w
M I=
Of
a, T
LU
a
i1i a
(L
a
�_
O�
a
ao
F -►-moi-
a i owmwm w
►- F- F - F- -SI--
a
r
rias
(LLL 0r Ord CL CL CL a_
N CO
°
y m
U Q H cc m m
-= =
5
C c
'DO
m y CL c
C 0- p. 4 m N N
:3 c
co
�
UZI
E CO m r -CL
=
Q�HZ-� m c c c
J
a H
��8 MCc
�I�
O
m
-
t� m �uiHZ�Z
D
mem
a
`�o�F-�
o
`?
yom
m
cE0•° m00d
c U
a� m
J=ViJ
c 3° E rn�mmm
`n of
ocow<(L �JJJ
1= >
N
X
rn
co
0)
ts
C
O
U
m
d
•c
eo
d
rn
Date of Request
May 5, 1998
Clt Of B
LDUB
Exhibit "B"
a
Description
For Finance Use Only
Customer Number
Customer Name
City of Diamond Bar
Mailing Address
21660 Copley Drive, Ste. 100
Invoice Number
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Offset Account
Offset Account
A/R Type Code
To the Attention of
Finance De artment
A/R Type Code
Sequence
Quantity
Description
Total Price
Per the Diamond Bar Agreement for Recreational Services 1997-1998
Ninth Anniversary Celebration - March 24, April 18 and 19, 1998
Expenditures:
3/24/98
Worker $5.88 x 4 hrs/flyers = $24
$24
4118/98
Worker $6 x 5 hrs = $30
Worker$5.88 x 17 hrs = $100
$30
- $100
�
4/19/98,
Worker $5.88 x 37 hrs = $218.
Specialist $14.91 x 12 hrs = $179
$218 `
$179
Credit Account Amount Credit AccountAmo t
110-400 0118-4112 $551 110-115-1000-1119 $121
Subtotal
$551
d by: ,n Dept./Div./Prgm. Approved By:
ked
22 %Overhead
$121
Total
$672
Owens s'' Community Services/Leisure Services
Carol Herrera
Mayor
Wen Chang
Mayor Pro Tem
Eileen R. Ansari
Council Member
Robert S. Huff
Council Member
Deborah H. O'Connor
Council Member
Recydedpaper
July 29, 1998
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 • Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
(909) 860-2489 • Fax (909) 861-3117
Internet: http://www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us • City Online (BBS): (909) 860-5463
Frank Benest, City Manager
City of Brea
Number One Civic Center Circle
Brea, CA 92621
Re: Recreation Services Contract Extension
Dear Mr. Benest:
The City of Diamond Bar is interested in an additional extension of the
Recreation Services Contract with the City of Brea. The term of the extension
is for four (4) months. Conditions of the extension have been negotiated and
include the following:
a. Term of extended contract will begin on September 1, 1998 and
shall continue until December 31, 1998, a period of (4) months,
unless previously terminated.
b. Exhibit "A", dated July 21, 1998, describes services that shall be
provided by the City of Brea for payment of $159,625 Revenue
is projected to total $107,947.
C. Exhibit "B" dated May 5, 1998, describes Brea' support of the
9th Anniversary Celebration with expenditures of $672.
Per negotiations, both agencies have agreed to the following:
The City of Brea agrees to:
Manage, supervise and administer the provision of services
described in Exhibits "A" and "B" for the contract amount of
$160,297 and projected revenues of $107,947.
City of Diamond Bar
September 1 - December 31, 1998
Letter of Understanding -
Recreation Services Contract Extension
The City of Diamond Bar agrees to:
Include in its budget $14,010 to pay for equipment and supplies
to support the various programs and activities. In addition, to
reimburse the City of Brea for all costs plus 22% overhead, for
the purchase of program equipment and supplies.
2. Compensate the City of Brea for all costs of vacation,
compensation time and sick leave accrued by employees in
the event resignation or termination occurs during the May
1,1997, through December 31, 1998, term of this contract and
extension.
3. Compensate the City of Brea for all "Memorandum of
Understanding', salary and benefits and increases that may occur
during the term of the provision of services.
This Letter of Understanding shall operate in conjunction with the provision
of the Agreement except where inconsistent, in which event this Letter of
Understanding shall govern. All other terms of the Agreement shall remain in
effect during the term thereof. Each party to this Letter of Understanding
acknowledges that no representation, statement or promise by any party
which is not embodied herein or in the Agreement shall be valid and/or
binding. Any modification of this Letter of Understanding shall be effective
only if it is in writing and signed by both parties.
The City of Diamond Bar looks forward to continuing its relationship with the
City of Brea.
Sincerely,
Bob Rose
Director of Community Services
City of Diamond Bar 2 Letter of Understanding -
September 1 - December 31, 1998 Recreation Services Contract Extension
By signing below, the parties agree to the above terms,
Mayor,
City of Brea
Attest:
Date Mayor,
City of Diamond Bar
City Clerk, Date
City of Brea
City of Diamond Bar 3
September 1 - December 31, 1998
Attest:
Date
City Clerk, Date
City of Diamond Bar
Letter of Understanding -
Recreation Services Contract Extension
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 • Diamond Bar, CA 917654177
(909) 860-2489 - Fax (909) 861-3117
Internet: h"p://www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us - City Online (BBS): (909) 860-5463
March 12,1998
Frank Benest, City Manager
City of Brea
Number One Civic Center Circle
Brea, CA 92621
Re: Recreation Services Contract Extension
Dear Mr. Benest:
The City of Diamond Bar is interested in extending the Recreation Services
Contract with the City of Brea. The term of the extension is for four (4) months.
Conditions of the extension have been negotiated and include the following:
a. Term of extended contract will begin on May 1, 1998 and shall
Carol Herrera continue until August 31, 1998, a period of (4) months, unless
Mayor previously terminated.
Wen Chang b. Exhibit "A", dated February 27,1998 and revised March 10,
Mayor Pro Tem 1998, describes services that shall be provided by the City of
Eileen R. Ansari Brea for payment of $177,801. Revenue is projected to total
Council Member $143,599.
Robert S. Huff C. Exhibit "B" dated September 10, 1997, describes a summer teen
Council Member program with expenditures of $322.25 and actual revenue of
Deborah H. O'Connor $495.
Council Member
d. Exhibit "C" dated March 10, 1998, describes a "Pirates In The
Park" activity with expenditures of $258 and projected revenue
of $300.
e. Exhibit "D" dated February 17, 1998, describes a "Youth Indoor
Soccer" program with expenditures of $8,386 and projected
revenue of $8,400.
City of Diamond Bar 1 Letter of Understanding -
Recreation Services Contract Extension with the City of Brea
R-yded paper
Per negotiations, both agencies have agreed to the following:
The City of Brea agrees to:
Manage, supervise and administer the provision of services
described in Exhibits "A", "B", "C" and "D" for the contract
amount of $186,767.25 and projected revenues of $152,794.
The City of Diamond Bar agrees to:
Include in its budget $51,620 to pay for equipment and supplies
to support the various programs and activities. In addition, to
reimburse the City of Brea for all costs plus 22% overhead, for
the purchase of program equipment and supplies.
2. Compensate the City of Brea for all costs of vacation
compensation time and sick leave accrued by employees in the
event resignation or termination occurs during the May 1, 1997,
through August 31, 1998, term of this contract and extension.
Compensate the City of Brea for all "Memorandum of
Understanding', salary and benefits and increases that may occur
during the term of the provision of services.
This Letter of Understanding shall operate in conjunction with the provision of
the Agreement except where inconsistent, in which event this Letter of
Understanding shall govern. All other terms of the Agreement shall remain in
effect during the term thereof. Each party to this Letter of Understanding
acknowledges that no representation, statement or promise by any party which
is not embodied herein or in the Agreement shall be valid and/or binding. Any
modification of this Letter of Understanding shall be effective only if it is in
writing and signed by both parties.
The City of Diamond Bar looks forward to continuing its relationship with the
City of Brea.
Sincerely,
Bob Rose
Director of Community Services
City of Diamond Bar 2 Letter of Understanding -
Recreation Services Contract Extension with the City of Brea
By signing below, the parties agree to the above terms,
Maya, Date
City of Brea
Attest:
i
1
>✓�r✓-'C
ity Clerk, Date
City of Brea
�,--, q -1s- 51
Mayor, Date
City of Diamond Bar
Attest:
City Clerk, Date
City of Diamond Bar
City of Diamond Bar 3 Letter of Understanding -
Recreation Services Contract Extension with the City of Brea
Ai � r
CA ��FORNIA
City of Brea
June 12, 1997
Terry Belanger
City Manager
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Re: Letter of Understanding for Recreation Services to the City of
Diamond Bar in 1997/98
Dear Terry:
This correspondence shall serve as the official Letter of Understanding between the City of
Brea and the City of Diamond Bar for the provision of Recreation Services in 1997/98. It is
submitted according to the guidelines established in the April 18, 1995, Agreement for
Recreation Services (Agreement hereinafter) and per previous negotiation meetings and
discussions. This Letter of Understanding is intended to modify the terms of the Agreement
with respect to the scope of, and payment for, recreational services to be provided by the City
of Brea.
Enclosed you will find the City of Brews 1997/98 Recreation Services
in the amount of $390,191, which includes a revenue projection of $25,Proposal, m ar it "A,"
fees. The proposal requires monthlyParticipant
30, 1998, Payments of $32,516 for the May 1, 1997, through April
period of services,. The May/June 1997 monthly payments will be invoiced and
future monthly payments adjusted accordingly to ensure the $390,191 proposal figure is
maintained.
Per negotiations, bothr.agencies have agreed to the following:
The City of Brea agrees to:
1 • Manage, supervise and administer the provision of youth and adult sports
Programs, along with a wide variety of recreation classes, Summer Day Camp,
Youth excursions, staff .support for the Annual Birthday Celebration, Ranch
Festival, Summer Concerts in the Park and the monthly Park and Recreation
Commission meetings.
The City of Diamond Bar agrees to:
1. Include in its 1997/98 budget $65,833 to pay for equipment and supplies to
support the various programs and activities. In addition, reimburse the City of
Brea for all costs plus 22 percent overhead, for the purchase of program
equipment and supplies.
City Council Glenn G. Parka Lynn Daucher Burnie Dunlap Bev Pe
Mayor mayor Pro Tem Councilmemlxr rry
Marty Simonoff
Civic 6c Cultural Center 0 !v Councilmember Councilmember
Number One Civic Center Circle • Brea. Calif rnia 9�R�t _m� .171.4 loon
Terry Belanger, City Manager
Ci of Diamond Bar page 2
June 12, 1997
2. Compensate the City of Brea for all costs of vacation compensation time and
sick leave accrued by employers in the event resignation or termination
during the May 1, 1997, through April 30, 1998, term of this letter. occurs
3• Compensate the City of Brea for all ~Memorandum of Understanding," salary
and benefits and increases that may occur during the term of the 1997/98
provision of services.
This Letter of Understanding shall operate in conjunction with the provision of the Agreement
except where inconsistent, in which event this better of Understanding shall govern. th
terms of the Agreement shall remain in effect during the term thereof. Each
Letter of Understanding acknowledges that no partyorris b this
Party, which is not embodied herein or in the Agree station, statement or promise by any
modification of this Letter of Understanding shall effective sh be only all fa and/or
� binding.Any
signed by both parties.
If you find these terms to be acceptable, please cause the enclosed
Understanding to be executed below where appropriate b copy
of the Letter of
representative of the City of Diamond Bar and return said copy to the underlianother p ed.
Letter of Understanding snail become effective as of the date it becomes �y executed
b
City. of Brea and the City of Diamond Bar,Y the
Thank you for your cooperation.
With aualicv anti r.�,.....:_.�_
fitenn Parker, Mayor
CITY OF BREA
We look forward to providing the Diamond Bar community
tion programs and services.
City of Diamond Bar agrees to the foregoing terms.
v�
City of Diamond Bar
Date: �4/
Attachment
cc: Frank Benest, City Manager
't0:1r. j�►o,,.m,em„�di.meabr. tr
RECREATION SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into this 18th day of ril 1995,
between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to
as "DIAMOND BAR") and the CITY OF BREA, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter
referred to as "BREA")
A. $ecitalg.
(i) BREA has heretofore provided DIAMOND BAR with certain recreational
services.
(ii) DIAMOND BAR now desires to again retain BREA to perform such services,
including advice and assistance to DIAMOND BAR, DIAMOND BAR's City Council, Parks
and Recreation Commission and staff, necessary to implement a recreational program in
DIAMOND BAR, for a three (3) year period.
(iii) BREA represents that it is qualified to perform such services and is willing
to perform such services as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between DIAMOND BAR and BREA as
follows:
1. Definitions: The following definitions shall apply to the following terms,
except where the context of this Agreement otherwise requires:
(a) EWidm: The Provision of recreation services described in Exhibit "A" hereto
including, but not limited to, programs, policies, athletic programs, classes, summer day
camp, Adult excursions, picnic and athletic facility reservations, support of community
activities and attendance at Park and Recreation Commission meetings as requested.
City of Diamond Bar Recreation services Agreement
(b) s: Such services as are reasonably necessary to be performed by BREA
in order to implement the Project.
2. BREA agrees as follows:
(a) BREA shall forthwith undertake to implement the Project in accordance with
Exhibit "A" hereto and all in accordance with Federal, State and DIAMOND BAR statutes,
regulations, ordinances and guidelines, all to the reasonable satisfaction of DIAMOND BAR.
(b) BREA shall, at BREA's sole cost and expense, secure and hire such other
persons as may, in the opinion of BREA, be necessary to comply with the terms of this
Agreement. All such persons shall be employees of BREA, and DIAMOND BAR shall
not be responsible for the payment of wages, benefits, or any other form of compensation
for such persons. In the event any such other persons -are retained by BREA, BREA
hereby warrants that such persons shall be fully qualified to perform services required
hereunder. BREA further agrees that subcontractors retained by BREA shall be upon the
consent of DIAMOND BAR. For purposes of this Agreement, the term "subcontractor"
shall not include program or class instructors or sports event officials (i.e., umpires and
referees).
3• - DIAMOND BAR 2 s as fo to
IV,.VrI
(a) To pay BREA for the performance of the services required herein, a
maximum sum of Thirty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Seventeen and 751100 Dollars
($36,717.75) per month, for the twelve (12) month term hereof. Beginning with the second
and third years of this Agreement, said sum may be adjusted upon mutual written consent,
following a review of revenues collected and the costs to BREA of recreational services
requested. Said sum shall cover the cost of all staff time and all other direct and indirect
City of Diamond Bar 2 Recreation Services Agreement
costs or fees, including the work of employees, consultants and subcontractors to BREA.
Payment to BREA, by DIAMOND BAR, shall be made in accordance with the schedule
set forth below.
(b) Payments to BREA shall be made by DIAMOND BAR in accordance with
the invoices submitted by BREA, on a monthly basis, and such invoices shall be paid
within a reasonable time after said invoices are received by DIAMOND BAR. All charges
shall be in accordance with BREA's proposal either with respect to hourly rates or lump
sum amounts for individual programs.
(c) Additional services: Payments for additional services requested, in writing,
by DIAMOND BAR, and not included in BREA's proposal as set forth in Exhibit "A".
Charges for additional services shall be invoiced on a monthly basis and shall be paid by
DIAMOND BAR within a reasonable time after said invoices are received by DIAMOND
BAR.
(d) Purchase of Supplies: Brea shall purchase all supplies required to provide
the -services set forth in Exhibit "A". Diamond Bar shall reimburse Brea for the cost of
supplies, including sales tax, plus 22% for overhead. Brea shall invoice Diamond Bar for
supplies on a monthly basis, and said invoice shall include back-up documentation from
vendor where purchase was made. When possible and economically practical, Diamond Bar
businesses shall be utilized as vendors.
(e) Any and all revenues collected by BREA from recreation program participants
shall be tendered monthly to DIAMOND BAR in accordance with administrative policies
and procedures established by DIAMOND BAR's City Manager, provided that BREA shall
City of Diamond Bar 3 Recmaon Services Agreement
retain fifty percent (50%) of all such revenues exceeding an annual total, or "revenue
goal", of Three Hundred Forty -Five Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Dollars ($345,740).
Said revenue goal shall be effective for the first year of this Agreement, however,
beginning with the second and third years of this Agreement, said sum may be adjusted
upon mutual written consent, following a review of revenues collected and the costs to
BREA of recreational services requested.
(a) Information and assistance as needed to provide services identified in Exhibit
"A" hereto.
(b) Copies of documents and other information, as available, which BREA
considers necessary in order to complete the Project.
(c) Such information as is generally available from DIAMOND BAR files
applicable to the Project.
(d) Assistance, if necessary;. in obtaining information from other governmental
agencies and/or private parties. However, it shall be BREA's responsibility to make all
initial contact with respect to the gathering - Of such information.
- S. Qmershin of new -limen -ft: All documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings,
maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by BREA pursuant to this Agreement shall
be considered the property of DIAMOND BAR and, upon payment for services performed
by BREA, such documents and other identified materials shall be delivered to DIAMOND
BAR by BREA. BREA may, however, make and retain such copies of said documents and
materials as BREA may desire.
6. Termina6 1: This Agreement, or any program or service provided hereunder.
City of Diamond Bar 4 Recreation Services Agreement
may be terminated by either parry upon the giving of a written "Notice of Termination"
to the other parry at least ninety (90) days prior to the date of termination specified in said
Notice. In the event this Agreement, or any program or service provided hereunder, is
so terminated, BREA shall be compensated at BREA's monthly rate as specified herein, or
pro -rated program or service charges, as the case may be, prorated on the basis of a
mtny (30) day month. In no event, however, shall BREA receive more than the maximum
specified in paragraph 3(a), above, or Exhibit "A", as applicable, except as otherwise
provided herein.
7• Notir&s and Designated $epresentalives: Any and all notices, demands,
invoices and written communications between the parties hereto shall be addressed as set
forth in this paragraph 7. The below named individuals, furthermore, shall be those
persons primarily responsible for the performance by the parties under this Agreement:
TERRENCE 13ELANGER FRANK BENEST
City Manager City Manager
City of Diamond Bar City of Brea
21660 E. Copley, Suite 1001 Number One Civic Center Circle
Diamond Bar, CA 91'f65 Brea, CA 92621
Any such notices, demands, invoices and written communications, by mail, shall be deemed
to have been received by the addressee forty-eight (48) hours after deposit thereof in the
United States mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as set forth above.
8. Insurance: BREA shall neither commence work under this Agreement until
it has obtained all insurance required hereunder in a company or companies acceptable to
DIAMOND BAR nor shall BREA allow any subcontractor to commence work on a
subcontract until all insurance required of the subcontractor has been obtained. BREA shall
take out and maintain at all time during the term of this Agreement the following policies
City of Diamond Bar 5 Recreation Services Agreement
of insurance:
(a) Workers' compensation Insurance= Before beginning work, BREA shall furnish
to DIAMOND BAR a cbrtificate of insurance as proof that it has taken out full workers'
compensation insurance for all persons whom it may employ directly or through
subcontractors in carrying out the work specified herein, in accordance with the laws of
the State of California.
In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 3700, every employer
shall secure the payment of compensation to his employees. BREA prior to commencing
work, shall sign and file with DIAMOND BAR a certification as follows:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of Labor Code which require
every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake
self insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Agreement"
(b) Public Liability and proms Damage: 'Throughout the term of this
Agreement, at BREA's sole cost and expense, BREA shall keep, or cause to be kept, in
full force and effect, for the mutual . benefit of DIAMOND BAR and BREA,
comprehensive, broad form, general public liability and automobile insurance against claims
and liabilities for personal injury, death, or property damage arising from BREA's
activities, providing protection of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for bodily
injury or death to any one person or for any one accident or occurrence .and at least One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for property damage.
(c) . All insurance required by express provision
of this Agreement shall be carried only in responsible insurance companies licensed to do
City of Diamond Bar 6
Recreation Services Agreement
business in the State of California and policies required under paragraphs 8'. (a) and (b)
shall name as additional insureds DIAMOND BAR, its elected officials, officers,
employees, agents and .representatives. All policies shall contain language, to the effect
that: (1) the insurer waives the right of subrogation against DIAMOND BAR and
DIAMOND BAR's elected officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives; (2) the
policies are primary and noncontributing with any insurance that may be carried by
DIAMOND BAR; and (3) they cannot be canceled or materially changed except after thirty
(30) days' notice by the insurer to DIAMOND BAR by certified mai. BREA shall furnish
DIAMOND BAR with copies of all such policies promptly upon receipt of them, or
certificate evidencing the insurance, BREA may effect for its own account insurance not
required under this Agreement.
(d) Self-insurancei For purposes of this Agreement, the term "insurance" shall
include a self-insurance program as approved by DIAMOND BAR
9.
Indemnification -
(a) BREA shall defend, indemnify and save harmless DIAMOND BAR, its elected
and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees, fromall liability, from loss, damage
or injury to persons or property, including the payment by BREA of any and. all legal
costs and attorneys' frees, in any manner arising out of the acts and/or omissions of BREA
pursuant to this Agreement, including, but not limited to, all consequential damages, to the
maximum extent permitted by law.
(b) DIAMOND BAR shall defend, indemnify and save harmless BREA, its elected
and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees, from all liability from loss, damage
or injury to persons or property, including the payment by DIAMOND BAR of any and
City of Diamond Bar 7 Recreation Services Agreement
all legal costs and attorneys' fees, in any manner arising out of the acts and/or omissions
of DIAMOND BAR pursuant to this Agreement, including, but not limited to, all
consequential damages, to the maximum extent permitted by law.
10. ASs1gpment- No assignment of this Agreement or of any part or obligation
of performance hereunder shall be made, either in whole or in part, by BREA without the
prior written consent of DIAMOND BAR.
11. Ttidetzendent Cont=r.. The parties hereto agree that BREA and its
employees, officers and agents are independent contractors under this Agreement and shall
not be construed for any purpose to be employees of DIAMOND BAR.
12. GoverningLaw: 'This ' Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
13. AuQrney's= In the event any legal proceeding is instituted to enforce any
term or provision of the Agreement, the prevailing party in said legal proceeding shall be
entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs from the opposing party in an amount
determined by the court to be reasonable.
14. MediSL1on: Any dispute or controversy arising under this Agreement, or in
connection with any of the terms., and --conditions hereof, shall be referred by the parties
hereto for mediation. A third party, neutral mediation service shall be selected, as agreed
upon by the parties and the costs and expenses thereof shall be borne equally by the parties
hereto. In the event the parties are unable to mutually agree upon the mediator to be
selected hereunder, the DIAMOND* BAR City Council shall select such a neutral, third
party mediation service and said City Council's decision shall be final. The parties agree
to utilize their good faith efforts to resolve any such dispute or controversy so submitted
City of Diamond Bar 8 Recreation Services Agreement
to mediation. It is specifically understood and agreed by the parties hereto that referral of
any such dispute or controversy, and mutual good faith efforts to resolve the same thereby,
shall be conditions precedent to the institution of any action or proceeding, whether at law
or in equity with respect to any such dispute or controversy.
15. Term: The effective date of this Agreement shall be May 1, 1995, and it
shall remain in effect through and including April 30, 1998, unless sooner terminated.
16. Entire Agmments This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements,
either oral or in writing, between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein.
Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representation by any parry which is
not embodied herein nor any other agreement, statement, or promise not contained in this
Agreement shall be valid and binding. Any modification of this Agreement shall be
effective only if it is in writing signed by the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of
the day and year first set forth above:
Approved As To Form
ty Attorney - B
Approved As To Form
City Attorney • DiaWwnd Bar
CITY OF BREA
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Cle 4r/i�kjs
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Mayor
City of Diamond Bar 9 Recreation Services Agreement
�A
3.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ` 4
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
JULY 21, 1998
CALL TO ORDER: Chair/Huff called the meeting to order at 11:22 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera, O'Connor, Vice
Chairman/Ansari Chairman/Huff.
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, Executive Director; Michael Jenkins,
Agency Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Liu, Deputy
Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Mike Nelson,
Communications & Marketing Director; Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant, and
Lynda Burgess, Agency Secretary.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: AM/Herrera moved, VC/Ansari seconded, to approve the
Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS - Chang, Herrera, O'Connor, VC/Ansari,
Chair/Huff
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS - None
3.1 APPROVED MINUTES - Regular Meeting of July 7, 1998 as submitted.
3.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER dated July 21, 1998 in the amount of
$6,442.04.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
7. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS: In response to AM/O'Connor, CM/Belanger
explained that schematics had been received for the Country Hills Towne Center
and the Kmart Center. The remaining schematics had not yet been completed.
AGENCY ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct,
Chair/Huff adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m.
ATTEST:
Chairman
LYNDA BURGESS
Agency Secretary
DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman Huff and Board of Directors
FROM: Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant
SUBJECT: Voucher Register, August 4, 1998
DATE: July 30, 1998
Attached is the Voucher Register dated August 4,1998 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 in the amount of $144,682.12 is
hereby allowed from the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency Fund.
APPROVED BY:
inda Magnuson Robert S. Huff _
ssistant Finance Director Chairman
a
ivI
errence L. Belanger Eileen R. Ansari
Executive Director Vice Chairman
T- 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'-CT r.
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- - - - - - - - - - - -- -
14 d
HE I F
T
A
R C
C 7
4 z
i A
'-CT r.
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- - - - - - - - - - - -- -
14 d
STUDY SESSION:
1. CLOSED SESSION:
2. CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
INVOCATION:
ROLL CALL:
Next Resolution No. 98-46
Next Ordinance No. 04(1998)
12DL-0,
5:00 p.m.,hCC-3&5
Communications & Marketing
6:30 p.m., August 4, 1998
Mayor
Pastor Larry Grigsby, Calvary
Chapel
Council Members Ansari,
Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem
Chang, Mayor Herrera
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
3.1 Proclaiming Tuesday, August 4, 1998 as "National Night
Out."
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
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - Bobby Cochran & the Rock Around
the Clock Show (501s) - August 5, 1998 - 6:30 p.m.,
Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 E. Golden Spgs. Dr.
5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION - August 11, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - Alturas (Latin Jazz) - August
12, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 E.
Golden Spgs. Dr.
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 2
5.4 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - August 13, 1998 -
AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - August 18, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1.1 Regular Meeting of July 7, 1998 - Approve as
submitted. Continued from July 21, 1998.
6.1.2 Special Joint Meeting of July 17, 1998 -
Approve as submitted.
6.1.3 Regular Meeting of July 21, 1998 - Approve as
submitted.
Requested by: City Clerk
6.2 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular
Meeting of June 11, 1998 - Receive and File.
Requested by: Engineering Division
6.3 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated August
4, 1998 in the amount.of
Requested by: City Manager
6.4 TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of June, 1998 -
Recommended Action:
Requested by: City Manager
6.5 EXTENSION OF CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH JiMICHAEL HULS,
R.E.A., FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES - The City
has retained the services of a consulting firm with
experience in solid waste planning and integrated
environmental management program implementation. The
City's agreement with this firm, J. Michael Huls, R.E.A.,
will expire on August 15, 1998. The existing contract
allows the City to extend the contract. Consequently,
the City has prepared to extend the contract for one
year.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council (1)find that it is in the City's best interest to
extend the existing contract rather than request bids for
the services and (2) approve and authorize the Mayor to
extend the Consulting Services Agreement with J. Michael
Huls, R.E.A., in an amount not -to -exceed $43,276 for
services relating to the administration of the City's
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 3
solid waste permit system, the coordination of AB 939 and
program activities, and the implementation of the NPDES
permit requirements.
Requested by: Engineering Division
6.6 RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: CMP SELF -CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
Recommended Action:
Requested by: City Manager
6.7\� CONTRACT DMENT WITH ON RRA -
ecomme ed Ac 'on:
Re ted by: P ning Division
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters
can be heard. None
8. OLD BUSINESS:
8.1 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 03(1998): AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING CHAPTER 8.24 OF TITLE
8 OF THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 8 AND DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 11 OF THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AND REVISING THE CITY HEALTH
CODE - Continued from July 21, 1998.
Recommended Action:
Requested by: Planning Division
8.2 SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE REPORT ANALYSIS AND IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE -
Recommended Action:
Requested by: Engineering Division
8.3VRuemstt
OF �9R�
STATE LIST / .,�
ndO Acti n: \
by: City Manacef
8.4 EXCURSION CONTRACT PROVIDERS -
Recommended Action:
Requested by: Community Services Division
8.5 SELECTION OF RECREATION SERVICES PROVIDER - The extended
contract with the City of Brea to provide recreation
AUGUST 4, 1998
PAGE 4
services in D.B. expires on August 31, 1998. In response
to a Request for Proposals (RFP), the City has received
proposals from the City of Brea and the City of Chino
Hills. D.B. staff also developed an in-house proposal as
an alternative to contracting with another city for this
service. Staff has interviewed each of the proposers and
presented the results of the review process to the City
Council at a study session on June 16, 1998. Based on
the need to provide high quality service at a reasonable
cost, staff believes that the City of Brea should
continue as the recreation services provider. The City
of Brea has provided this service to the community for
the past seven years and continues to provide a quality
program. Brea is responsive to the City's needs and has
a well developed system established in Brea that provides
the necessary staff support to operate this contract
successfully.
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Next Resolution No. 98-07
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Huff
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera,
O'Connor, VC/Ansari, C/Huff
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 Sneaker's Card and dive it to the
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
3.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of July 21, 1998 -
Recommended Action: It is recommended that
the City
Council select the City of
Brea as provider of recreation
services in D.B. for the
period of September
1, 1998
through June 30, 2001
(3 years). It is
further
j
recommended that the City
Council direct staff
to bring
back the proposed contract
with the City of Brea to the
next City Council meeting
for approval.
�
�
Requested b: Community y Services
Division
9. NEW
BUSINESS: None
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Next Resolution No. 98-07
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Huff
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera,
O'Connor, VC/Ansari, C/Huff
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 Sneaker's Card and dive it to the
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
3.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of July 21, 1998 -
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 5
Approve as submitted.
Requested by: Agency Secretary
3.2 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated August
4, 1998 in the amount of
Requested by: City Manager
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
5. OLD BUSINESS:
6. NEW BUSINESS:
7. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Agency
Members are for agency discussion. Direction may be given at
this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a
future meeting.
AGENCY ADJOURNMENT:
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS:
11. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Council
Members are for Council discussion. Direction may be given at
this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a
future meeting.
12. ADJOURNMENT: