HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/15/1998Citi co"CII/
AGENDA
Tuesday, September 15,1998
4:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission CC -8
6:30 p.m. Regular Meeting
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Auditorium
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
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, arc on file in the Office of the
City Clerk, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item,
please contact the City Clerk at (909) 860-2489 during regular business hours.
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or
accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk
a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
II[.1MIND 11,18
Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking ' �.� The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper
in the Council Chambers. and encourages you to do the some.
�I
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.
THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY CENTURY COMMUNICATIONS
FOR AIRING ON CHANNEL 12, AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM, YOU ARE
GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. THIS MEETING WILL BE
RE-BROADCAST ON THE SATURDAY FOLLOWING THE COUNCIL MEETING AT
10:00 A.M. ON CHANNEL 12.
Next Resolution No. 98 -51
Next Ordinance No. 04(1998)
STUDY SESSION - 4:00 p.m., AQMD Room CC 8
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
1. CLOSED SESSION: None
2. CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m., September 15, 1998
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor
INVOCATION: Reverend Randy Lanthripe, Church in
the Valley
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Huff,
O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Chang, Mayor Herrera
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
3.1 Proclaiming September 14 - 20, 1998 as "San Gabriel
Valley Week."
3.2 Dr. Bill Feddersen, President of Mt. San Antonio College
to give a "Report to Our Communities."
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time
reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an
opportunity for members of the public to directly address the
Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to
the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on
this agenda. Although the City Council values your comments,
pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council generally cannot take
any action on items not listed on the posted agenda. Please
complete a Speaker's Card and give it to the City Clerk
(completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five
minute maximum time limit when addressing the City Council.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TASK FORCE MEETING - September 16,
1998 - 6:30 p.m., CC -2, AQMD, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.2 DIAMOND BAR SENIOR LITTLE LEAGUE RECOGNITION DINNER -
September 20, 1998 - 5:30 p.m., Diamond Bar Golf Course,
22801 Golden Spgs. Dr.
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 2
5.3 PLANNING COMMISSION - September 22, 1998 - 7:00 p.m.,
AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - September 24, 1998 - 7:00
p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - October 6, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.6 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - October 8, 1998 -
7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
6.1.1. Study Session of September 1, 1998 - Approve
as submitted.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of September 1, 1998 - Approve
6.2 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated
September 15, 1998 in the amount of $904,098.33.
Requested by: City Manager
6.3 EXONERATION OF CASH DEPOSIT IN LIEU OF LANDSCAPING BOND
(FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE, LABOR & MATERIAL) FOR 24168
HIGHCREST DRIVE (TR31977, LOT 20), DIAMOND BAR - The
owner, Antonio Tang, Promaster Design & Development Inc.,
requests the release of his cash deposit in lieu of
landscaping bond for improvement security as required in
accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. The Planning
Division finds that the owner performed all work as shown
on the landscaping plan on file with the City.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council approve exoneration of Cash Deposit, in the
amount of $10,000 posted with the City on May 23, 1996
and direct the City Clerk to notify the owner and surety
of this action.
Requested by: Planning Division
6.4 CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH PURKISS ROSE, RSI FOR PARKS
MASTER PLAN - The City contracted with Purkiss Rose, RSI
for development of the Parks Master Plan. The contract
included the cost for five copies of the draft version of
the Master Plan. The City requested and received a total
of 58 copies of the draft version of the Parks Master
Plan during the review process. The additional 53 copies
cost $2,906.02. A contract amendment is necessary in
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 3
order to compensate Purkiss Rose, RSI for the additional
copies. Also, the original term of the contract was
through December 31, 1997. It is proposed that the
contract date be extended to August 31, 1998.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council approve a contract amendment with Purkiss Rose,
RSI for the Parks Master Plan in the amount of $2,906.20
and extend the contract date to August 31, 1998. It is
further recommended that the City Council appropriate
$2,906.02 from General Fund reserves for the cost of this
amendment.
Requested by: Community Service Division
6.5 RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR OPPOSING EFFORTS TO MANDATE ALL
NEWLY HIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SOCIAL
SECURITY PROGRAM - Federal policy makers are developing
reform plans for the Social Security program. The
mandatory inclusion of Social Security coverage of newly
hired public employees and their employers have been
included in several legislative measures. The money from
the coverage would go to help re -balance the fiscally
troubled Social Security program. One of the reasons why
the new tax would apply to newly hired, presumed to be
younger public employees, is because the Federal
government would get the money today, with no obligation
to pay a benefit for some 40 years. Newly hired state
and local government employees and their employers would
be forced to remit 12.4% of pay. This could result in a
number of different outcomes including new benefits
structures.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX opposing efforts to
mandate all newly hired public employees to participate
in the Social Security Program.
Requested by: City Manager
6.6 RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR OPPOSING PROPOSITION 9 -
Proposition 9 would dismantle California's new
competitive electricity market, eliminating customer
choice and competitive electricity rates. If Prop. 9
passes, it is likely to result in revenue reductions to
local governments and critical services such as police
and fire, and may impair the ability of state and local
governments to secure low-cost financing for local
infrastructure bonds.
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 4
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX Opposing Proposition
9.
Requested by: City Council
6.7 RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23382, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 93-1, OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 95-2 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 95-2 - Warren Dolezal of the Dolezal
Family Limited Partnership is requesting approval of a
one-year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No.
23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree
Permit No. 95-2 in order to subdivide 2.55 acres into
four lots for development of four detached single family
residences. The request also includes an amendment to
the Oak Tree Permit for removal and replacement of one
oak tree. The project site is located in the 3000 block
(north side) of Steeplechase Ln., at the terminus of
Hawkwood Rd., adjacent to "The Country Estates." At the
conclusion of September 1, 1998 public hearing, Council
directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX Denying an Extension
of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional
Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2.
Requested by: Planning Division
6.8 RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING TERRENCE L.
BELANGER, CITY MANAGER; LINDA MAGNUSON, ASSISTANT FINANCE
DIRECTOR; AND KELLEE FRITZAL, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY
MANAGER TO SUBMIT AND FILE WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF
EMERGENCY SERVICES AS DESIGNATED AUTHORIZED AGENTS FOR
AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR OBTAINING
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS - The
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief & Emergency Assistance
Act (PL 93-288, as amended) was enacted by Congress to
provide for an orderly and continuing means of assistance
by the Federal Government to State and local governments
in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the
suffering and damage which results from disasters. The
City has heretofore submitted an application to the
Governor's Office of Emergency Services to receive
Federal and/or State financial assistance for emergency
work and other protective measures that were performed
during the winter storms that devastated portions of the
state earlier in the year. In order to receive
reimbursement for its eligible costs related to this
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 5
disaster and future potential disasters, the City must
designate representatives who are authorized to submit
certain forms and other documents to the Governor's
Office of Emergency Services.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX recognizing Terrence
L. Belanger, City Manager; Linda Magnuson, Assistant
Finance Director and Kellee Fritzal, Assistant to the
City Manager as authorized agents of the City for
obtaining Federal and/or State Disaster Assistance.
Requested by: City Manager
6.9 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE DESIGN OF BALLFIELD LIGHTS AT
LORBEER MIDDLE SCHOOL - The City of and the Pomona
Unified School District have entered into an agreement
for the City to fund installation of lights for the
football field at Lorbeer Middle School. The City
released a Request for Proposals (R.F.P.) to solicit a
qualified firm to design this project. Proposals were
received from three different firms; however, one
proposal was deemed to be non-responsive. After careful
review of the two responsive proposals, staff recommends
that the contract be awarded to David Evans & Associates.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council award a contract for design of balifield lights
at Lorbeer Middle School to David Evans & Associates, in
the amount of $34,090, plus a loo contingency of $3,400,
resulting in a total not -to -exceed amount of $37,490.
Requested by: Community Services Division
6.10 PAUL C. GROW PARK USE AGREEMENT - The agreement between
the City and Walnut Valley Unified School District for
Paul C. Grow Park at Quail Summit School has expired.
The proposed agreement would extend the use of that
property for park use for 15 years and provides for the
City operation of the Park during non -school hours.
Liability would accrue to the party that had the right to
use the property at the time a cause of action arose.
The current City budget for Paul C. Grow Park is $46,700.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council approve the agreement with the Walnut Valley
Unified School District for Paul C. Grow Park usage.
Requested by: Community Services Division
6.11 ADJUSTMENT TO GTE TELEPHONE INSTALLATION AGREEMENT FOR
SUITES 100 AND 190 - On May 5, 1998, Council approved a
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
PAGE 6
budget amount of $20,000 for relocation of telephones for
Suites 100 and 190, as well as an upgraded voice mail
system. At the time staff was planning the move from the
then Suite 100 into the new office space, it was believed
that $20,000 would be sufficient to accomplish moving the
phone system. The timing of the move into the new office
space occurred in such a way that in order to not have an
interruption in normal business hours, GTE was required
to work on the weekend of the move. Finally, with the
combination of these changes, circumstances have created
a need for additional funds to cover the cost of the
telephone relocation service. The estimate needed to
cover the total cost above the budgeted amount is
$2,633.20.
Recommended Action: It is
Council approve a contract
amount of $22,633.20 which
original budgeted amount of
Requested by: City Manager
recommended that the City
amendment with GTE in the
is $2,633.20 more than the
$20,000.
6.12 RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AGREEMENT This
amendment provides for administration of the San Gabriel
Valley Council of Governments Alameda Corridor -East,
Gateway to America Project (the ACE Project) and the day-
to-day implementation of the ACE Project.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX approving and adopting
the first amendment to the San Gabriel Valley Council of
Governments Joint Powers Authority Agreement, which would
create the Alameda Corridor -East, Gateway to America
Project (the ACE Project).
Requested by: City Manager
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as may be
heard. None
8. OLD BUSINESS:
8.1 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)
Continued from September 1 1998. Staff was directed to
negotiate with the applicant regarding a significant
benefit related to a request to remove the prohibitions
on construction of residential buildings.
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 7
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council receive a presentation from staff, proceed with
Council discussion and direct staff as appropriate.
Requested by: Planning Division
9. NEW BUSINESS: None
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Next Resolution No. RA 98-08
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 Speaker's Card and give it to the
Agency Secretary (completion of this form is voluntary).
There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the
Redevelopment Agency.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
3.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of September 1,
1998 - Approve as submitted.
Requested by: Agency Secretary
3.2 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated
September 15, 1998 in the amount of $6,790.03.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
S. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
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.
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 8
AGENCY ADJOURNMENT:
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS:
11. COUNCIL MEMBERS 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:
I I
YO
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
. r ,, I=QUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY
11 CLEPK
'.'k.d t`= -T DATE:
t' -) .r PHONE:
I expect to address the Council on the sjbject agenda item, Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
r,A
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT.
CITY
�CLERK 1 -�
DATE:
Old- �S" � "t�'I� �Y!`hP tJPHONE:gOl
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
U
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
L
CITY CLERK
DATE:A�, �6 f -
yds 1Yj� /11 PHONE: 7XI /Wz,
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
UA
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK q
DATE:
2 eotiA of SSP 2 l0 PHONE:
Of44(-A 91-W
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Sig�ure
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
JOINT MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. VISION FOR THE FUTURE AND REDEVELOPMENT
3. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ACTIVITIES
4. EXPECTATIONS OF THE COMMISSION
5. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND IMPACT MITIGATION
6 REGIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND SOLUTIONS
7. WILDLIFE CORRIDOR CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ACTIVITIES UPDATE
8. PROPOSED TRES HERMANOS CONSERVATION AUTHORITY STATUS
9. LARKSTONE PARK LAND TRANSFER STATUS
10. OTHER MATTERS OF MUTUAL INTEREST
11. ADJOURNMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION
12. RECESS OF CITY COUNCIL TO 6:30 P.M. MEETING
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
"QUICK CAP" MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
STUDY SESSION CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the Study
Session to order at 4:07 p.m., in South Coast Air Quality
Management Room CC 8, 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California.
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL: Council Members Huff and O'Connor, Mayor
Herrera. Council Member Ansari and Mayor Pro Tem Chang were
absent.
PLANNING CONN. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Kuo and Nelson, Vice
Chairman Tye and Chairman McManus. Commissioner Ruzicka was
absent.
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael
Jenkins, City Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David
Liu, Deputy Public Works Director; Mike Nelson, Communications &
Marketing Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Lynda
Burgess, City Clerk; Ann Lungu, Senior Planner, Kellee Fritzal,
Assistant to the City Manager and Anne Haraksin, Administrative
Assistant.
Mayor Pro Tem Chang arrived at 4:12 p.m.
Proposed items for discussion:
a. Vision for the future and Redevelopment
b. Redevelopment project area activities
C. Expectations of the Commission
d. Regional transportation planning and impact mitigation
e. Regional traffic impacts and solutions
f. Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority activities update
g. Proposed Tres Hermanos Conservation Authority status
h. Larkstone Park land transfer status
i. Other matters of mutual interest
RECESS:
RECONVENE:
4:32 p.m.
4:47 p.m.
Council Member Ansari arrived at 4:47 p.m.
ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION: 5:36 p.m.
1. CLOSED SESSION:
a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(California Government Code, Subdivision (a) of Section
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 2
54956.9) relating to the matter Barbara Beach Courschene,
et al vs. Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency, Case No. BC
175655
b) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
(California Government Code Section 59456.9(b).
CA/Jenkins announced that the Closed Session was held at that
no reportable actions were taken.
CLOSED SESSION ADJOURNMENT: 6:30 p.m.
2. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the regular
meeting to order at 6:35 p.m., in the Auditorium of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Dr.,
Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Dexter MacBride, Chairman of the
Board of Trustees, Mount San Antonio College.
INVOCATION: Dexter MacBride
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 Public Works Director; Mike Nelson,
Communications & Marketing Director; Bob Rose, Community
Services Director; Linda Magnuson, Assistant Finance Director
and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: No changes.
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
3.1 Proclaimed September 14 - 20, 1998 as "San Gabriel Valley
Week."
3.2 Pat Rasmussen, Mt. San Antonio College, gave a "Report to
Our Communities" highlighting the programs and activities
provided by the school.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Norman Bell, 405 Camarinas Dr., President
of the D.B. Senior Citizens Club. Membership is 177, weekly
attendance is approximately 90 persons. Pointed out that no
storage space is available to the Club, seating is too close
and limited. Need a larger center desperately. Asked for a
temporary center or enlargement of the present facility if a
new center cannot be obtained in the very near future.
Charles Doskow, Attorney, representing Mr. Dolezal, commented
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
5.
N
PAGE 3
on the discussion held at the last Council meeting regarding
Tentative Parcel Map 23382.
Allen Wilson, regarding Item 6.5, asked Council to look
further into the matter before making a decision on this
matter.
Sandy Erickson, regarding the Intent to Circulate a Petition -
asked that Council support the process.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 TELECOMMUNICATIONS TASK FORCE MEETING - September 16,
1998 - 6:30 p.m., CC -2, AQMD, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.2 DIAMOND BAR SENIOR LITTLE LEAGUE RECOGNITION DINNER -
September 20, 1998 - 5:30 p.m., D.B. Golf Course, 22801
Golden Spgs. Dr.
5.3 PLANNING COMMISSION - September 22, 1998 - 7:00 p.m.,
AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - September 24, 1998 - 7:00
p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - October 6, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.6 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - October 8, 1998 -
7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by MPT/Chang, seconded by C/Huff to
approve the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Items No.
6.5 and 6.7. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote.
6.1 APPROVED MINUTES:
6.1.1. Study Session
submitted.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting
submitted.
of September 1, 1998 - As
of September 1, 1998 - As
6.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated September 15, 1998 in
the amount of $904,098.33.
6.3 EXONERATED CASH DEPOSIT IN LIEU OF LANDSCAPING BOND
(FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE, LABOR & MATERIAL) FOR 24168
HIGHCREST DRIVE (TR31977, LOT 20), DIAMOND BAR - in the
amount of $10,000 posted with the City on May 23, 1996
and directed the City Clerk to notify the owner and
surety of this action.
6.4 APPROVED CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH PURKISS ROSE, RSI FOR
PARKS MASTER PLAN - in the amount of $2,906.20, extended
the contract date to August 31, 1998 appropriated
$2,906.02 from General Fund reserves for the cost of this
amendment.
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
PAGE 4
6.6 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-51: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR OPPOSING PROPOSITION
9.
6.8 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-52: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING TERRENCE
L. BELANGER, CITY MANAGER; LINDA MAGNUSON, ASSISTANT
FINANCE DIRECTOR; AND KELLEE FRITZAL, ASSISTANT TO THE
CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AND FILE WITH THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AS DESIGNATED AUTHORIZED
AGENTS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR
OBTAINING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR EMERGENCY
DECLARATIONS.
6.9 AWARDED CONTRACT FOR DESIGN OF BALLFIELD LIGHTS AT
LORBEER MIDDLE SCHOOL - to David Evans & Associates, in
the amount of $34,090, plus a loo contingency of $3,400,
resulting in a total not -to -exceed amount of $37,490.
6.10 APPROVED PAUL C. GROW PARK USE AGREEMENT - with the
Walnut Valley Unified School District for Paul C. Grow
Park usage.
6.11 APPROVED ADJUSTMENT TO GTE TELEPHONE INSTALLATION
AGREEMENT FOR SUITES 100 AND 190 - in the amount of
$22,633.20 which is $2,633.20 more than the original
budgeted amount of $20,000.
6.12 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-53: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING AND ADOPTING
THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AGREEMENT - creating
the Alameda Corridor -East, Gateway to America Project
(the ACE Project).
MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.5 RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR OPPOSING EFFORTS TO MANDATE ALL
NEWLY HIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SOCIAL
SECURITY PROGRAM - With respect to comments made by Allen
Wilson, C/Ansari requested that more material be made
available to Council prior to Council decision.
Moved by C/Ansari, seconded by C/O'Connor to continue the
matter to the next meeting. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll
Call vote.
6.7 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-54: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23382, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 93-1, OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 95-2 AND MITIGATED
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 5
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 95-2 - CA/Jenkins responded to
comments made by Mr. Doskow, Mr. Dolezal's attorney.
C/O'Connor and MPT/Chang disclosed that they had both met
separately with Mr. Dolezal since the last meeting.
Moved by C/Huff, seconded by C/Ansari to adopt Resolution
No. 98-54 denying extension of time for Tentative Parcel
Map No. 23382. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
8. OLD BUSINESS:
8.1 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) -
CM/Belanger explained that the applicant had made the
following proposal to provide a significant benefit for
removal of map restrictions: $1,200,000 remittance to
the City for deposit in the Parks & Facilities
Development Fund; replacement of paved parkways and
medians located at Gold Rush and D.B. Blvd and Tin Dr.
and D.B. Blvd. with landscaping; creation of a pastoral,
landscaped area on the corner of Gold Rush and D.B.
Blvd., the value of which is estimated at $270,000;
dedication of 350 acres open space land; deeding of the
open space land and 10 acres of park land to the City.
Dedicated open space in D.B. would increase from 578
acres to 928 acres.
Following discussion, C/Huff moved, seconded by
C/O'Connor to direct staff to bring back a resolution of
approval and findings consistent with the applicant's
current offer at the next Council meeting
LISTEN TO THE END OF SIDE 3
Motion carried 4-0 (C/Ansari voting no) by Roll Call
vote.
9. NEW BUSINESS: None
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING 8:45 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Huff called the meeting to
order at 8:45 p.m. in the Auditorium of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar,
California.
ROLL CALL: Agency members Chang, Herrera,
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
PAGE 6
O'Connor, VC/Ansari, C/Huff
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, Executive Director;
Michael Jenkins, Agency Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City
Manager; David Liu, Deputy Public Works Director; Mike Nelson,
Communications & Marketing Director; Bob Rose, Community
Services Director; Linda Magnuson, Assistant Finance Director
and Lynda Burgess, Agency Secretary.
2. PUBLIC COUNTS: None offered.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by AM/Herrera, seconded by
VC/Ansari to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0
by Roll Call vote.
3.1 APPROVED MINUTES - Regular Meeting of September 1, 1998 -
As submitted.
3.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated September 15, 1998 in
the amount of $6,790.03.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
7. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS: None
AGENCY ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to
conduct, C/Huff adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: M/Herrera reconvened the meeting
at 8:47 p.m.
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS:
11. COUNCIL MEMBER COUNTS: M/Herrera announced a new task force
to develop recommendations on a Community Center/Senior
Center. Representatives will include two members of the P &
R Comm., as designated by the Chair, two reps from D.B.
Seniors, Debby O'Connor and Bob Huff, each Council Member to
appoint 5 community members, 1 rep. from DBIA, 1 from the
Chamber and 2 from Friends of the Library as well as whatever
staff is considered appropriate. Asked for appointments by
Oct. 6. Report due to Council by June 30, 1999. Chair -
Huff.
Saturday, 11/7 for Town Hall meeting to discuss traffic and
proposed solutions.
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 PAGE 7
12. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to
conduct, M/Herrera adjourned the meeting at 9:12 p.m.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Mayor and City Council
MEETING DATE: September 15, 1998 REPORT DATE: September 11, 1998
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar Approving and Adopting the First
Amendment to San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Joint Powers Authority Agreement.
SUMMARY: This amendment provides for the administration of the San Gabriel Valley Council of
Governments Alameda Corridor -East, Gateway to America Project (the ACE Project) and the day-to-day
implementation of the ACE Project.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution approving and adopting
the first amendment to San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Joint Powers Authority Agreement, which
would create the Alameda Corridor -East, Gateway to America Project (the ACE Project),
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1.
Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
_ Yes
X No
by the City Attorney?
2.
Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
MAJORITY
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed?
N/A
` Yes
_ No
4.
Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
N/A
_ Yes
—No
Which Commission?
5.
Are other departments affected by the report?
N/A
_ Yes
—No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
RE WED BY:
rl 16A 0-�
Te ence L. Bela&r
City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO SAN GABRIEL VALLEY
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) was established by that certain Joint
Powers Authority Agreement entered into as of March 1, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the SGVCOG is contemplating approval of the Alameda Corridor -East, Gateway to America
Project (Project); and
WHEREAS, the SGVCOG is in the process of undertaking environmental review of such Project and is in the
process of seeking and receiving funds for the Project; and
WHEREAS, any funds received by the SGVCOG for the Project will include restrictions and responsibilities
concerning such funds, imposed by Federal, State and local entities, requiring the SGVCOG to monitor and
control the spending of such funds; and
WHEREAS, the administration of the Project and the day-to-day implementation of the Project will require
significant time and effort, which would detract from the SGVCOG Governing Board's other duties and
responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, the First Amendment to San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Joint Powers Authority
Agreement would create the Alameda Corridor East -Construction Authority which would have responsibility for
the day-to-day implementation of the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. That the First Amendment to San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Joint Powers
Authority Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is approved and adopted.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1998.
Carol Herrera, Mayor
I, Lynda Burgess, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was
passed, approved, and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on
, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
• ::; San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
3871 Fact (.nlnradn Rmulavard Shite illi Pacadana C.A 41107-3670 Phnna• 169615Rd-)709 Fax /6961564-1116 -
OFFICERS August 14, 1998
President
Algird G. Leiga
Hon. Carol Herrera
Vise President Mayor
Harry Baklwin
City of Diamond Bar
rreasurer/AYditor 21660 E. Copley Street, #100
Lara Blakely Diamond Bar, CA 91765
MEMBERS
A/bambra Re: Amendment to the SGVCOG JPA creating the ACE Construction Authority
Arcadia Dear Hon. Herrera:
Azusa
Beldiviv Peri' At the June 1998 meeting of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
Bradbury (SGVCOG), the Governing Board directed the preparation of documents necessary to establish
claremoet the entity that will conduct the day to day implementation of the Alameda Corridor -East,
Corina Gateway to America Project (the ACE Project).
Diamond Bar Enclosed is the "First Amendment to the San Gabriel Valley Council Of Governments
°aiRe Joint Powers Authority Agreement" and a sample resolution for adoption by your City Council.
fiNDiFte The Amendment will create the San Gabriel Gateway to America Construction Authority (the
Glendora "Construction Authority. ") The Amendment has been reviewed by the ACE Subcommittee and
industry their comments have been included in the document.
Irwindale
Please agendize the enclosed resolution for adoption of the "First Amendment to the San
La Puente Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Joint Powers Authority Agreement" by your City
I# verve Council prior to the September 17, 1998 meeting of the SGVCOG Governing Board (or as soon
Monrovia as practical).
Mootebeilo
MoatarayPorr Our goal is to have as many of the SGVCOG member cities as possible approve the
Pasadena Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement prior to the September 17th SGVCOG meeting so
Pomonthat other "start up" matters setting up the ACE Construction Authority can be considered for
Rosemead
approval by the SGVCOG Governing Board at the September 17th meeting.
aaamead
$8.9 Dimas Once created, the Construction Authority will be authorized to carry out the day-to-day
SITEGab/%el implementation of the ACE Project. Funds for the Project will be obtained by the SGVCOG
selllMeriea and forwarded to the Construction Authority by specific action of the Governing Board. The
Sierra NO" exercise of powers by the Construction Authority will be limited by such action, as well as the
South EiMovte amended SGVCOG By -Laws. The By -Law amendments have been and are being reviewed by
the ACE Subcommittee and will be in the agenda packet for the September 17, 1998 Governing
South Pasadena Board Meeting. The Committee will also review draft Standards of Conduct at its August 25,
Walnut 1998 meeting. That document will also be included in the agenda packet for the September
West Covina 17th meeting.
EXECUTIVE WRECTaRI
SECRETARY
Nicholas T Conway
Arroyo Associates, Inc
Please feel free to contact either Nick Conway (626) 564-9702, or Lee Dolley
(213) 236-2711 should you have any questions pertaining to the Amendment or the resolution.
Please forward the resolution adopted by your City Council to Nick Conway at your
earliest convenience.
We are moving forward on this important project.
Sincerely,
Vlgril-dti4egq: -iS-�
President
Enclosures
cc: Nick Conway
Lee Dolley
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO SAN GABRIEL VALLEY
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments ("SGVCOG") was
established by that certain Joint Powers Authority Agreement entered into as of March 1, 1994;
and
WHEREAS, the SGVCOG is contemplating approval of the Alameda Corridor — East,
Gateway to America Project ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the SGVCOG is in the process of undertaking environmental review of such
Project and is in the process of seeking and receiving funds for the Project; and
WHEREAS, any funds received by the SGVCOG for the Project will include restrictions
and responsibilities concerning such funds, imposed by Federal, State and local entities, requiring
the SGVCOG to monitor and control the spending of such funds; and
WHEREAS, the administration of the Project and the day-to-day implementation of the
Project will require significant time and effort, which would detract from the SGVCOG
Governing Board's other duties and responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, the First Amendment to San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Joint
Powers Authority Agreement would create the Alameda Corridor East - Construction Authority
which would have responsibility for the day-to-day implementation of the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the First Amendment to San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
Joint Powers Authority Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is
approved and adopted.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
1998.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
LAX2:167968.2
-2-
10 F.V001
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond
Bar, California do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar, California, at its regular meeting held
on the day of 1998, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
City Clerk,
City of Diamond Bar
FIRST AMENDMENT TO SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL
OF GOVERNMENTS JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Joint Powers
Authority Agreement ("Amendment") is entered into by and between the members of the
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments ("SGVCOG") and is intended to amend that
certain Joint Powers Authority Agreement ("JPA Agreement") entered into by and
between the members of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, effective
March 1, 1994. This Amendment is entered into with respect to the following facts:
RECITALS
1. Whereas the SGVCOG was established by that certain Joint Powers Authority
Agreement entered into as of March 1, 1994; and
2. Whereas the SGVCOG is contemplating approval of the Alameda Corridor — East,
Gateway to America Project ("Project"); and
3. Whereas the SGVCOG is in the process of undertaking environmental review of such
Project and is in the process of seeking and receiving funds for the Project; and
4. Whereas any funds received by the SGVCOG for the Project will include
restrictions and responsibilities concerning such funds, imposed by Federal, State and
local entities, requiring the SGVCOG to monitor and control the spending of such
funds; and
5. Whereas the administration of the Project and the day-to-day implementation of the
Project will require significant time and effort, which would detract from the
Governing Board's other duties and responsibilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, the members of the SGVCOG do hereby agree as follows:
SECTION 1. The JPA Agreement is hereby amended to include the following language:
"Section 27. Alameda Corridor — East, Gateway to America Construction
Authority.
a. In addition to the Governing Board of the Council, there shall be an
Alameda Corridor — East, Gateway to America Construction Authority
(the "ACE Construction Authority"). The ACE Construction Authority
shall have responsibility for the day-to-day implementation of the
Alameda Corridor — East, Gateway to America Project (the "Project") as
ultimately adopted and approved by the Governing Board pursuant to
Federal, State and local regulations. To facilitate such implementation of
the Project, the ACE Construction Authority, upon the assignment of
funds to it and subject to such restrictions imposed by Federal, State and
local Governmental entities and by the SGVCOG Governing Board, shall
have the following powers to act on behalf of the San Gabriel Valley
Council of Governments:
(1) To make and enter into contracts, including public works
contracts and contracts for design, materials and
construction, and for the services of engineers, consultants,
planners, and single purpose public or private groups, on
behalf of and in the name of the SGVCOG;
(2) To employ agents, officers and employees;
(3) To acquire, by purchase or eminent domain, construct,
reconstruct, rehabilitate, maintain in whole or in part, on
behalf of and in the name of the SGVCOG, land, facilities
and appurtenances necessary or convenient for the
completion of the Project;
(4) To lease, manage, maintain, and operate on behalf of and in
the name of the SGVCOG any buildings, works or
improvements; and
(5) To provide for or obtain insurance for the SGVCOG and
members of the ACE Construction Authority, and their
agents, officers, and employees.
b. The powers of the ACE Construction Authority shall be exercised only in
furtherance of the Project and may be further limited and/or expanded by
the SGVCOG by-laws, as adopted or amended by the Governing Board.
The ACE Construction Authority shall be comprised of nine (9) members,
the qualifications for which shall be set forth in the by-laws. The ACE
Construction Authority shall consist of one member from each municipal
jurisdiction within which the Project, or any phase thereof, will be
constructed; one member from each non-member jurisdiction: (the City of
Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles and the City of Pico Rivera); and
the President of the SGVCOG, or his or her delagee. For non-SGVCOG
member jurisdictions, participation on the Committee shall require an
agreement between the non-member jurisdiction and the SGVCOG by
which the non-member jurisdiction agrees to be bound by this Amendment
and the SGVCOG by-laws governing the ACE Construction Authority.
d. It is contemplated that the SGVCOG will receive funds to be used for the
Project from various federal, state and local funding sources and that the
Reg: 548.2
2
(.
1111J111111
—110t 11 � s
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
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
SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Diamond Bar City
Council will hold a special meeting to conduct an Closed Session on
Tuesday, September 15, 1998 at 5:45 p.m., for the purpose of:
a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING
LITIGATION (California Government Code, Subdivision (a)
of Section 54956.9) relating to the matter Barbara Beach
Courschene, et al vs. Diamond Bar Redevelopment
Agency, Case No. BC 175655
b) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED
LITIGATION
(California Government Code Section 59456.9(b).
SAID MEETING will be held in Room CC -9 of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond
Bar, California.
FURTHER INFORMATION may be obtained at the Office
of the City Clerk or by calling (909) 860-2489.
DATED: September 14, 1998
C N0TICESISPCMTG 116
/s/
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR O
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
OFF-SITE PARKING
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the meeting to order at 5:10
p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Room CC -8, 21865 E. Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, O'Connor, Mayor Pro
Tem Chang and Mayor Herrera. Council Member Huff was absent.
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, Diamond Bar City Manager; Michael Jenkins,
City Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Liu, Deputy Public Works
Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Mike Nelson, Communications &
Marketing Director; Linda Magnuson, Assistant Finance Director; Lynda Burgess, City
Clerk; Kellee Fritzal, Assistant to the City Manager; Anne Haraksin, Administrative
Assistant; Rose Manela, Assistant Civil Engineer; Steve Tamaya, Communications &
Marketing Coordinator; Captain Richard Martinez, Walnut Sheriffs Department; Lt. Dave
Stothers, Walnut Sheriffs Department, and Deputy Tim Perkins, Walnut Sheriffs
Department.
CM/Belanger stated that Council took action on 5 of the 6 motions that were presented by
the Off -Site Parking Task Force as follows:
Motion #1 - Increase enforcement of parking regulations.
Motion #2 - Institute a public information/public education campaign.
Motion #3 - Parking ticket enforcement.
Motion #4 - Not approved.
Motion #5 - Consider dispensation/permit program for parking unattached trailers and
boats on City streets for a period of 24 hours.
Motion #6 - Consideration of "No Parking" on street sweeping days.
Suggested measures for implementation of each of the approved motions had been
proposed by staff and should be considered at a regular Council meeting should Council
wish to adopt any of the measures.
Motion #1 discussion: In response to C/Ansari's question about the difference in cost
for the Sheriffs Parking Control Officer and the Public Service Officer, CM/Belanger
explained that the Public Services Officer position is more costly because it would be a
non-L.A. County position which would provide for 1 1/2 persons and a vehicle. The L.A.
County Parking Control Officer position (1 person) is a fixed item cost.
In response to C/O'Connor, CM/Belanger indicated that D.B. currently has 2 Community
Service Officers (CSO).
Lt. Dave Stothers explained the CSO duties in response to C/O'Connor's request. CSOs
issue approximately 100 citations per month.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 2
In response to MPT/Chang, Lt. Stothers reported that Option #1 could impact other Sheriff
Personnel depending upon whether 1 CSO would be able to handle the report volume.
C/O'Connor asked how many crime reports are taken daily on an average basis.
CM/Belanger responded that staff will provide this information.
C/Ansari asked if authorizing citation authority for the City's Code Enforcement Officer
would compensate for a CSO. She also asked if staff has checked with other cities who
have CSOs and how many citations are written.
CM/Belanger responded that staff does not recommend a position unless that position, to
a significant extent, supports itself. Currently, the City receives an amount of money in
parking revenues. Parking offenses are non -criminal and does not require police officers
or Sheriffs officers to issue citations. All revenue related to parking citations goes into the
City's General Fund through an administrative process. If Council proposes to add
personnel to issue parking citations, the expectation is that revenue will be added to the
system in order to support the additional personnel.
In responses to Clyde Hennessee, CM/Belanger stated that any position (volunteer or
employee of the City) is the City's responsibility with respect to potential liability claims.
Motion #2 discussion: No Comments.
Motion #3 discussion: C/O'Connor did not believe it is necessary for the City to be
given such detailed information. Time of day, date, location address and purpose of the
citation is all the data that is needed.
CM/Belanger explained that it is an expanded data collection and analysis. Questions
asked by the task force members during their discussions are included in the analysis.
Council needs to determine what additional information might be required to conduct
additional analysis.
In response to M/Herrera, CM/Belanger explained that a document accompanying the
citation pad could be checkmarked by categories. An individual or service could be
engaged to record the data. Reviewing hours of tape recordings may not be an effective
use of resources.
In response to C/O'Connor, Lt. Stothers stated that the Sheriffs Department supervisors
periodically review reports. A civilian prepares reports using data from the logs.
C/Ansari liked the idea of a simple check list that includes all of the categories to be used
for data reporting.
Motion #5 discussion: MPT/Chang asked if the annual permit would allow for an
unattached trailer or boat to be parked on the City's streets.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 . PAGE 3
CM/Belanger responded that an unattached item would be subject to a temporary permit.
M/Herrera asked for explanation of the "Preferential Parking" program.
DDPW/Liu responded that Division 6 of the Municipal Code provides for Preferential
Parking.
In response to MPT/Chang, DDPW/Liu indicated that the permit application includes
information regarding current use of the residential garage area. Prior to issuance of the
parking permit, staff will verify the parking conditions. In the event of a violation, the permit
will not be issued.
CM/Belanger stated that parking restrictions that currently affect property owners in D. B.
are limited in number and location. Residents primarily affected are those in the vicinity
of Evergreen Elementary and D.B. High School due to limited street parking restrictions,
the purpose of which is to keep students from parking in the residential neighborhood. As
a result, residents are also restricted from street parking. A permit system would provide
for residents who live in limited areas to park in the street at any time and not be subject
to citation.
In response to Mr. Hennessee, CM/Belanger explained that cities which have overnight
parking restrictions generally will grant parking permits in those areas where there is
inadequate garage space as a result of construction. The proposed draft will need to be
modified to reflect the state of restrictions that exist in this community.
CM/Belanger recommended that the Parking Ordinance provide for posting of areas where
special situations exist (he cited the example of motorhomes used for business purposes,
not tagged commercial and parked on City streets).
In response to C/O'Connor, CM/Belanger stated that parking regulations take effect the
day they are posted and there is no grandfathering.
Motion #6 discussion: CM/Belanger responded to Clyde Hennessee that street
sweeping restriction signage will be limited to a specified time.
In response to MPT/Chang, CM/Belanger stated that if a street sweeping restriction is
implemented, Council will need to determine a fixed amount for the parking fine.
General City Council Discussion and direction to staff:
Motion #1: C/Ansari asked staff to determine which option is more cost effective with
respect to employing a Public Service Officer.
MPT/Chang asked staff to obtain more input from the Sheriffs Department with respect to
Options #1, 2, 4 and 5.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 4
Motion #2: No discussion.
Motion #3: MPT/Chang asked staff to obtain more input from the Sheriffs Department
regarding Option #2.
C/Ansari asked staff to provide examples of forms used by other cities.
Motion #6: CM/Belanger confirmed to M/Herrera that all options will be expanded upon
by staff for further discussion.
Motion #6: M/Herrera asked staff to provide information regarding what a proposed
Ordinance might look like.
In response to M/Herrera, CM/Belanger recommended that staff provide the requested
information for a Council Study Session on October 20, 1998. Packets will be provided
to Council Members a week in advance of the session. Staff will research the minutes of
the Task Force meetings to be certain that all questions and concerns are addressed.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, Mayor Herrera adjourned
the Study Session at 6:21 p.m.
ATTEST:
Mayor
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
2
3.
MINUTE5 OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
CLOSED SESSION: None
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the meeting to order at 6:42
p.m. in the Auditorium of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865
E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Assembly Member Sally Havice
INVOCATION: Dr. James Price, Diamond Canyon Christian
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; George Wentz, City Engineer;
David Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works; Bob Rose, Community Services
Director; Mike Nelson, Communications & Marketing Director; Linda Magnuson,
Assistant Finance Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
3.1 Presented Certificate of Recognition to Assembly Member Sally Havice for
her efforts toward stopping Senate Bill 2010.
3.2 Presented Certificates of Recognition to D.B. Little League Senior Division
for becoming "Senior Division Little League World Series Champions."
RECESS: M/Herrera recessed the meeting at 7:12 p.m.
RECONVENE: M/Herrera reconvened the meeting at 7:38 p.m.
3.3 COMMUNITY RECOGNITIONS:
Presented Certificate of Recognition to Karen Escarcega for her civic -
mindedness in maintaining public areas.
3.4 Proclaimed September 19, 1998 as "Coastal Cleanup Day."
3.5 Proclaimed September 14-19, 1998 as "Pollution Prevention Week."
M/Herrera thanked the Dodger organization for hosting the D.B. Little League team
at the Thursday, September 24 Dodger game. 1500 tickets are available to family
and friends of the Team at half price.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 2
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dr. Lawrence Rhodes reminded everyone to take
special precautions during the current heat wave and to conserve energy whenever
possible.
Jeff Koontz, Chamber of Commerce Interim Director, announced a Candidates'
Forum at 6:00 p.m. on October 13 at SCAQMD. A Business Exposition will be held
on October 24 in the Kmart Parking Lot. The September 17 Chamber Mixer will be
held at Kellogg West. "Diamond Bar Where the Action Is" will return to Cable TV
next Tuesday. A Business Mixer will be held on September 24 at the Ontario
Airport.
Lydia Plunk spoke about questioning the accuracy of political flyers that are
prepared by anonymous sources. She reminded everyone that flyers placed in mail
boxes do not conform to postal regulations nor do they conform to FPPC
regulations.
Clyde Hennessee agreed with Mrs. Plunk's comments regarding the flyer.
Sandy Erickson indicated that she had several questions regarding the SunCal
project.
CA/Jenkins reminded everyone that the Public Hearing for the SunCal project was
closed at the last meeting. No further testimony can be taken at this time. The
Public Hearing can only be re -opened if it is properly noticed.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 LABOR DAY HOLIDAY - September 7, 1998 - City Offices will be closed.
Will reopen Tuesday, September 8, 1998.
5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION - September 8, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., SCAQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - September 10, 1998 -
7:00 p.m., SCAQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - September 15, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., SCAQMD
Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.5 DEDICATION OF MEMORIAL TO OSCAR LAW - September 15, 1998 -
10:00 a.m., Heritage Park, 2900 Brea Canyon Rd.
5.6 RECOGNITION DINNER HONORING LITTLE LEAGUE, 1998 SENIOR
DIVISION WORLD CHAMPIONS - Sunday, September 20, 1998 - 5:30 p.m.
- D. B. Country Club - Tickets $10.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 3
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by C/O'Connor, seconded by C/Ansari, to
approve the Consent Calendar. 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 - Special Meeting/Workshop of August 18, 1998 - as
submitted.
6.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated September 1, 1998 in the
amount of $470,811.78.
6.3 RECEIVED AND APPROVED TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of July,
1998.
6.4 EXONERATED CASH DEPOSIT IN LIEU OF GRADING BOND (FAITHFUL
PERFORMANCE, LABOR & MATERIAL) FOR 2720 SHADOW CANYON -
in the amount of $9,234 posted with the City on December 2, 1996 and
directed the City Clerk to notify the Owner and Surety of this action.
6.5 REDUCED SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT BONDS (FAITHFUL
PERFORMANCE AND LABOR & MATERIAL) FOR TRACT NO. 47850
(DIAMOND BAR WEST PARTNERS) - (a) Bond No. 418853S - Grading
Bond in the amount of $3,192.558, reduced to $1,596,279; (b) Bond No.
418854S - Sewer/Street S.D. in the amount of $1,365,892, reduced to
$682,946; (c) Bond No. 418855S - Domestic Water in the amount of
$416,803.20, reduced to $208,401.60; (d) Bond No. 418857S -
Monumentation in the amount of $8,500, reduced to $4,250; and (e) directed
the City Clerk to notify the Principal and Surety of these actions.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
7.1 EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23382,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-1, OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 95-2 AND
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 95-2.
Following Council questions of staff, M/Herrera opened the Public Hearing.
Kurt Nelson, representing D.B. Associates and as President of the Estates
at Crystal Ridge Homeowners Assn., asked Council to clarify the map with
respect to access to the proposed Dolezal development.
Warren Dolezal stated that the clarification regarding the development's
access was made by a judge in Trial Court. He stated that he continues to
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 4
work with The Country Estates to obtain annexation and asked for an
extension of time to resolve the issue.
In response to C/O'Connor, Mr. Dolezal stated that, for the second time, he
applied to The Country Estates Homeowners Assn,.for annexation on April
4, 1998. Their response was that the map must first be finalized. He
explained how it was determined that the large oak tree would have to be
removed in order to mitigate the ancient landslide.
In response to C/Ansari, Mr. Dolezal stated the project is not landlocked at
this time. Access had been determined by the court via Steeplechase Lane.
C/Huff stated that at the time he served on the Planning Commission, it was
represented that the project was a part of the TADCO agreement. He asked
if it is true that the project is not a part of the TADCO agreement.
Mr. Dolezal responded that the TADCO agreement has different things and
refers to adjacent/adjoining property to The Country Estates. He said they
were not notified that there was any suit from The Country Estates against
D.B. Development Company at that time so they were essentially left out by
D.B. Development Company with respect to anything contained within the
TADCO agreement. However, the street that the proposed project has full
access to is a part of the TADCO agreement.
MPT/Chang asked Mr. Dolezal if the access was to be via Hawkwood Rd. in
1995 when the map was approved by the City.
Mr. Dolezal indicated that the representation since 1976 was that access
was available through Steeplechase Lane as well as through The Country
Estates and the development consisted of multiple lots.
Kurt Nelson stated that if the map is extended, his homeowner's association
is anxious to learn where the access point is to get from either of The
Country Estates gates to the point of exercise of the implied easement
should it withstand any appeal.
Dave Kersey, 23403 E. Wagon Trail Rd., asked how the oak tree
replacement policy was determined.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the Planning Commission was concerned
about the loss of the massive oak tree. The Commission felt that a 20:1, 36"
box tree replacement would be appropriate in this case.
Mr. Kersey suggested that the City determine a standard formula for tree
replacement.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 5
There being no further testimony offered, M/Herrera closed the Public
Hearing.
Following discussion C/Huff moved, C/Ansari seconded, to direct staff to
come back with a resolution of denial of the extension until the applicant can
demonstrate access to his property through The Country Estates. 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. OLD BUSINESS:
8.1 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).
The following is verbatim discussion of the Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership
SunCal project:
M/Herrera: "First, Mr. Jenkins, if you would clarify for us again the
parameters regarding additional public input."
CA/Jenkins: "Thank you, Mayor. As I indicated earlier, the Public Hearing
on this item has been closed. Council has heard a considerable amount of
testimony at two previous Council meetings and at the last meeting, closed
the hearing. As a consequence, under the generally understood rules
governing the approval of or the consideration of quasi-judicial matters such
as these permits, the Council can no longer accept any testimony. If the
Council has a very specific factual question it needs to ask either staff or the
applicant for purposes of clarification in order to better understand
something, the Council can certainly ask the question. But it is no longer
appropriate for the Council to receive any further testimony unless, as I
indicated earlier, the Council wished to renotice and reopen the hearing for
another evening."
M/Herrera: "Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins. So now it comes to the Council
to deliberate amongst ourselves and I guess to ask questions of clarification.
Okay. We'll start off with Mr. Huff."
C/Huff: "Thank you, Mayor. First I would like - part of the problem when we
hold these meetings over a series of dates is the advantage is it's not
rammed, the disadvantage is you lose some continuity. And there are
people that are not familiar with what the development process is in town.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 6
When somebody has an application and when they're looking to buy land or
when they bought land and they come to the City Hall, what is the procedure
that takes a parcel from wanting to purchase it to getting a Tract Map from
the City to develop. Could you or staff just give us a brief little overview of
that process."
CM/Belanger: "Well, as far as the purchase of land is concerned that's a
private decision and we don't, as a rule, advise for or against the purchase
of property. As far as the processing of land use entitlements, and that's
what you have before you this evening is a request for a land use
entitlement, there is an established procedure in the City's Zoning Ordinance
- Development Code, if you will - which includes the Subdivision Map Act
and there are specific procedures that are set forth for requesting
entitlements under both the Development Code and the Subdivision Map
Act. When an applicant is deemed to have complied with the requirements
so that an application is deemed to be complete, the process is begun, an
environmental consultant is retained to provide the Environmental Impact
Report - the Developer pays for or the applicant pays for the cost of that
consultant. The City retains the consultant. The consultant works for the
City, works at the direction of the City, answers to the City. The purpose of
that is to keep the environmental analysis as independent as possible and
as objective as possible. Engineering consultants are retained by the City
to provide Engineering Plan Checking and other engineering activities to
oversee the applicant's engineer. The City retains a geologist to oversee
and review the applicant's geotechnical engineers and soils engineers.
When the Environmental Impact Report is at a point where it can be set for
Public Hearing and the actual Map itself is deemed to have complied through
the evaluation by the various consultants it is set for Public Hearing at the
Planning Commission level. And for as many Public Hearings as it takes to
get this matter through the public, the Planning Commission will either
recommend approval of a series of actions and you have several of those
before you this evening, or they'll recommend a denial of the applicant's
application. When it comes to the City Council, again, it's set for Public
Hearing. Public testimony is taken for as much time as the Council deems
appropriate. Public Hearings are closed and the matter comes to the City
Council for deliberation."
C/Huff: "Okay. Thank you for that. So early in the process, basically an
applicant would come to you and say what do you have, what guidelines do
we need to follow within this City and you show them the General Plan or the
Development Code or whatever these different documents are and they
march off and consult with their attorneys and consultants and come up with
a plan."
CM/Belanger: "Basically, they review the General Plan, they are advised to
review the General Plan, and all of their land use policies related to what
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 7
they are asking for in the way of entitlements and get an understanding of
those areas that they may have questions about. Staff will provide
information and guidance on how to proceed with that. So any questions
they have however, that have to do with their rights, they are advised to seek
their private counsel."
C/Huff: "Okay. Thank you. There's a lot of misinformation floating around
the community. Some of this I've fielded in phone calls, some that has been
mentioned from the podium, in flyers and there have been letters. So I'd just
like to ask a few questions. First of all, could someone point out on the
overhead or if we could zoom in on one of the maps, a picture of the map
and the portion of the parcel that is being recommended to develop for the
130 homes that's before us. And for those of you who have been through
this, please bear with me. We want to give some context to it."
CM/Belanger: "Ann, will you outline the 339 acre site that we've discussed.
Ok. And now will you outline the site that is the subject of this applicant's
subdivision request. That's approximately 65 acres. The balance of that
site that you see inside those yellow lines, as a requirement of the City's
General Plan must be dedicated for Open Space. And to anticipate your
next question, all of that land is owned by the applicant."
C/Huff: "And additionally, there's another parcel that you can't see there.
A non-contiguous piece"?
CM/Belanger: "Ann, if you could, find Pantera Park and then right to the
east of that up there where the water tanks are there is approximately an 80
acre site. Approximately 90 acres of land running along the eastern border
is a parcel of land also owned by the applicant which is otherwise referred
to as Parcel 9."
C/Huff: "Ok. And that is also, according to the General Plan, to be
dedicated to Open Space?"
CM/Belanger: "According to this application, its dedicated for Open Space."
C/Huff: "Ok. Thank you. If someone could point out where Sycamore
Canyon, Upper Sycamore Canyon is on this because I've heard comments
this is going to be filled in. I would like to look at that in perspective to the
project."
CM/Belanger: "Ok. On the southern border of the site through - and you
can see the coloration there, that's the northward facing slope and that's the
heavily vegetated area of what is commonly referred to as Upper Sycamore
Canyon and there's a reason why we call it Upper Sycamore Canyon,
because there's a lower Sycamore Canyon there which is the City Park.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 8
That area is not a part of this project and the staffs recommendation has
been consistently that it should not, under any circumstance, be a part of this
project."
C/Huff: "Yet there is some information going around that it's going to fill the
canyon and people are assuming it's Sycamore Canyon. I just wanted to
clarify that. It's been said that Diamond Ranch is going to be used to - we
can take that off. That's what I needed for perspective - but it's been said
that there's going to be dynamite used to level this property or assist in the
grading. What's your answer to that?"
CM/Belanger: "I understand that dynamite has been specifically excluded,
but I'll defer to the City Engineer."
CE/Wentz: "There's a condition written to that effect."
CM/Belanger: "Dynamite will not be used and I'm going to presume no other
kind of explosive just in case..."
C/Huff: "Does the City own any of the parcel we just showed?"
CM/Belanger: "All the parcels showed are owned by Diamond Hills Ranch
Partners/SunCal Development Incorporated. None of the land that are the
subject of this entitlement application is owned by the City of D.B."
C/Huff: "Is the City selling or wanting to sell any of our land or open space
land?"
CM/Belanger: "We don't own it - we can't sell it."
C/Huff: "Ok. Because that's also a comment that's been made. It's been
said the developer can't build unless the City Council says yes. Does the
property owner have the right to build homes on their property?"
CM/Belanger: "Yes and no."
C/Huff: "Ok. And the reason being that they have....."
CM/Belanger: "Well, let me explain that because..."
C/Huff: "Oh, please do."
CM/Belanger: "47 acres of this parcel, otherwise known as Parcel 6 is, I
guess, another way of saying, is unencumbered or unburdened by any
restrictions. The balance of the property, and I won't go through the
numbers, but the balance of the property that you - that we just showed you,
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 9
is encumbered by a restriction that was set forth in the Map several years
ago. That restriction dedicates to the City of D.B. - at that time it was the
County of L.A. or its successor in interest, the City of D.B. - the right to
prohibit the construction of residential buildings. That's the restriction about
which we're talking. So when you say do they have a right to build, in
essence they have a right to build subject to the discretion of the City
Council on their 47 acres and they don't have a right to build without the City
Council relinquishing its right to prohibit the construction of residential
buildings on the portions of two parcels that are a part of this application -
Parcel 7 and Parcel 5."
C/Huff: "Ok. So they have clear right to build on some, they have
conditional rights on other, condition upon our approval or lifting of these
restrictions."
CM/Belanger: 'Well, they have rights that are subject to the discretion of the
City Council on all of the property."
C/Huff: "Okay. But some is a lot clearer than others."
CM/Belanger: "That's correct."
C/Huff: "Just like I have the right to build a single family dwelling unit but I
have to have a permit before the City that meets everything."
CM/Belanger: "Correct. And the City Council can exercise its discretion
under the General Plan, the Subdivision Act and the Development Code in
relationship to the project that an applicant provides before you. And the
reason that I make this distinction, there isn't an unlimited right to anything.
All rights are somewhat limited by the City Council's exercise of its
descretion under the General Plan, the Subdivision Map and the
Development Codes that specifically applies a 47. To the others, there is a
police power that has been reserved to the City in relationship to the
prohibition of the construction of residential buildings. And that is a right that
you have to specifically relinquish an order for a right to arise on that parcel
of land - those parcels of land."
C/Huff: "I would suggest to anybody that's tried to build a room addition or
deck or whatever, knows this City reserves rights to shape things and have
the last say. It's been said the project will generate 2,000 or more cars per
day. What are the actual projections from the traffic consultant?"
CM/Belanger: "I'll ask Mr. DeStefano to respond to that."
DCM/DeStefano: "It's approximately 1300 trips per day."
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 10
C/Huff: "It has been said the project will mean 1,000 less oak trees. What's
the actual impact to the site?"
CM/Belanger: "410 oak trees, 30 walnut trees, I believe is what the EIR
report indicates. Is that correct Mr. DeStefano?"
DCM/DeStefano: "Yes sir."
C/Huff: "And there was a question earlier about having a standard policy.
We do have a standard oak tree replacement and that ratio is?"
DCM/DeStefano: "City Code prescribes a 2:1 replacement ratio. We have
approved projects over the years with replacement ratios generally in the
3:1, 4:1 range."
C/Huff: "And in this one we did 4:1 didn't we on the oak trees depending on
the size?"
DCM/DeStefano: "Yes."
C/Huff: "And there's someone that spoke and I believe it was, somebody
spoke last time about a standard replacement ratio being 5 to 10:1 and that's
you know, maybe in some very special areas but it's not a standard
replacement. Actually, 2:1 is the County's replacement ratio and we typically
do higher than that. So we have 410 that are impacted. We have a
replacement ratio of 4:1 for that. So we actually end up with more oak trees
if you're taking a time -expanded scenario, there will be more oak trees on
this than there is now. Is that right?"
CM/Belanger: "That's correct. There's a replacement ratio of 4:1 - 1,600."
C/Huff: "It's been said the project will take two years to grade. How long is
the grading period?"
CM/Belanger: "City Engineer indicates it's 6 months."
CE/Wentz: "6 to 12 months depending on the equipment that they put out
there. And certainly no more than 12."
C/Huff: "Ok. And it's certainly not 2 years, also. It's said it'll take 3 years in
building. What's the actual - do we have an estimate on the building time?"
CM/Belanger: "It's a little bit tougher but we can give you a point of
reference in relationship to a project on Brea Canyon Rd. They're in Phase
II at this point. They were in Phase II in the sales of their homes before they
put up their models. There appears to be a demand, at least in the
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 11
marketplace today, for these types of products. It would be fair to say that
its not going to be 3 years, but it would probably be difficult to say precisely
the length of time, but if you use that as a gauge because it is about the
same size subdivision, more like 18 months."
C/Huff: "Ok. And I'm not looking for a hard and fast, I'm just looking for a
ballpark figure. You know, in the course of the hearing and prior to that -
and I guess I should say for the record I have talked to the residents, I've
read additional letters and had comments. I've talked to the applicant and
that this has been a Public Hearing process, you know, disclose that right
now - in the process I've talked to a lot of fine people in the community and
I know you have concerns. And it's unfortunate that there are people who'll
put things out without a name and use scare tactics to try to get you in here
and get you angry at what we're trying to do. You know, we're here
representing you. We may not always represent your exact idea, but that's
our job and that's hopefully what we're doing. But not just the people in the
room here or the neighbors to the project, but the whole community. And
when we wake up five years, 10 years down the road, whatever we do here
is something we need to be proud of after the emotion of the moment has
passed. And I just want to let you know that regardless of how I come out of
this process, that's how I look at this. Historically, and I think we have so
much data on this, I can't tell you. I got two big things I'm hauling in tonight
and it's easy to get bogged down in the microscopic and so, for a moment,
I'd like us to go back up to the larger perspective because we have a
Planning Commission that looks at this thing in a more of a microscopic way
from a planner's eyes. And they did that. That's their job. The Planning
Staff, as you heard the process, works with the applicant up to the point it
goes to the Planning Commission then it hits the public comment. You come
in. You may or may not like how it's folded in but they react to that, they
exact things from the applicant and then it moves on up the process. But the
Planning Commission did go through that process. And our job is perhaps
to take a look at more of a simple level. Is it a good project for D.B. But
that's a subjective thing. What's a good project? What's a good project to
a person on this side of the room is a bad project to someone on that side
of the room. And so we have some standards that try to objectify that - the
standards of the General Plan, the Development Code that we've been
working on, oak tree replacement - those types of things are ways we try to
objectify and make what a standard type of project, what is a good project.
But that still comes down to as you keep hearing, a significant benefit.
When we are seeking to lift something, what is a significant benefit if we're
lifting a Map Restriction, what is a significant benefit. That's a moving target.
It varies. So I'd like to give us a little bit of history about where this whole
project came from. Originally this thing started around 10 years ago from
what I understand. And the former owner was a company called Bramalea.
And the City was incorporating about that time. There were some concerns
that we were being overdeveloped, rampant development. And when we
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 12
sought to develop a General Plan the City came up with the idea that you
know, perhaps we should be seeking a significant open space dedication.
And so the owner of the property, Bramalee at the time with the City, came
up with the MOU that most of you have heard about which sought to set
aside 75 percent of the parcel as dedicated open space to the City and for
that consideration they would be allowed to build 110 to 135 homes. The
MOU went bye-bye when the General Plan was finally adopted several years
later. But I was a part of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and
at that point in time, the significant benefit always was the land. We had
never had any project come before the City where we had had a dedication
of open space like that. The County would lift Map Restrictions with seeming
willy-nilly and that was part of the reason that compelled us to become a
City. So this project was one of the first ones we had an opportunity to
shape and the City Council at that time - the City fathers if you will - felt that
75 percent was a significant benefit. There was no monetary contribution.
That was written into the General Plan. The fear back then always was that
the developer would find a way to run around the intent of the MOU and
that's what we discussed in the General Plan - how do you keep these guys
to it? We tried to write language into the General Plan that's more difficult
to get around. And so the General Plan didn't have a minimum. It didn't say
110 to 135 homes, it said up to 130 homes. And it had a dedication of open
space of a minimum of 75%, 1 believe is how it was put, as well as a 2 acre
pad parcel down at Goldrush and D.B. Blvd. But the idea was to try to write
it specifically so that there wouldn't be a whole lot of wiggle room. And then
Bramalee went bankrupt. So there was some concern, I had conversations
with one developer who took a look at the parcel and said it didn't pencil out.
There wasn't much he could do with it. And then SunCal came to me and I
presume the other Council Members, and said, what is your perspective on
the City's General Plan related to this Planning Area 2 which is that property.
And I said you know, I was on the General Plan Advisory Committee when
that thing was drafted, I followed it through the process, I liked the intent -
the MOU before that. If you bring a project before the City consistent with
that then you know, I'm going to look more or less favorably on it, all things
being equal. I was pleased at the time there was somebody that was going
to follow the guidelines and not trying to do something else with the property.
So while our fear was that the developer would try to run and change things,
the opposite has happened. We have upped the anti. We have decided,
according to the public testimony that I heard last time, that land's not a
significant benefit, you know. We have that already. We don't have that
land already. We can look at it and some of us trespass on it. I'm here to
say I used to walk my dog and ride my bike on it pretty regularly. But that
doesn't mean its ours. And whoever owns it, even if its a dedication of open
space unless it's deeded to the City, if they erect fences and put "No
Trespassing" signs, we can look at it but we don't have access to it. Part of
the strategies in the General Plan was to acquire open space resources.
Other strategies were developed to acquire them at reduced or no cost to
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 13
the City. This was always perceived as a good deal to the City as long as
they stayed out of the canyon bottom and we clustered the development so
that it made sense. There's a strategy in there as far as clustering so that
you're preserving sensitive resources. And you know, there is impact.
There's no question about that. 25% of the coastal - a, the live oak trees
there, are being removed. As was stated earlier, they're being replaced at
a 4:1 ratio. But you look at what is saved - 75% of the oak trees are being
saved/preserved. And if this project comes forward, then the City gets that
land. And they get that. They acquire the open space. You don't have a
developer coming to us 5 years down the road saying 'yeah, I understand
you need this or that and here's what we'd like to do for you to lift the
restrictions on this property.' To me, I've got to tell you, I know significant
benefit is a moving target and it's subjective, but that's significant to me. I
want to be able to say to my kids, this property belongs to the City. This is
ours to enjoy. We have a trail from Sycamore Canyon up to Summitridge
that you can hike and enjoy the wildlife and the riparian area down below
that's natural and undisturbed by developers because we had the foresight
to secure it for the City. I want to tell you the flip side of that. There is a
project and that was referenced also two weeks ago, commonly known as
the Sandstone Canyon project. I was like a lot of you, not really interested
in City stuff until I served on the General Plan Advisory Committee and
became fascinated with what was going on in this City. And one of the early
things that was going on was the negotiations over the South Point Master
Plan. There was a proposal to do one thing. There was a group of residents
who opposed that. There was a compromise position that would have
clustered the housing away from the canyon bottom, save the canyon bottom
with the exception of a road going to South Point Middle School because
they needed a secondary access over there. Those of you who live over by
South Point Middle School, the impacted neighbors, wanted secondary
access and so did most of the community. But this would have deeded to
the City 75 acres of prime Sandstone Canyon bottom property to the City.
But, there was a line drawn in the sand - said no, we believe the developer
should have his rights. We are unwilling to lift map restrictions and put
these houses on another area where there were map restrictions and save
this part. And because of the inflexibility of the Council at the time, not to
point any fingers, but it was a 2-2 and a decision couldn't be made, and so
the default position was the developer could just do what he could do on his
property. And what you see now is a canyon that is filled in. Nobody
presumed that the school district would buy the property with map
restrictions and, you know, they don't have to follow the same lines - they
don't have to follow our development guidelines. As long as they do
something educationally related it doesn't matter if it's open space, it doesn't
matter if it's map restricted, they have laws that supersede ours. So the
lesson I learned from that was just because you cannot imagine something
happening doesn't mean that it won't happen. And so I'd like to bring it back
down to what we're looking at. The question is, is this a good plan. Again,
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 14
I don't know if it's a great plan, but to me, it clusters the houses away from
D.B. Blvd. so people driving by are not looking at another bank of houses on
there with slopes that are not maintain, but they are looking at an attractive
area with a street that goes up to the houses set back a ways. This is
designed for minimum impact to the community. Is it going to impact the
neighbors? Sure it is, you guys that live closest to it. We're told that there's
no significant traffic benefits, or significant traffic impacts and most of our
problems are regional. You know, we want to stop everything but our
problems are regional. D.B. Blvd. and Grand Ave. carry 32-33,000 cars per
day. A lot of those come from Chino Hills. We have to solve the cut through
problem. That particular area of D.B. Blvd. is not the heavily impacted area
of D.B. Blvd. It's heavy, but it's not as heavy as you know, when you go
south of Grand Ave. The Planning Commission looked at this thing. I think
they did a pretty good job. There are a few things that I would like to see
done to this after listening to the public comment and what I would like to see
done is have the lots reduced to 10,000' - put the extra space into the
homeowners association. They can maintain the slopes. I think you'll
probably have a better looking product that way. I'd like to see the staging
area for the grading off of D.B. Blvd., not off of Highcrest. The neighbors
were very specific about that. I think that's something that can be done.
Certainly on the project over in Sandstone Canyon they started right off of
Brea Canyon Rd. And D.B. Blvd. is two lanes with basically a third lane
when you factor in the bike lane. So I think with some cones it is possible
to do that. I would like to see all of the natural open space dedicated to the
City, not just open space dedicated to somebody but to the City. And I would
also like to see that two acre site at the corner of Goldrush and D.B. Blvd.
deeded to the City. I think that historically, the significant benefit was the
land. I understand many of you disagree with that. But historically, that's my
perspective on it. The property owner, to get the Planning Commission on
board, agreed to $250,000 in addition to that although that was not required
in the original MOU. We're not governed by the MOU now but that did go
into the pot. And that's basically where I'm at right now, folks."
M/Herrera: "Ok. Thank you Mr. Huff, Mrs. O'Connor, I think you wanted to
be next and then Mrs. Ansari. (sidebar) Oh, Mrs. Ansari."
C/Ansari: "Yes. I just want to make a comment. I also served on that
General Plan Committee and I served as a Council Member at the time.
There were two of us that were representing the City, Mr. Werner and
myself. And when the General Plan went through the planning the General
Plan Committee and discussion was made on this issue, the issue of
concern was always map and deed restricted properties and whether it was
of sufficient benefit to the City whether or not to lift them or not and there
were concerns of the people, many of them that were there, that they felt that
they should be left on there for a reason. They were put on there for a
reason and let them stay. So that was a large part of the discussion that
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 15
came up. Before I get into some of the questions, and I'd like some of the
questions, the answer, from Mrs. Erickson submitted this weekend a list of
questions to us and since we the public discussion is already closed, the
Public Hearing, I think it might be in the best interest because they did have
concerns that some of these questions be answered. But let me digress a
little bit to talk about Sandstone Canyon because the comments came up
about the canyon. The City on March 29, 1994 received a notice from the
school board saying that they had to grade the property by April 15 of 1994.
So it was put on the agenda because it was something or they would lose
public funding. The issue of this project came up. It was something that was
being bandied around for many years and it was stalled because there was
such a public outcry. One of the, the issue of one of the concerns I had at
the time was the road that was designed that was going through the project.
At that time the road, having a geotech, having a geologist look at the road,
the road that was proposed by some of the Council Members that wanted
this road, they would have to dig up to take the problem with the ancient
landslides, they would have to dig up 15 acres, I believe it was 15 acres if
my mind, my memory, and stockpile it, do the mitigation and then put the
soils back and the dirt back after mitigating them. And at that time 1 think the
cost for that roadway was I think $970,000. And which at that time I doubt
if any developer would be putting a road of that thing. What happened was,
we finally, because of the rush and because the land was purchased by the
school district, we had to come up with a project and the project was agreed
upon by some of us was to allow them to build on their, a their property they
had rights to. Let me say something very clearly. I believe that builders,
when they buy property, or landowners, when they buy property, they have
rights to build on the property that has no restrictions on them. But whether
or not those restrictions are lifted is up to this Council to determine. And we
have been through a lot in this City concerning land use and open space
issues and map and deed restricted properties so we have to think very
carefully before we decide whether or not we're going to lift those
restrictions. So there may be two of us up here but each of us have a
different point of view because they're looking at it from a different
perspective. But I was there also. I was there looking at the geotechnical
aspects of the map trying to meet with the builders for the Sandstone issue
back and forth when that came up, so let me get back to the issue. I'd like
some of the questions, a this weekend I received that was faxed over to me
some questions that were sent over by the Ericksons. And of questions they
had. And I really would like some of those questions to be asked since the
Public Hearing was closed and I think that they have a right to have some
of these answers made. One of the question was, the Hunsaker
representative challenged the opponents of this proposed project to show
him an alternative that would encompass more than the 53 lots. We
respectively submit exhibit i Hunsaker's own redefined design and the
answer to this challenge. Granted there is some remedial grading taking
place outside of Lot 6 with this design but hardly to the extent of the 130 lot
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 16
proposal. As far as the water tank, in the writeup on the alternative it states
the tank can be located elsewhere outside Lot 6 if indeed it is actually
required by the water district. This refined design with very few
modifications as indicated on the exhibit could encompass up to a hundred
lots and it eliminates many of the concerns stated by the residents of D.B.
including but not limited to."
M/Herrera: "Eileen, by reading all of that I believe you're entering new
testimony into..."
CM/Belanger: "I'm having trouble finding the question."
M/Herrera: "If maybe instead of reading it you could just phrase a question."
CA/Jenkins: "I would go one step further. I don't believe we should consider
any written materials submitted after the closing of the Public Hearing."
C/Ansari: "We shouldn't ask the questions?"
M/Herrera: "Well, we didn't notice that we were going to introduce any
additional material and the Public Hearing is closed. By your reading that
you are introducing new material."
C/Ansari: "These are questions that are very valid questions that came up
after..."
M/Herrera: "I know, but the Public Hearing is closed. If you could maybe
phrase some questions of your own..."
C/Ansari: "The question I want to ask is about the water tank, alright. Is the
water tank necessary to be put there and could it possibly be put on one of
the deed restricted - map restricted properties?"
CM/Belanger: "I'll defer to George if he has a specific answer, but in case
of the Water District, they have indicated that they have a need for tanks at
specific elevations. Our past experience with the Water District is that if they
have an opportunity to have that tank constructed by others, they will take
advantage of that opportunity. In the most recent example I can give you is
that in the case of the Subdivision Map on Brea Canyon Rd., the condition
in the approval was to provide onsite at the property line the ability to
convert from potable water to reclaimed water for common area landscaping,
irrigation. That was our condition. When it went to the Water company, it
came back with the requirement being placed upon the developer to build
the reclaimed waterline from somewhere to the north to the property line and
serve the property with reclaimed water. Typically, if the Water District has
an opportunity to have a land developer build their facilities, then they will
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 17
require that as a condition. They do have 2 sites up there for the purpose
of locating water tanks. They are flexible in terms of where those water
tanks are located. In terms of situs, they are not flexible in terms of
elevation. You asked whether they could be located off Lot 6. The answer
to that question is that, in a certain sense, is that at the discretion of the City
Council, they're certainly not prohibited under the restriction that exists on
the property."
C/Ansari: "Because that could give them - move some homes up to where
the water tank would be. Alright. Another question is, tell me more about
the fault that's at the end of Highcrest. Land fault."
CM/Belanger: "The geotechnical consultant appears not to be here. That
individual would have the best information on the nature and extent of the
faulting. I haven't the slightest idea. He was scheduled to be here."
C/O'Connor: "Mrs. Ansari. Where in the documents does it talk about a
fault at the end of Highcrest, do you know?"
C/Ansari: "It came up at the last meeting, I believe. I read it in one of the
ones we had..."
CM/Belanger: "Mr. Hunsaker raised the issue of the fault in discussion of
the Lot 6 only alternative as a reason why they wouldn't be able to construct
at the upper end. I said Mr. Hunsaker? The Hunsaker representative."
C/Ansari: "Ok. That's about it for now."
M/Herrera: "Ok. Thank you. Mrs. O'Connor."
C/O'Connor: "I have some questions related to comments made by the
citizens. What is the estimated selling price for these homes?"
CM/Belanger: "The applicant has indicated between $400,000 and
$500,000."
C/O'Connor: "An issue was raised about the subject of maintaining the
landscaping on the steep manufactured slopes and the question of non-
native plants. Could you address that issue."
CM/Belanger: "I'll ask Mr. DeStefano to address that more specifically but
that would be a subject of the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Mt.
DeStefano, perhaps you can explain how that works."
DCM/DeStefano: "Mayor and Council Members. All of the slopes within this
property must be revegetated with species native to that area. And that
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 18
would include the homeowners association property. We generally prohibit
the use of non-native species, particularly species that may be invasive and
eventually overtake and kill the native species that have been planted or that
exist in the area. The EIR discusses that issue. Should the project be
approved a Landscaping and Irrigation Plan would need to be submitted
detailing the species that are proposed. We would verify those as being
appropriate for the site. We would then verify in the field the installation of
those species and we would then monitor the growth of those species for five
years to insure that they are the appropriate species and that they have
been properly maintained and cared for over that time period."
C/O'Connor: "What happens the 6th year? Can they turn the water off and
let it all die?"
DCM/DeStefano: "What happens after the 5th year is somewhat determined
by the conditions of the growth pattern over the 5 years, the weather of those
5 years. In some cases, yes, the water may be turned off and it go back to
its natural state with the annual rainfall that's received for that area. In some
cases, the water may need to stay on for another year or so. That would be
determined by the City's Environmental Consultant. It's going to be based
upon the conditions as we near that end and how the whole development
has been progressing, how the landscaping has been progressing."
O'Connor: "So its the intent that after 5 years, the slopes that they are going
to be manufacturing would look as natural as possible as it does now."
DCM/DeStefano: "That's the intent, yes."
O'Connor: "Mr. Huff alluded to the fact that he would like to see these lots
reduced to the maximum of 10,000 as stated in the General Plan. Do we
know what the effect there would be on the manufactured slopes and the
amount of homeowner association open space that would be added if those
lots were decreased?"
DCM/DeStefano: "We indicated to the Council at the last meeting that most
likely the larger lots, the above 10,000 sq. ft. lots, would be reduced in size
creating more homeowners association property. In discussions with the
developer's engineer, we've been informed that an additional 6 acres of
homeowners association property would be created as a result of reducing
the lot sizes to a maximum of 10,000'."
O'Connor: "An issue that was raised was, don't those larger lots on the
outskirts of the development push these slopes out farther than they would
if the lots were the smaller size? So if we were to stipulate that they could
be a maximum of 10(000), would that mean that some of those manufactured
slopes would then be smaller or moved closer to the development so there
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 19
would be less impact."
DCM/DeStefano: "The answer is yes, generally. However, the impact would
not be significantly reduced. We're talking about a very small area on those
perimeter slopes. But yes, there would be some savings of natural slope
area as a result of that."
O'Connor: "What is the benefit of the City owning the open space versus a
private owner?"
CM/Belanger: "The benefit of the City owning the dedicated open space is
that it is in public hands as opposed to private ownership. As long as it
remains in private ownership there is always the possibility of the private
owner coming to some future City Council and requesting that the burdens
on the property be removed. If the City owns the property and the property
is held with a reversion for dedicated open space, that property will be open
space in perpetuity."
C/O'Connor: "How can we make sure that that would be true, that it would
remain that way in perpetuity?"
CM/Belanger: "Well, to the extent that you can guarantee perpetuity you
could say so in the deed itself that the intent of the party deeding the
property to the City was to have the open space remain in perpetuity. If for
any reason the City in the future determined that they wanted to dispose of
it, the way to protect from that would be to have a reverter on that deed
where if that were even posited, the property would revert to a third party,
presumably a third party that has, as their fundamental philosophical core,
environmental conservation or preservation. You can be pretty well certain
that the property is going to remain open space with those two levels of
protection."
C/O'Connor: "Is that a stipulation that we would define in our Resolution or
Ordinance that that's what the deed would say?"
CM/Belanger: "in order to inform the property owner, in order to inform the
general public, it would probably be useful to, as specifically as possible,
delineate what it is that deed is going to say and what its purpose is and if
there are any reversions, who that third party would be that that land would
revert to."
C/O'Connor: "If staff could address the comment that was made that none
of the people's questions are considered and that none of the questions that
the citizens brought up or write. I can think I believe on a couple of them it
seems to me that citizens raised during the Planning Commission time the
question about the blasting and the dynamiting. Now couldn't that be
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 20
considered that they were right in that regard and that we have now removed
that clause from consideration?"
CM/Belanger: "Certainly in the context of the Planning Commission
discussion where issues were raised and changes were made as a result of
commentary made by the public as the Planning Commission deliberated on
these conditions."
C/O'Connor: "Was the increased ratio of the tree replacements based on
comments made by the citizens concerned about the removal of the oak
trees?"
CM/Belanger: "I'll defer to Mr. DeStefano and our environmental consultant."
DCM/DeStefano: "My recollection is that it grew out of a general concern
raised from the citizens speaking about the loss of those trees, but it was
more specific to the Planning Commissioners discussing and coming up with
concept."
C/O'Connor: "Can you think of other recommendations that citizens made
that were incorporated by the Planning Commission? I'm putting you on the
spot, but I think that its apparent that the citizens were and have been
listened to and their ideas and thoughts have been considered by the
Planning Commission and thereby being considered here by the City
Council."
DCM/DeStefano: "2 that come to mind. First of all, the alternative design
that was developed for the Planning Commission showing all of the units
within the boundaries of Lot 6. Grading would have taken place outside, but
that was the so-called 120 unit alternative. And secondly, in a little more
detail, concerns were raised regarding the view from afar of these homes -
the perception that these homes might be more widely seen than what was
represented. And from that conditions were modified including increasing
setbacks to the rear yards of the perimeter homes to try to insure that those
homes were further away from the edge of the pad and they would be,
therefore, less likely to be seen from particularly the people below if not from
a greater distance."
C/O'Connor: "Well, then I feel that questions that were raised by the citizens
have been considered and that not all of their questions were considered
"wrong" or "not considered". The issue was brought up about the citizens
or the City buying the property from SunCal. I commented on that at one of
the meetings, the fact that in the Parks Master Plan we did have a 500
person random survey asking them - and I have the exact figures, we asked
if they would be willing to pay $3.50 a month to acquiring parkland and park
facilities. 42% of the people said that they were extremely willing or willing
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 21
to do that. 42%. We then asked a second question. Would you be willing
to pay $2 a month? And at that time it was 54% that said they would be
willing to do $2 a month. If this went to a vote for us to acquire - the City of
citizens to acquire this property, is it a simple majority or 2/3 requirement to
access the value of the property to the tax payers? Do we know?"
CM/Belanger: "Well, if it's a general obligation requirement which means
there would be an override to the property tax, that requires a 2/3. As far as
a benefit assessment district, I'll refer to Mike."
CA/Jenkins: "We couldn't do a Citywide Benefit Assessment District I don't
believe. I think it would have to be a special tax to support some sort of a
bond issue. A 2/3 vote would be required."
C/O'Connor: "So the fact that the citizens here in D.B., and again, this was
a random telephone survey that was done by a professional company during
the Parks Master Plan survey, and at $2 a month 54% were willing. At
$3.50, 42% were willing. So, I think it would become a very difficult issue for
the 17,000 homeowners in D.B. to decide that they wanted possibly
hundreds of dollars assessed against them on their taxes. A comment was
made as to why the citizens who spoke in favor of the project did not have
to give their addresses like the citizens who were against it and whether
there was favoritism being given. I believe that the citizens that spoke in
favor of the project have spoken many times before the City Council and
their address is on the record. Those new citizens who have come before
us who are here for the first time or possibly second or whatever, their
addresses might not necessarily be on the record. So I believe that answers
that question. Could staff address the comment made about the rare sub -
ecosystem of the north facing slope and the coast live oak woodland. I
believe that I had asked that question and there will be, if this is approved,
the Department of Fish and Game or whoever it is will do an analysis of
that?"
DCM/DeStefano: "I'm going to ask our Environmental Consultant, Tom
Smith, from Bontera to respond to that more specific question."
Tom Smith: "Councilwoman O'Connor and City Council. In one of the
documents that you have before you we give an answer to that question and
I'll just highlight it for the record and for the audience. The environmental
document indicates that the proposed project would impact and result in the
loss of 9.6 acres of coast live oak woodland which is primarily on north
facing slopes. And it's that loss of coast live oak woodland that is reflected
in the mitigation ratio of the numbers of trees that we've talked about that
varies depending on the trunk diameters etc. The balance of property that
is not part of the proposed development area contains 38.7 of coast live oak
woodland. So there's approximately four times as many acres being
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 22
retained through the proposed project as there are being lost. And, in
addition, those acres that are being lost are being mitigated for at various
ratios that in effect will achieve an end result that there will be more acres
of coast live oak woodland after the project is approved and mitigated than
there exists today including both the developed area and the undeveloped
area."
C/O'Connor: "Thank you. Comment made at the July 7 Public Hearing by
James Anderson. He said 'I feel, unfortunately, that the Planning
Commission which approved this perhaps doesn't live here or are possibly
thinking about moving.' There's a requirement to be on the Planning
Commission which is appointed - each of us Council Members appoint a
Planning Commissioner. A requirement is that they are a resident of D.B.
As far as the comment about them possibly moving, well, we all have the
right to move, and I'm not aware at this time whether Planning
Commissioners are planning to move or not. Rosie Bern talked about
53,000 or 60,000 residents and what is the latest figure? And I believe the
latest figure is?"
CM/Belanger: "It's 56,659 but you could say about 57,000. But the last the
January 1, 1998 number was 56,659. Since that time, you can presume that
we have probably passed the 57,000 mark."
C/O'Connor: "And how is that determined?"
CM/Belanger: "That's determined by the State of California population
research unit and the HCD. Every year, we submit to the State as of
January 1st the number of new buildings, the number of buildings that have
been taken down and we modify the number of building types. There is a
population ratio based on building types. They do a simple mathematics
problem. Population ratio times the number of building types - they add all
that up and they come up with a number and every year they modify that.
At this point they use the 1990 census as the benchmark. We were at about
54,900 in 1990, so over an 8 -year period of time, that gives you an idea of
the population growth."
C/O'Connor: "She also stated that D.B. is only 3 miles long. How long is
D.B.?"
CM/Belanger: "It's about 5 miles or, maybe more to the point, it's 14 sq. mi."
C/O'Connor: "Sam Saffari said, quote'this land that they give us, there is no
guarantee that the City Council will not use it for other purposes.' I think we
addressed that issue that we can put a stipulation in the deed that it will be
open space for recreational facilities only for perpetuity."
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 23
CM/Belanger: "The General Plan requires that it be dedicated for open
space. It would require a change of the General Plan to change that open
space designation and that's the land use aspect of it. The ownership of it
relates to the deed and how the deed is held and for what purpose it's held.
If it's held in perpetuity for open space, that's a pretty strong indication that's
what it's going to remain."
C/O'Connor: "Randy Nayudu made the statement 'how many members of
the Planning Commission and how many members sitting up there right now
drive between Pathfinder and Grand Ave. between 5:00 p.m. and 5:30 every
evening because I do and I would like to see if you were really seeing the
world from my perspective or are you seeing it from the top of an ivory
tower. Well, I don't live in an ivory tower. I live in a house just like the rest
of us do. It's a modest house in north D.B. Yes, I do live in north D.B., so
I am not impacted by the traffic in the south but I have driven that many times
taking my children to soccer practice in the south end. So, from my point of
view, no, I do not drive that portion on a daily basis from 5:00 to 5:30. Ron
Tehran showed us a copy of a Grant Deed that talked about a deed
restriction. So far I have not seen a copy of that and I'm disappointed that
he has not been willing to give a copy to the Council. Therefore, I'm unable
to put any credence to that document. Todd Kurtin from SunCal made the
statement 'there is no discussion in the General Plan which restricts the
development to Lot 6.' Is that a true statement?"
CM/Belanger: "In Planning Area 2, in which this property is located, the
Planning Area 2 indicates that up to 130 units can be approved, that a
minimum of 75 acres of the land within Planning Area 2 must be dedicated
for open space and that the lot sizes range between 6,000 and 10,000
square feet."
C/O'Connor: "So the General Plan does not restrict the development to Lot
6."
CM/Belanger: "The development beyond Lot 6 is at the discretion of the City
Council."
C/O'Connor: "A question was asked by Wendy Ann Goin 'We have a
hundred more kids coming into our schools. Where do we plan to put them?'
I know that we're not related to the school, but PUSD, Pomona Unified
School District, which is the district that these homes would be in, is building
Pantera Elementary School, which anticipates taking those. My children
attended Lorbeer Middle School. There was at that time room. We had
transfer students coming in and of course, we do have the new Diamond
Ranch High School which certainly will have room for those students."
CM/Belanger: "Council Member O'Connor, Members of the Council, if I
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 24
might go back to your previous question about restrictions in the General
Plan. Burdens on property are not in the General Plan. Burdens on
property run with the property. There is a burden on that property. It is a
right that has been dedicated to the City of D.B. to prohibit the construction
of residential buildings. No, it's not in the General Plan. Taking the
restriction off that property and the process related to that is in the General
Plan, but that restriction runs with that property regardless what the General
Plan says. There are restrictions on the property because of the burdens
that were placed on that property previously. General Plans don't do that."
C/O'Connor: "Is this a time to make a final statement or shall we go through
all of the questions and then make a final statement?"
M/Herrera: "I think maybe if we could hear comments from different Council
and then come back to those that want to make additional comments like I
think that..."
C/O'Connor: "I do have final closing comments to make."
M/Herrera: "Ok. I would like to make some comments and a couple of
questions. The issue of moving the water tower, how many additional
houses or lots would that provide?"
CM/Belanger: "That's hard to know unless we know what you are going to
approve. If you're presuming the application as submitted...."
M/Herrera: "Yes. Well, that's what's before us."
CM/Belanger: "I can't answer that question for you. I don't know that that
analysis has been done."
M/Herrera: "I thought that question had been asked. Maybe Mr. Kurtin
could step forward."
DCM/DeStefano: "Mayor and Council Members. I might be able to answer
that question for you. You saw a 120 unit alternative that did not incorporate
the water tank and you received testimony from staff, and I believe also the
developer, that to incorporation of the water tank would result in the loss of
approximately 10 dwelling units. You later saw I believe, a 113 unit proposal
that had the water tank located within it. So, somewhere in that range
subject to the ingenuity of the designer, would reveal, I'm going to say,
approximately 10. And then the other aspect is if the water tank is located
elsewhere off this site at the district's prescribed 1050 elevation, that will
require a pad to be created and a roadway to get to and from that water tank
to be created. One of the opportunities that this project creates for the water
District is the incorporation of all of that within the street network for this
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 25
development."
M/Herrera: "Ok. So it isn't just a simple matter of putting it somewhere else.
There's other consideration - the height, the elevation and access to it. Ok.
We've heard a little bit about map restrictions, deed restrictions and some
reference made to Ron Tehran's so-called deed restriction that he displayed.
Did staff run a title search on the property?"
CM/Belanger: "I don't believe staff ran a title search, but I'll defer to Mr.
DeStefano as to the title report that is in the possession of the Planning Staff
related to this project."
DCM/DeStefano: "We received an updated title report from the developer
and anticipating your next question, the document that was shown to us by
one of the speakers is not reflected anywhere in that title report."
M/Herrera: "A lot of the residents brought up some excellent points, some
excellent questions and 1 believe caused a great deal of thought process
amongst the Council. A lot of the residents requested and admonished
Council to do various things. So I'm going to briefly run through some of the
points made, questions asked. Bob Schwartz at the August 18 meeting
stated he is not against the development of the land on Lot 6 but he would
like to see the Council approve the best development - what's beneficial to
the City that's not going to be tearing up the hillsides and the slopes, that's
not going to cause traffic impact. We already have heard that the developer
has building rights on Lot 6 so slopes will be torn up, there will be some
traffic. There's no way of getting around it. The developer has property
rights. We've considered briefly various modifications of the project -
downsizing - which results in primarily 14 percent grades and Mr. Schwartz
states that roads such as that are steep, they're noisy, the cars going up you
can hear them revving the engine, and he'd like to see the City look at this
in the terms of acting like this as if we are good businessmen. He's asking
us to be smart and wise and judicious in our negotiations regarding this
project. Now there are some things that cannot be mitigated and the things
that can't be mitigated and the restrictions that the applicant is asking to be
lifted, there's significant benefit considerations. Various individuals have
talked about what they consider significant benefit. A couple of Council
Members have commented about significant benefit. Everybody I guess has
kind of a different concept or an idea of what is significant benefit. But I
think the ultimate charge to the Council is to negotiate the best project, the
best development, and the best deal. Sam Saffari on August 18 said 'you
who are the D.B. City Council Members, your decisions should favor us, the
D.B. residents. When everything is equal the balance should favor us.' We
sit here representing you but we don't just represent a neighborhood, we
represent the entire City. And it's our duty and our obligation to try and
make the best decision that best benefits the entire City and we are very
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 26
carefully, I believe, trying to do that. Mr. George Davidson. His concern has
always been to get the best development for D.B. and I believe that's what
we're trying to do. There were other individuals that were in favor of the
project. Many others expressed concern about the dust. If you have the
project that's in front of us, you have dust. If you have a modified downsized
version, you have dust. So that's going to remain. The noise, you've got it
either way with whichever size the project. Traffic - we've been told that 40
percent of the traffic in this City is regional traffic. Is the City attempting to
do anything about that? The City has worked very hard in the past several
years to gain funding for D.B. for the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes
that are now on the 60 fwy. and the 57 fwy. They're going to be constructed
on the 60 fwy. That should greatly alleviate a lot of the traffic. Mr. Huff is
Chairman of the Four Corners Transportation Committee and he is
attempting to arrive at some mitigating relief regionally because there is a lot
of Orange County traffic that's coming to San Bernardino County that's
cutting through D.B. There isn't any control that D.B. has on that, but we are
working with other agencies, other cities, that recognize that there is a big
traffic problem. I think I'm going to stop with my comments and let Mr.
Chang."
MPT/Chang: "Thank you, Madam Mayor. I do not have questions. Most of
the questions have been asked. We have had two Public Hearings so I think
basically, most of the questions have been asked and answers been
delivered as well. I have had numerous discussions with staff so basically
I think it is pretty much understood so I don't have any further questions."
M/Herrera: "Well, then we can get into final comments then. Mr. Chang, do
you want to start?"
MPT/Chang: "Ok. Thank you Madam Mayor. Before I make comments on
this project, something I would like to say about my feelings about the City
of D.B. and also as a Council Member what is my basic concept and what is
my goal to work for this City. Basically, I think we all love D.B. I too, love
D.B. as well. I plan to live here and to live here for many years to come.
The reason we love D.B. is, 1 think, the quality of life is one of the major
attractions to us. Open space is also a major factor of quality of life. For the
City of D.B. with a total area of 15 sq. mi. - roughly 14 and 1/2 to 15 sq. mi. -
with a population of around 57,000 people, this is a good sized City.
Comparing to other cities that many of the cities they have smaller size than
ours but they do have a much bigger population that we have. So
apparently, the quality of life is very clear to us. That's why we selected the
City of D.B. So, basically this is what I feel about the City of D.B. in terms
of this project. And in terms of my goal and also Council's goal and the basic
concept, as a representative of the people, I always believe the City of D.B.
is supposed to have very slow growth. We do not want to have a fast growth
situation for Diamond Bar because we want to enjoy our quality of life.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 27
That's my basic concept for the development of the City of D.B. My goal as
the Council Members representing you and I believe as other Council
Members, our goals are pretty simple. We just want to improve the existing
quality of life that we have in the City of D.B. right now. Not try to injure it,
not try to downgrade it. So that means that we would like to basically trying
very hard to resolve the traffic problem that we have right now. Also we
would like to improve the business and economic conditions in town. We all
know that we have serious vacancy problems in town. So thirdly, we would
like to go for a community center including senior center/youth center and to
have a better library and maybe with a civic center all together so we can
bring the community together to enjoy the programs that we have. Fourthly,
we would like to keep as much open space that we want and that we have.
So I think these are the goals that Council are striving for and for the best
benefit of the City of D.B. Beyond that, so with this in mind, then I have
several concerns about this project in front of us tonight. The proposed
project requests lifting of map restrictions. To me, I think the lifting of map
restrictions is very serious and also a major subject to our City. Personally,
I feel that we should try to avoid it unless we really need to do so. Lifting the
map restriction certainly we understand that we need a significant benefit to
the City. And in terms of this project, in terms of this case, the 2 factors of
significant benefit that we're talking about over here as you all know is the
dedication of the open space 260 acres to the City and also a cash donation
of $250,000 to the City. I think in terms of impact of this project in the long
run to the City, both from the lifting of map restrictions and both from the
physical impact again in the long run to the City versus of the contributions
that we talk about over here it seems to me not quite significant to me and
probably not quite significant to most of the people in D.B. Especially, the
project we talk about we have 45 to 48 houses laying on Lot 5 and Lot 7.
Those need to have the map restriction lifted. For those of houses to be
built for actual needed and with the map restriction, I personally think this is
not quite a significant benefit to the City. So therefore, I find a hard time to
approve a project as it is proposed tonight here. However, I do respect the
property right which the applicant has a right to build on Lot 6, that we
cannot deprive, that we cannot prohibit him or them to build on Lot 6. So
with that in mind, I'm willing to consider another map, sorry another map
again, but I'm willing to consider a map to allow the applicant to build about
70 to 80 houses on Lot 6 with a quality project to match the neighborhood
property value, to keep every lot remaining to requirements of 10,000 sq. ft.
And also, I would like to see, to allow the applicant to do the necessary
grading on Lot 5 and Lot 7. Again, necessary grading. With the contingency
of dedicating the deed of the open space to the 57,000 people in the City of
D.B. So therefore, if Madam Mayor will entertain a motion later on, I would
like to make this motion as mentioned and ask City staff to negotiate with the
applicant and come up with a new proposal to resubmit to the Planning
Commission for review. By doing so, we do not have to face the problem of
setting a bad precedent for the future in terms of map restriction lifting and
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 28
we will be able to mitigate the impact, the environment impact to the very
minimum and bearable degree. Besides that, I think that will give us a
possibility that, to the City of D.B., people to have the control of 260 acres
of open space in the future, not just now, so we can resolve the problem
once and for all. On the other hand, we also can have the property right duly
respected and applicant can still hopefully, I believe, still make some profit
out of this project. So, hopefully, by doing so, this project can be a win-win
situation to all of us here. And these are my comments. Thank you."
M/Herrera: "Thank you, Mr. Chang. Mrs. O'Connor."
C/O'Connor: "I beg your indulgence. I'm going to read what I have prepared
only because I want to make sure that I get it all said and I won't stumble
over some of those big words that I had problems with earlier. First of all, I'd
like to address the flyer that was presented earlier. I had nothing to do with
that even though my picture and phone number and fax number and
everything was on there. During the past two City Council elections in
November 95 and 97 and the special election we held in March of 96
concerning the General Plan, the questions which always keep coming up
were growth, no growth and the preservation of open space. It goes without
saying that whenever a developer proposes to build homes in D. B., the idea
must be thoughtfully and carefully reviewed with a great amount of public
input. Whenever such a proposal includes waiving of map restrictions the
most thorough scrutiny is demanded. After years of being bombarded from
one extreme or another - pro growth of no growth, it has been rewarding to
be involved with a spirited intelligent discussion on the SunCal project. I
have reviewed all of the written and oral material to the best of my ability.
This has been an exhaustive procedure. I have carefully listened to all audio
tapes for all of the Planning Commission Public Hearing meetings. I took
diligent notes of those tapes carefully considering all comments presented.
I have carefully reviewed the verbatim minutes of our City Council Public
Hearings. Sound decision-making only suffers from extreme points of view
and misinformation. This is why the true facts need to be studied and
understood by everyone. I have been very disappointed with the continuous
amount of misinformation and fear tactics that have been circulated around
the community about this project. Decisions must be based on truth, not
misinformation. I am extremely frustrated but not surprised that there are still
citizens in our community that knowingly continue to intentionally mislead as
many of you as they can about this project. I know that many of you must
share in that frustration. Any information either written or oral that is done
anonymously is a sure sign that the anonymous person is not proud of what
he or she is doing. If you are proud of what you are doing then you are
willing to put your name to it. Therefore, let me make it perfectly clear that
I do not and will not put any credence to any anonymous written or oral
communication and neither should any of you. To accept anything else is
lowering your own standards. I am not willing to do that. The SunCal project
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 29
has proven to be very challenging. As a long time resident, I believe
strongly in D.B.'s unique quality of life, which some people call country living.
Even the concept of country living itself has no clear cut definition. We have
heard many arguments how the project as approved by the Planning
Commission is contrary to country living because it will displace hundreds
of oak trees and increase traffic among other things. However, this project
does conform with other ideas of country living such as larger lot sizes and
more distance between them, such as keeping homes off of D.B. Blvd. In
fact, the lower density of this project is more consistent with the City's single
family residential character and it has been stated that it will increase
neighboring values for the very people opposed to it. Lifting map restrictions
for this project should never be an easy thing to do. It is a difficult and
agonizing decision. Our own General Plan says that map restrictions should
only be lifted in exchange for significant benefits which effect the entire
community. This brings up the question that has been consistently asked -
what is the significant benefit? We have heard that the dedication of at least
75%t of the land owned by SunCal to the City of D.B. is a significant benefit.
It has also been stated that the intent during the development of the General
Plan was that the donation of 75% of the open space was considered a
significant benefit. My question is, why was that never specified in the
General Plan itself. Also, SunCal has added the donation of $250,000 to our
Parks & Facilities account. In my mind, SunCal bought this property knowing
that 75% of the land was to be dedicated as open space. SunCal
continuously refers to the MOU. The MOU states that this land is to be
dedicated to the City of D.B. and they knew that when they bought the
property. As far as I'm concerned, the land is not part of the significant
benefit because that was already a requirement. SunCal has not offered
enough significant benefit for me to lift map restrictions for this project. I
would like to ask staff to have further negotiations with SunCal and see if
further negotiations will lead to further benefit. I would like to see some of
our goals in our Parks Master Plan moving forward. The Parks Master Plan
includes a trails system going through this property connecting Sycamore
Canyon and Summitridge Park. The total trails program in our Parks Master
Plan has a cost of approximately $1.4 million. The number one priority in
one of my campaign issues was the development of a community center. I
believe that SunCal can help us in that goal. I'm not asking SunCal to pay
for everything - that would not be fair. But I believe that further negotiations
might bring us closer to those goals for the benefit of the entire community.
The SunCal project has been subjected to exhaustive review. There have
been numerous Public Hearings by the Planning Commission and City
Council. We have listened to everyone who has sought to express their
opinion on this issue. I have been impressed with the input and I do thank
each and every one of you for coming here, for your phone calls and your
faxes. As a Council Member it is very important to me to be accessible to
the public. That is why I've mentioned many times to please call me if you
have any questions and my phone number is in the phone book. I would,
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 30
however, that 1 do have a new FAX number. I know that many of you had
trouble faxing to me because it was a personal line that we had to turn on
the FAX machine to receive it. My new FAX number which will be on new
business cards when they are developed is 612-0740. 1 realize that I will
never make everyone happy regardless of how I vote. As I stated during my
campaign last year I have great respect for property rights. Most of us are
property owners. A property owner has a legal, constitutional and earned
right to develop his or her land. SunCal does have the legal right to build on
Lot 6. That is a given. We cannot deny that right. What we must decide is,
what is the best possible development. I truly believe that SunCal considers
this 130 home development is the best possible development for this
property and that is why they are presenting it. However, I have the
following concerns about this project: 1) the General Plan requires a
Specific Plan; 2) the General Plan requires the lot sizes be between 6,000
and 10,000 sq. ft. I would like this to be an additional condition that is
negotiated with the developer. I have deep concerns about the long-term
stability of the cut and fill that will be necessary for this development. My
own neighborhood built 33 years ago had a serious landslide last February
affecting 5 homes. The homeowners 'are now faced with a possible
$100,000 bill to repair this landslide. Lot 6 is the only unrestricted property.
As I stated earlier, I do not feel that the significant benefit offered by SunCal
is enough for me to lift the map restrictions on Lot 5 and 7."
M/Herrera: "Thank you, Mrs. O'Connor. i would like to ask the applicant a
question. May I do that?"
CM/Belanger: "You're the Mayor."
M/Herrera: "Mr. Kurtin."
Todd Kurtin: "Yes, Madam Mayor."
M/Herrera: "There have been many comments regarding significant benefit."
Todd Kurtin: "Yes."
M/Herrera: "Would you be willing to meet with staff and renegotiate
significant benefit?"
Todd Kurtin: "Yes, we would. When we originally discussed the significant
benefit, we had less than 24 hours to discuss this. We are more than willing
to do so."
M/Herrera: "Ok. Thank you. Mr. Huff., would you like to make comments?"
C/Huff: "Ok. Let me restate some of the things I've said before. Is this a
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 31
good project? When I was Mayor I had put on our City Council Agenda
packets on the front a short version of our Vision Statement because I
wanted to keep this foremost in our minds. This was something that was
developed in the General Plan, it's specified there. It gives you a broad
outline of what we're trying to do as we plan and chart the future of the City.
The Vision Statement says shortly, to retain country living character. Does
this project do that? It's the first project that comes before the City that sets
aside actually over 80 percent as open space. I think that sets aside and
helps retain the country living character we're looking for. The second thing
is preserve open space resources. Does it do that? In fact, it dedicates to
the City significant open space resources helping us to implement some of
the plans we have within the General Plan to get open space. Reduce
regional traffic impacts. As Mayor Herrera mentioned, we are working on
that in parallel matters. Obviously you can't reduce regional impacts with a
housing development here. On the other hand, the Environmental Impact
Study shows that of all the alternatives that we have, none of them have a
significant impact. Do they have an impact? Yes. Are they significant in
their terms? No. The significant impacts we have in this community come
from a regional nature of having two freeways come through us and most
particularly, Grand Ave. connecting into Chino Hills and the areas to the east
there. To promote viable commercial activity. Does this help promote that?
Well, we had a speaker last time talk about how he has a struggling
business in town and he welcomes the opportunity to have more people
shopping there. You could say more on that but it works in that direction.
The next one is provide well-maintained housing. Is this a well-maintained
project? I submit that these homes will provide a neighborhood that many
people will want to move into. There's a neighborhood now selling right next
to the freeway that people are buying faster than they're built. This is a
much higher quality product in my estimation because it's set back away
from the busy D.B. Blvd. It has copious open space around it. It has as
opposed to some of the other alternatives looked at, flatter streets. It doesn't
have the collector streets like we see on Summitridge Dr. or Birdseye Dr. or
Goldrush where you find people accelerating both up and accelerating down.
It has more of, as you look at the picture, the sweeping type of streets that
limit how long they go. The last thing is to create nurturing community
environment. Of the projects that can be built there, does this do that? My
answer is yes. So I see that within my own reasoning, this is consistent with
the General Plan's mission, the Vision Statement. There was a comment
that one of the other Council Members wanted to send this back to the
Planning Commission. I don't think that is a good thing to do. I think we
have this before us. We accept it or we reject it. Basically, the applicant has
said that he is willing to negotiate and if it was to go to the Planning
Commission, they basically have to say yes, they're willing to do that.
Because we're here to either accept, to slightly tweak the concessions or
deny. But something 1 said earlier I'd like to restate. Just because you
cannot envision something being done on this property doesn't mean that it
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 32
can't be done on this property. We keep making a big deal about the
unfettered development rights on Lot 6. They brought to us a product that
was consistent with the General Plan. In fact, one of the other Council
Members talked about the General Plan requiring a Specific Plan. I submit
to you that when this was drafted, as the attorney said, this was considered
specifically written. Anything a Specific Plan would address is already
addressed in the dialogue on Planning Area 2. It's very specific. 75% open
space. It says up to 130 homes. These folks did that and then some. They
added to it elements that we've put into the design of other tracts most
recently approved in the City that have native vegetation put back on there.
So when you look at this project five or ten years down the road when it
starts to develop - the trees and vegetation start to develop - it looks more
natural. And that blends into the country living character for what we're
looking for for the community. So I do see this as a good project. But there
is the question about the significant benefit. There again, that seems to be
a moving line. And it's difficult for us as a Council to negotiate that. We
have five different ideas. I support the idea of sending it back to the staff.
I'm pleased the applicant is willing to look at that and I support that. I would
like to..it takes a significant benefit to lift map restrictions. I just want to
restate that from rry perspective and those members, I talked to a couple of
Council Members that were on the Council before this was constructed.
They always looked at this as a significant benefit - the land. But having
said that, let's look at the other things that it does. The private streets are
going to save City maintenance. While that may not be a big deal because
it's incorporated in a gated community that's not an ongoing maintenance for
us. You have approximately $750,000 going to the Pomona School District
which is going to benefit D.B. children. They're building the elementary
school up there now. So while that doesn't come to the City, it does come
to the community and the community and the community is what we're
looking for here. That is a community benefit. They're doing curbs and
gutters along Grand Ave. up Steep Canyon so they're adding amenities
there that we haven't really talked about a whole lot. This new housing will
enhance the local market. While neighbors are looking at it and thinking of
the negative impacts, the positive impacts are there will be comp values of
houses that are starting in the $400-500,000 range area. And that will
benefit most of the houses that are nearby when you want to resell your
houses. It provides the City with the opportunity, and this is the part that I
keep hammering on, to preserve 360 acres of prime open space property
that has hillside and canyons, oak trees, grasses, wildlife habitat,
opportunities for hiking, bird and wildlife observations, exploring and
educating our children. It provides neighbors with ironclad assurance,
particularly if we put in the reversion clause that we've talked about, that this
property will only be used for public open space purposes. This cannot be
assured if it is private property and I want to stress that. It enhances the City
holdings in open space and public purpose properties. This further
implements the General Plan. I've talked about that. But we've actually
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 33
secured, through this project if adopted, open space for the City. We've only
talked about that in the past and that's important. It establishes a very
strong open space precedent for future development. 10 years from now,
when we look back on this, we'll use it as a standard of measurement for
future development. That's a good precedent. It's not one we have now.
This is the first. And it'll be a tough model to duplicate with close to 85% of
this site remaining with open space. I think you know I've probably said
enough on this. I support the idea of it going back to the staff for the
applicant and the staff to work out what works for the other Council Members
as a significant benefit. I think I've articulated for you where I'm at on this.
I would like to restate the things I've said before. I think staff got those
already as far as I'd like to see the grading off of D.B. Blvd. as opposed to
the top side and those things that I said in that context."
M/Herrera: "Ok. Thank you, Mr. Huff. I think each of us wants to make the
best decision possible and to lift map restrictions, we need some very
compelling good reasons why we're going to do that - why we're going to
approve that. Compelling reasons that are going to benefit the entire
community of D.B. from one end to the other end. I don't think we are
looking at the entire picture yet right now. I think there is more information
to come in the nature of additional significant benefits. I've asked the
applicant if he would be willing and he is willing and so I think there's more
consideration for the Council to look at and I would like to see that before the
Council makes a final vote on this project. Mrs. Ansari."
C/Ansari: "In wisdom when land designation had map or deed restrictions
put on them many times these lands were geotechnically unstable or for
different reasons. Tonight I had concerns because i would have liked to ask
the geotechnical expert some questions concerning the fault and the
landslides on that property. When we lift map or when we lift deed
restrictions we set a precedent. And concerns I have, I have concerns about
lifting map or deed restrictions that whether or not is in the best interest of
the community or the City of D.B. or our citizens. i believe the builder has
a right to build on his property which is Lot 6 that has no deed restrictions on
it. Whether he builds 53, 70 or 80, that is to be (de)termined. i believe he
would still be able to build a good project versus building or moving around
900,000 cubic feet of dirt or whether he moves 1.8 million cubic feet of dirt,
I think there is a difference and I think its significant. The other issue is that
we have gone through hell over the last few years. We've had referendums.
We've had General Plan Amendment concerns. And one of the thing that
has always said was the concern of open space. Granted he is willing to
turn over 75% of his land or 85% to open space. That's in the General Plan.
It has always been as a designation of open space whether it's under the
owners auspices or whether it's under the City's it's still open space. The
other issue is that if the community, if the community would like and think it's
a significant benefit to lift the deed restrictions - on this one it's map
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 34
restrictions, then I think the community should decide. And maybe this
should be put on the ballot. The issue we have, we had 2,000 people sign
the petition against this project. Now maybe they were misinformed, they
were coerced into signing it, but the issue remains 2,000 people expressed
concerns. I have not received one phone call from anyone that said that
they felt that this was a good project that they wanted to see it. Where are
those people calling me? So my concerns are is that if we wish to lift the
deed restrictions, then there should be significant benefit to the people in the
community. And if we as a Council think that we're getting the best deal from
the builder, then maybe we should put it on the ballot and let the people
decide. And the people in their wisdom usually selects the right thing. Now
when we put the General Plan on the ballot because we had so many
complaints and so many referendums, the General Plan that was finally
adopted I agreed to because we came to a consensus. And yet every time
we went to a lot line adjustment it didn't have to go to a vote of the people.
And I was for the General Plan and I so expressed myself. And the people
in their wisdom chose what they felt was right for the community. And the
flack went away - it went away. So maybe we need to do that if we're going
to lift the restrictions on this people and people should look carefully. But as
far as I'm concerned right now, they're entitled to build on Lot 6. Thank you."
M/Herrera: "Thank you, Mrs. Ansari. Mr. Huff."
C/Huff: "There's a lot I could say in response to that but I think at this point
there has been at least several who have expressed an interest to
renegotiate the significant benefit on this and 1'd like to introduce a motion
that we send this back to staff to negotiate with the applicant on this, to bring
back to us at the next meeting for consideration of this project with a more
clearly defined and significant benefit to the City incorporating into this
proposal the various things that you have heard us talk about and hopefully,
we can bring something back we can vote on next time."
M/Herrera: "Ok. There's a motion. I'll second that motion. Log your votes,
please."
C/O'Connor: "I have a clarification I need. When Mr. Huff made the motion,
he said 'as well as other things that have been discussed.' Does that include
asking them to come back with a design of lots between 6,000 and 10,000
sq. ft. If it doesn't, I'd like to offer that as an amendment."
C/Huff: "Yes. That was part of my comments earlier on which I would
anticipate would be folded in there. I got a nod from the City Manager so..."
C/Ansari: "Madam, Mayor, does that include an expanded amount of
development on Lot 67"
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 35
M/Herrera: "Yes. What the motion is, is regarding the application that is in
front of us which is 130 homes. That's what we're voting on."
C/O'Connor: "Well, we're voting to have a negotiation done to add
significant benefit and to provide a new design with 6,000 to 10,000 square'
lots."
M/Herrera: "Correct. But it's on the 130 home proposal."
C/Ansari: "It's not just on Lot 6."
M/Herrera: "Correct. Its not just on Lot 6. Legally, what we have in front of
us to vote for is the proposal of 130 homes. To change the proposal to
downsize it would probably require it to start from the original point of
process. Would that be correct? It would have to start at the Planning
Commission again if it were downsized."
CM/Belanger: "The application is the applicants request of you for some
land use entitlements and you have his application before you. If you were
to remand it to the Planning Commission to consider a different type of
design, an acquiescence on the part of the property owner would be required
to do that. Because he has a choice to ask you to vote on his plan as submit
or to acquiesce to your sending it back and having to basically start again
at the Planning Commission level."
M/Herrera: "Ok. Mr. Huff. Would you clarify your motion a little bit better."
C/Huff: "What needs to be clarified."
M/Herrera: "We're renegotiating. Is it on the project currently submitted
or..."
C/Huff: "It's on the 130 Parcel Map with a modification to the Map as
specified before, bringing the lot size down to conformity with the General
Plan, the maximum being 10,000 sq. ft. and I believe that was the only
change to the Map itself. The other things came as far as significant benefit.
In staging, that's more of a procedure thing, where you're going to stage the
grading, the grading to be staged at D.B. Blvd. as opposed to Highcrest. I
believe that was, I would have to look back on my notes, but that was the
significant part of what I was concerned with. And staff, I would just like to
look at those things that are outside of the Map to work with the applicant to
bring back to us basically the things that they can agree on of the comments
we've had and we either decide to accept or reject it."
M/Herrera: "And so basically, we're asking for additional information."
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
PAGE 36
C/Huff: "It's not really additional information. Well, it's information in that
there is a more clearly defined significant benefit. The applicant has also
had benefit of hearing a lot of public testimony and hearing us deliberate and
hear where our cursive points are. So with that, it is presumed that he is
going to work with the staff and they will find a common point that they can
bring to us. Whether or not we accept that or not is another decision."
M/Herrera: "Right. And so that decision will be, well, the, I guess the new
offering, I guess the new significant benefit will be brought to the September
15 Council meeting then and Council can vote at that time."
C/Huff: "It begs the question, is there enough time for that to be worked out."
CM/Belanger: "Presumably, certainly in the area of negotiating some level
of benefit. What I don't know is whether the redesigned Map can be done
in that period of time and I would have to ask the Hunsaker representative
whether they can tum that around in that period of time. If I understand the
reason for a new Map being drawn to take into account the 6,000-10,000 sq.
ft. lots is that there be some shrinkage of the development area. So I can't
answer that. Lex Williman could probably best answer that question whether
two weeks is enough time to do that."
M/Herrera: "Ok. Mr. Kurtin or one of your representatives. Can you
respond? Is two weeks an adequate amount of time or...?"
Todd Kurtin: "Yes. The answer is Yes. Yes, we will have the Map modified
within two weeks. We even have a diagram to that time of it. We just need
to clean it up."
M/Herrera: "Ok. Thank you. So that can be brought back then for the
September 15 Council meeting. Ok. We have a motion and a second. Log
your votes, please. And the motion passes three YESes with Mr. Chang and
Mrs. Ansari voting NO. So staff will meet with the applicant and renegotiate
significant benefit. Ok. And we will be taking this up again on September
15."
8.2 CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL FINANCE
SUBCOMMITTEE.
C/Ansari moved, MPT/Chang seconded, to appoint C/O'Connor to the
Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority with C/Huff to serve as alternate.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 37
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Chang,
M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
M/Herrera designated C/O'Connor and MPT/Chang to serve on the Finance
Subcommittee.
9. NEW BUSINESS:
9.1 AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE PURCHASE OF OFFICE FURNITURE
AND EQUIPMENT FROM OFFICE DEPOT IN AN AMOUNT NOT -TO -
EXCEED $15,000.
C/Ansari moved, C/Huff seconded, to authorize purchase of office furniture
and equipment from Office Depot in an amount not -to -exceed $15,000.
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 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: M/Herrera recessed the meeting at 11:14
p.m. to open the Redevelopment Agency Meeting.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: M/Herrera reconvened the City Council
meeting at 11:14 p.m.
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
C/Ansari stated that last week, she and MPT/Chang attended a Brahma Foundation
meeting at D.B. High School. She spoke about her concerns regarding the lack of
up to date computer equipment at the high school computer lab. She urged any
citizen who has access to computers and would be willing to assist in acquiring
updated equipment to please volunteer their services. She attended a Regional Air
Quality Meeting in Ontario.
MPT/Chang echoed C/Ansari's concerns regarding advanced computer equipment
facilities at D.B. High School. He encouraged concerned citizens to assist the local
high schools. He, C/O'Connor and M/Herrera travelled to Orlando, Florida to lend
their support to the D.B. Senior Little League team. He commended C/O'Connor
and M/Herrera for their extraordinary dedication and support of the City's youth.
Council members attended the Economic and Redevelopment Seminar in Monterey.
C/O'Connor asked the community to be involved with both school districts in order
to update their computer labs. She asked that with the opening of school, parents
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 38
exercise caution and courtesy around the schools.
CM/Belanger responded to C/O'Connor that the signage and striping contemplated
in the School Traffic Study had been completed at the school sites. Diamond Crest
Lane is paved.
C/O'Connor said that she received a call from a concerned parent who spoke about
the lack of direction for movement of traffic on Diamond Crest Lane.
DCM/DeStefano stated that Diamond Crest Lane construction is completed.
However, the block wall has not been completed and therefore, there is no direct
connection from the end of Diamond Crest Lane to the school because of
construction equipment, materials, etc. He said that as of Monday the street was
not yet being used.
C/O'Connor asked staff to determine when the street will be open. She asked if the
D.B. Blvd. rehabilitation job had been completed. She commended the City for
completing the project in record time and exercising good control of the process.
She stated that the expanded Park -N -Ride at the SR 57/60 is open and she
encouraged residents to carpool. She spoke about her experience and pleasure
at being able to attend the Senior Little League's final games in Orlando, Florida.
She commended the students, parents and coaches for their contribution to the
community. She and MPT/Chang attended a joint subcommittee meeting with
Pomona Unified School District Board Members for purposes of discussing joint
agreements, lights at Lorbeer and possible joint activities with Diamond Ranch High
School.
C/Huff spoke about attending the Economic Redevelopment and League of
California Cities retreat.
DDPW/Liu responded to C/Huff that, yesterday, the orange signs were installed to
announce the commencement of construction for the traffic signals at Montefino
Ave. at D.B. Blvd. and Quail Summit Dr. at D.B. Blvd. The contractor is scheduled
to begin construction on Wednesday, September 2. The delay resulted from the
contractor's need to complete existing contracts for other cities. The contract period
is specified to be 90 calendar days.
CM/Belanger stated that right-of-way work will be done during off-peak hours. No
lane closures are anticipated during the 5 -day peak hour periods.
In response to C/Huff, CM/Belanger announced that the Antenna Task Force would
meet on Wednesday, September 9, 1998 in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District Auditorium at 6:30 p.m.
M/Herrera congratulated the D.B. Senior Little League. They bring great pride,
honor and integrity to the community.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 39
11. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Herrera
adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. in memory of former Chamber of Commerce
President Gordon Vihlen.
ATTEST:
Mayor
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Pro Tem Chang and Councilmember O'Connor
FROM: Linda G. Magnuson, Assistant Finance Director
SUBJECT: Voucher Register, September 15, 1998
DATE: September 10, 1998
Attached is the Voucher Register dated September 15, 1998. As
requested, the Finance Department is submitting the voucher
register for the Finance Committee's review and approval prior to
its entry on the Consent Calendar.
The checks will be produced after any recommendations and the final
approval is received.
Please review and sign the attached.
al-
Nr'..
4_.'.'_ _.__
1`IH ';ham il�,.r i���:�v' ,�'_
J,:, 4 i �!'ii •'1' _ __•__
L
D. v
...
''4
' • �: r • T.nr1U•' L'
.i- Teti i Co-!
— — --Lc -
---------------
LILr
%1L
Ci 'ct'
L, S; --S— FFL
QEF —Ofl•: 11147,54
_�,
C'i=_-__.- F'F,C= SV---FFL '4 -"---__:.UIQ
1 'ML YahtFiilJS .00
TOTAL VOiZh'r-RF 1.'a' .."moi
t
S
- -td
�,..•1 �_-__ . .-il'l-i0 -ri FGE-
4:.NE i. -ABLE
4*
47.6;
_TA FRE: FI :!il
70-�" `J lug EF47.6
•_-___. __' __
_ ._ _
� __ � SGT•+--- .
�.�. _
-. _..� --. _--
--_. as -
-_—. '_,-�'-_-•-
- •_ --_�
T 7HI
pF'EP.nIDS
n
TOT81
1D"ru=F =
n r c, i
T�_TFI
�,I E VEhiiDori'
"_-T'Al rU.M*C,T
_._
F -a_'c
...
.C�.__
�_.r..
ID
lz
YC'—
._,°7
-_.T
-==a ri_73
MJL71AEDIi= iNC,
EC:ir-rJttl L H-'� i 1F'Er; P4 .• _
Dt
AL
' nr`Hl_'C-
- _ ^T
rn
C'�z
_
__ .— — :e� —gin
qq♦�—'._
_—" LC;77
_.-
777a` D (f ,E,, 7,g
1roc
^c
;GE=PTrO1''.4L' 4r ACwCC7_'TES lmC
n
v.a;t -�� PROP SV C-L A ',;
li?".1?
1415541-44000--
701'2
PROF SVCS-LLAT+#41
14KS32-44000--
701--'
PROP SVCS -LLAD#_,;
100.18
4t�!
'!,.'ii
]i
-!;AMR INSP
=Ct
.1u
TOTAL PREPAIOS
.00
TOTAL VOUCFERS
`-55.5-
OT' DUE VENDOR
TL's: :n—,JE7G'_
0.
-- - - --
rr -,_
E -JF -LEASE
:TAL
FF,EFAi"
70T'AL
V3uCritK:,
TOTAL
DUE �END iE
ATE TE ;F,,i,3NE O;EC AT:21t5
1-;5_-4h-. --
'---A
H'------
AFTE;
H = -V--NEW PH -0,17H.
�'?140?0-�;c:.._--
_::
[VS=�'b.:_
s`'dtw r�=�PVE
3�cTth1-5TE1•::
TGTr_
FF�F},=_
_TAL
'JC-, h]
_ n�
u-:�iEFr
_,
T-
7 77
tZLZTNG
T^ -LJC �,•'
attr'
__ _
f
TJ-_
- _--__._--
�+,_ - :`JET--�--: --
�-•--
.._. __tt�_-F=,LYi i-'1--_=- %•'hl�
C7L_
':7y" c,:,G,
�+(�•.11..
THS
r-1 miDS
,(.!Cr
TOTS_
,Ou0HEF,
?4b.il�
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
c:_n4h COMP&
g_
Kill ILEnc_E OWi4r-=,-
FETJ C'
ij-
�_.__ .- -_. _--
-« _
rlr• ,�!t``,- Wit. _..-.,ti, -_ '_
4��--
�.-
Y1'--Ll--F=
5- `--
,41_'si T,�
Th
UT-
TITh
__—
y,
Tu=
_ G C -L VAL'-C V Tq T% Iii.
ar,i
,,3
—,
T t2
7 SF
i TAL EP'TDS
4OF` _
TOTAL A VCkE
q.
5:3
_ .4
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
:,564.00
-- __ -TTI __EF:
— Z
=t -CPFI1 ?' c- r`" . _ -`
aL
SsuYF'Llt�'4'':�F,F#R� 1'!T(i n?'I
r`_,�1-OF;✓N cU�'F`_LEJ_C�1'I���TI MT( _,'1�
11.4
TOTAL v'UU NE�g
`1.57
12-11 AL IluE .'EN—JOrl
i�IjN fair
T^TSI`
'L47 PC
..TA•_
2-E ,_
:EL hi_:
7. -p
-Dr
TuTPRE; 1)11S
77�7G._,` VEt 110 ; .41
_`_RVIE-C FLT
__ _r, __
'G1TY OF DIAMVPl1) "fum
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. 63
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: September 15, 1998 REPORT DATE: September 8, 1998
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Exoneration of Cash Deposit in Lieu of Landscaping Bond (Faithful Performance,
Labor & Material) - for 24168 Highcrest Drive (TR31977, Lot 20), Diamond Bar
SUMMARY: The owner, Antonio Tang, Promaster Design, and Development Inc., requests the
release of his cash deposit in lieu of landscaping bond for improvement security as required in
accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. The Planning Division finds that the owner performed
all works as shown on the landscaping plan on file with the City.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the exoneration of
Cash Deposit, in the amount of $10,000.00 posted with the City on May 23, 1996 and that the
City Clerk notify the owner and surety of this action.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: -A -Staff Report _
Public Hearing Notification
_, Resolution(s) _
Bid Specification (on file in City
Clerk's office)
_ Ordinance(s)
Other: Certificate of Deposit on
file with the City Clerk.
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been
1YLA Yes _No
reviewed by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority vote?
-X- Yes _ No
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
N/A Yes — No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
WA Yes _ No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
WA Yes _ No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIE D BY:
(I [�l )-e
P
Terrence L.Bel er James DeStefano
City Manager Deputy City Manager
CASH DEPOSIT IN LIEU OF LANDSCAPING BOND
Lot 20, Tract 31977,
aka 24168 Highcrest Drive, Diamond Bar
(FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE, LABOR & MATERIALS)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND CONSENT OF
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
�i�fjti' G �v>9�T►o�I� �- ��1 �
( hereinafter "Financial Institution")
hereby acknowledges that Antonio Tang, PROMASTER Design & Development Inc., 10926 Rush
Street, Suite B168, South El Monte, CA 91733 (hereinafter "Depositor") has deposited with the City of
Diamond Bar Finance Department the sum of $10,000.
Financial Institution acknowledges and agrees that the foregoing deposit stands in the name of the
City of Diamond Bar, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City"), and that the City is the
owner of such account. No funds shall be withdrawn from said account without the express, written
consent of the City; provided, however, that any interest earned on the deposit shall belong to the
Depositor.
The Financial Institution further acknowledges and agrees that upon written instructions from the
City, Financial Institution shall immediately pay to the City such amount (not exceeding, in the aggregate,
the sum specified above) as may be requested by City. Financial Institution further acknowledges and
agrees that -such funds shall be paid to the City notwithstanding any contrary instructions that may have
been given by the Depositor.
Financial Institution represents to City and warrants that the entire amount of the principle on
deposit as provided herein is insured through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or the
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSSLIC).
WHEREFORE, this acknowledgement and consent is executed this 23rd day of May, 1996.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION:
GRAND NATIONAL BANK
1138 S. GARFIELD AVE
ALHAMBRA, CA 91801
By:� �Ajl
- �
GRACE TANG
GRAND NATIONAL BANK
• . _•. \. I �taw'. 5�
- ar;��► t1A tL �\r�
�=L
CO R AU-1MAB,)f�• Lr,
o..aIt, fi1,9_;k
-- ACCOUNT
NAME ANToNio G . TANG
MEMBER FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
s
GNB REGULAR SAVINGS ACCOUNT
We appreciate your decision to open this Regular Savings Account
with Grand National Bank. Leaving your money in this account for an
extended period of time is a good way to earn interest.
This book can be used to record your current balance, and to enter
any deposits and withdrawals to your account.
- Please refer to the disclosures provided you at the time the account
was opened for the terms and conditions of this account. The Regular
Savings Account is not transferable except in accordance with the
rules and regulations of the Federal Reserve Board.
- _ DEPOSITS BY MAIL
Deposits may be safely made through the mails by remitting money
orders, bank checks or drafts. Cash remittances should not be forward-
ed thru the mails.
Agenda No. 6.5
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager ` _%
FROM: Kellee A. Fritzal, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OPPOSING EFFORTS TO MANDATE NEWLY HIRED
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY
PROGRAM
DATE: September 8, 1998
Federal policy makers are developing reform plans for the Social Security program. The mandatory
inclusion of Social Security coverage of newly hired public employees and their employers have
been included in several legislative measures. The money from the coverage would go to help re-
balance the fiscally troubled Social Security program. One of the reasons why the new tax would
apply to newly hired, presumed to be younger public employees, is because the Federal government
would get the money today, with no obligation to pay a benefit for some 40 years. Newly hired
state and local government employees and their employers would be forced to remit 12.4 percent of
pay. This could result in a number of different outcomes including new benefits structures.
The Social Security Act of 1935 prohibited state and local employees and their employers from
participating in the program because the Constitution bans Federal taxation of state and local
governments. In 1955, Congress enacted legislation to allow state and local governments to
voluntarily join and leave the Social Security program. In 1983, state and local governments had
the option to join or leave the program, eliminating the revolving door. In 1986 the Medicare tax
(1.45%) was extended to all public employers and their employees hired after March 31, 1986.
The Social Security program is in financial trouble. Since 1997, the Federal Government has been
investigating methods to improve the funding shortfall. There are several options that are being
discussed; however, in all options the inclusion of state and local employees is being considered.
According to the White House, the inclusion of the state and local employees will result in the
needed funds, it is simply a matter of fairness and it is every citizen's duty to participate.
Due to the exclusion of not being able to participate in the Social Security Program, state and local
governments developed their own benefit systems. These benefit systems require continued cash
flow for investments that fund benefits, including health insurance. Diverting funds to Washington
could reduce employee benefits.
There will be adverse impacts on the public retirement systems. The California PERS would have
to create two tiers of retirement benefits, those for the "newly hires" and the continuing members.
Employees would be less likely to seek new positions due to the loss of the current benefit level.
Employees in the same classification would be receiving different levels of benefits with different
expenditures, based upon their hire date.
KF
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
OPPOSING EFFORTS TO MANDATE ALL NEWLY HIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the President will propose early next year a plan to reform the Social Security
program; and
WHEREAS, the proposal may include forced Social Security coverage of the City of
Diamond Bar; and
WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar would become a Federal taxpayer, compelled to remit
6.2 percent of the salary or wages of newly hired workers; and
WHEREAS, this constitutes an unfunded Federal mandate imposed on the City of Diamond
Bar and other subdivisions of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, in order to pay this new Federal tax the City of Diamond Bar may have no
choice but to reduce services including law enforcement; programs for senior citizens and the
disabled; parks and recreation; and
WHEREAS, in addition to these reduced services, new and/or higher fees may be required
in order for Diamond Bar to pay the tax; and
WHEREAS, such new fees would constitute a double tax on the citizens of the City of
Diamond Bar because not only are they paying the Social Security tax on their own salaries and
wages, but also they would be funding the new Federal tax on the City of Diamond Bar; and
WHEREAS, this new tax on the City of Diamond Bar is a shift of Federal Government
responsibilities to our communities for which there will be no benefit paid for more than a
generation; and
WHEREAS, the President is encouraging a national dialogue on how to reform the Social
Security program and is seeking input from all parts of the nation.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
OPPOSING EFFORTS TO MANDATE ALL NEWLY HIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the President will propose early next year a plan to reform the Social Security
program; and
WHEREAS, the proposal may include forced Social Security coverage of the City of
Diamond Bar; and
WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar would become a Federal taxpayer, compelled to remit
6.2 percent of the salary or wages of newly hired workers; and
WHEREAS, this constitutes an unfunded Federal mandate imposed on the City of Diamond
Bar and other subdivisions of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, in order to pay this new Federal tax the City of Diamond Bar may have no
choice but to reduce services including law enforcement; programs for senior citizens and the
disabled; parks and recreation; and
WHEREAS, in addition to these reduced services, new and/or higher fees may be required
in order for Diamond Bar to pay the tax; and
WHEREAS, such new fees would constitute a double tax on the citizens of the City of
Diamond Bar because not only are they paying the Social Security tax on their own salaries and
wages, but also they would be funding the new Federal tax on the City of Diamond Bar; and
WHEREAS, this new tax on the City of Diamond Bar is a shift of Federal Government
responsibilities to our communities for which there will be no benefit paid for more than a
generation; and
WHEREAS, the President is encouraging a national dialogue on how to reform the Social
Security program and is seeking input from all parts of the nation.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
does hereby oppose any measure that would impose an unfunded Federal mandate on the City of
Diamond Bar in the form of a new Federal tax on salaries and wages paid to newly hired workers.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1998.
Mayor
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, California do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution Number 98-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, at its adjourned regular meeting held on the
day of , 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
LYNDA BURGESS, CITY CLERK
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA N0.
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 15,1998 REPORT DATE: September 8,1998
FROM: Bob Rose, Community Services Director
TITLE: Contract Amendment with Purkiss Rose, RSI for Parks Master Plan
SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar contracted with Purkiss Rose, RSI for the development of the Parks
Master Plan. The contract included the cost for five copies of the draft version of the master plan. The City
requested and received a total of 58 copies of the draft version of the Parks Master Plan during the review
process. The additional 53 copies cost $2,906.02. A contract amendment is necessary in order to compensate
Purkiss Rose, RSI for cost of the additional copies. Also, the original term of the contract was through
December 31,199T It is proposed that the contract date be extended to August 31, 1998,
RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the contract amendment with
Purkiss Rose, RSI for the Parks Muer Pian in the amount of $2,906.02 and extend the contract date to August
31, 1998. It is further recommended that the City Council appropriate $2,906.02 from General Fund reserves
for the cost of this amendment.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report — Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's office)
_ Ordinance(s) X Other: Contract Amendment
X Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
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?
_ Yes
X No
What Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
_ Yes
X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
l
Terrence L. Belang
City Manager
Ja s DeStefano
Deputy City Managdr
Bob Rose
Community Services Director
CITY COUNCIL. REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 15, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Contract Amendment with Purkiss Rose, RSI for Parks Master Plan
Issue Statement
Per the Purchasing Ordinance, City Council approval is required for contracts in excess of $10,000.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve the contract amendment with Purkiss Rose, RSI for the Parks
Master Plan in the amount of $2,906.02 and extend the contract date to August 31, 1998. It is further
recommended that the City Council appropriate $2,906.02 from General Fund reserves for the cost of this
amendment.
Financial Summary
There are no funds currently allocated in the 1998/99 fiscal year budget for this contract amendment
Background
The City Council awarded a contract to Purkiss Rose, RSI on September 17, 1996 to complete the Parks
Master Plan. The total contract amount was for $106,000 and included a reimbursable amount for only five
draft copies of the Parks Master Plan. In reality, the City requested and received a total of 58 copies of the draft
Parks Master Plan during the review process. The total cost for the 53 additional draft copies is $2,906.02.
Also, the original term of the contract was until December 31, 1997. It is proposed that the contract date be
extended to August 31, 1998, the date by which copies of the adopted version of the Parks Master Plan were
received by the City.
Discussion
The additional copies of the draft Parks Master Plan were distributed to interested parties during the review
process between August 1997 and March 1998. Copies were distributed to the City Council, Commissioners,
City staff, school board members and officials from each school district, City Council candidates for the
November 1997 election, Nbrary, water district and members of the public. A total of 58 copies of the draft
version were distributed or made available for public inspection. The cost for five of these copies was included
in the original contract with Purkiss Rose, RSI. Total cost for the additional 53 copies was $2,906.02. The total
contract amount with the recommended amendment is $108,906.02.
Additional time for the contract is necessary due to the extended review process. The contract was due to
expire on December 31,1997, but the review process continued until the Parks Master Pian was adopted by
the City Council on March 17, 1998. It is proposed that the contact date be extended to August 31,1998, the
date by which all copies of the adopted Parks Master Plan were received by the City.
Prepared by
Bob Rose, Community Services Director
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of September 17. 1996 by and between the City of
Diamond Bar, a municipal corporation ("City') and Purkiss-Rose/RSI , ("Consultant").
RECITALS
A. City desires to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor to provide
consulting services to City as set forth in Exhibit "A."
B. Consultant represents that it is fully qualified to perform such consulting services by
virtue of its experience and the training, education and expertise of its principals and employees.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the covenants and conditions
herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Consultant's Services.
A. Scope of Services. The nature and scope of the specific services to be
performed by Consultant are as described in Exhibit "A."
B. Level of Services/Time of Performance. The level of and time of the specific
services to be performed by Consultant are as set forth in Exhibit "A."
2. Term of Agreement. This Contract shall take effect September 17, 1996, and shall
continue until December 31, 1997 , unless earlier terminated pursuant to the provisions herein.
3. Compensation. City agrees to compensate Consultant for each service which
Consultant performs to the satisfaction of City in compliance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit
"A". Payment will be made only after submission of proper monthly invoices in the form specified
by City. Total payment to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed $103,350.00
plus $2,650.00 for reimbursables, for a total amount not -to -exceed $106,000.00, (One -hundred and
six thousand dollars and no cents).
4. General Terms and Conditions. In the event of any inconsistency between the
provisions of this Agreement and Consultant's proposal, the provisions of this Agreement shall
control.
5. Addresses.
City:
City Manager
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Ste 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765-4177
Consultant:
Stephan Rose
Purkiss-Rose/RSI
219 N. Harbor Blvd.
Fullerton, CA 92632
Purkiss-Rose/RSI Comprehensive City Wide Parks Master Plan
6. Status as Independent Consultant.
A. Consultant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent
contractor. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of
City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have
control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, except as set forth in this
Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its
agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of City.
B. Consultant agrees to pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Consultant
under this Agreement, and to indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes,
assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor
relationship created by this Agreement. In the event that City is audited by any Federal or State
agency regarding the independent contractor status of Consultant and the audit in any way fails to
sustain the validity of a wholly independent contractor relationship between City and Consultant,
then Consultant agrees to reimburse City for all costs, including accounting and attorney's fees,
arising out of such audit and any appeals relating thereto.
C. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers' compensation law regarding
Consultant and Consultant's employees. Consultant further agrees to indemnify and hold City
harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with applicable worker's compensation laws.
City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this
Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to promptly
pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section 6.
7. Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all work to the highest
professional standards and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to the City Manager or the City
Manager's designee.
8. Indemnification. Consultant is skilled in the professional calling necessary to
perform the services and duties agreed to be performed under this Agreement, and City is relying
upon the skill and knowledge of Consultant to perform those services and duties. To the fullest
extent permitted by law, Consultant hereby agrees, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, protect,
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Diamond Bar and its elected officials, officers, attorneys,
agents, employees, volunteers, successors, and assigns (collectively 'Indemnitees") from and against
any and all damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings,
expenses, judgments, penalties, liens, and losses of any nature whatsoever, including fees of
accountants, attorneys, or other professionals and all costs associated therewith, arising or claimed
to arise, directly or indirectly, out of, in connection with, resulting from, or related to any act,
failure to act, error, or omission of Consultant or any of its officers, agents, servants, employees,
subcontractors, materialmen, suppliers or their officers, agents, servants or employees, arising or
claimed to arise, directly or indirectly, out of, in connection with, resulting from, or related to this
Agreement or the performance or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant, or condition of
the Agreement, including this indemnity provision. This indemnity provision is effective regardless
of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by Indemnitees and shall
operate to fully indemnify Indemnitees against any such negligence. This indemnity provision shall
survive the termination of the Agreement and is in addition to any other rights or remedies which
Indemnitees may have under the law. Payment is not required as a condition precedent to an
Indemnitee's right to recover under this indemnity provision, and an entry of judgment against an
Indemnitee shall be conclusive in favor of the Indemnitee's right to recover under this indemnity
provision. Consultant shall pay Indemnitees for any attorneys fees and costs incurred in enforcing
this indemnification provision. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this instrument shall be
Purkiss-Rose/RSI Page 2 Comprehensive City Wide Parks Master Plan
construed to encompass (a) Indemnitees' sole negligence or willful misconduct to the limited extent
that the underlying Agreement is subject to Civil Code § 2782(a) or (b) the contracting public
agency's active negligence to the limited extent that the underlying Agreement is subject to Civil
Code § 2782(b). This indemnity is effective without reference to the existence or applicability of
any insurance coverages which may have been required under the Agreement or any additional
insured endorsements which may extend to Indemnitees.
Consultant, on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it, hereby waives all rights
of subrogation and contribution against the Indemnitees, while acting within the scope of their
duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to activities.or operations
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent
active or passive negligence by the Indemnitees.
In the event there is more than one person or entity named in the Agreement as a Consultant, then
all obligations, liabilities, covenants and conditions under this Section 8 shall be joint and several.
9. Insurance. Consultant shall at all times during the term of this Agreement carry,
maintain, and keep in full force and effect, with an insurance company admitted to do business in
California and approved by the City (1) a policy or policies of broad -form comprehensive general
liability insurance with minimum limits of $1,000,000.00 combined single limit coverage against
any injury, death, loss or damage as a result of wrongful or negligent acts by Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents, and independent contractors in performance of services under this Agreement;
(2) property damage insurance with a minimum limit of $500,000.00; (3) automotive liability
insurance, with minimum combined single limits coverage of $500,000.00; (4) professional liability
insurance (errors and omissions) to cover or partially cover damages that may be the result of errors,
omissions, or negligent acts of Consultant, in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per
occurrence; and (5) worker's compensation insurance with a minimum limit of $500,000.00 or the
amount required by law, whichever is greater. City, its officers, employees, attorneys, and
volunteers shall be named as additional insureds on the policy(ies) as to comprehensive general
liability, property damage, and automotive liability. The policy (ies) as to comprehensive general
liability, property damage, automobile liability, and professional liability shall provide that they are
primary, and that any insurance maintained by the City shall be excess insurance only.
A. All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be
non -renewed, canceled, reduced, or otherwise modified (except through the addition of additional
insureds to the policy) by the insurance carrier without the insurance carrier giving City thirty (30)
day's prior written notice thereof. Consultant agrees that it will not cancel, reduce or otherwise
modify the insurance coverage.
B. Consultant agrees that if it does not keep the insurance in full force and
effect, and such insurance is available at a reasonable cost, City may take out the necessary
insurance and pay the premium thereon, and the repayment thereof shall be deemed an obligation
of Consultant and the cost of such insurance may be deducted, at the option of City, from payments
due Consultant.
C. Consultant shall submit to City (1) insurance certificates indicating
compliance with the minimum worker's compensation insurance requirements above, and (2)
insurance policy endorsements indicating compliance with all other minimum insurance
requirements above, not less that one (1) day prior to beginning of performance under this
Agreement. Endorsements shall be executed on City's appropriate standard forms entitled
"Additional Insured Endorsement".
Purkiss-Rose/RSI Page 3 Comprehensive City Wide Parks Master Plan
10. Confidentiality. Consultant in the course of its duties may have access to
confidential data of City, private individuals, or employees of the City. Consultant covenants that
all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or
provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by
Consultant without written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is
required by law. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement.
Consultant's covenant under this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
11. Ownership of Materials. All materials provided by Consultant in the performance
of this Agreement shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon its
use or dissemination by City.
12. Conflict of Interest.
A. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire
any interest, director or indirect, which may be affected by the services to be performed by
Consultant under this Agreement, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of
its services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no
person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Consultant shall avoid the
appearance of having any interest which would conflict in any manner with the performance of its
services pursuant to this Agreement.
B. Consultant covenants not to give or receive any compensation, monetary or
otherwise, to or from the ultimate vendor(s) of hardware or software to City as a result of the
performance of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under this section shall survive the
termination of this Agreement.
13. Termination. City may terminate this Agreement with or without cause upon fifteen
(15) days' written notice to Consultant. The effective date of termination shall be upon the date
specified in the notice of termination, or, in the event no date is specified, upon the fifteenth (15th)
day following delivery of the notice. In the event of such termination, City agrees to pay
Consultant for services satisfactorily rendered prior to the effective date of termination.
Immediately upon receiving written notice of termination, Consultant shall discontinue performing
services.
14. Personnel. Consultant represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all
personnel required to perform the services under this Agreement. All of the services required under
this Agreement will be performed by Consultant or under it supervision, and all personnel engaged
in the work shall be qualified to perform such services. Consultant reserves the right to determine
the assignment of its own employees to the performance of Consultant's services under this
Agreement, but City reserves the right, for good cause, to require Consultant to exclude any
employee from performing services on City's premises.
15. Financial Condition. Prior to entering into this Agreement, Consultant has
submitted documentation acceptable to the City Manager, establishing that it is financially solvent,
such that it can reasonably be expected to perform the services required by this Agreement. Within
thirty (30) days of the first anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, and each year
thereafter throughout the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall submit such financial information
as may be appropriate to establish to the satisfaction of the City Manager that Consultant is in at
least as sound a financial position as was the case prior to entering into this Agreement. Financial
information submitted to the City Manager shall be returned to Consultant after review and shall
not be retained by City.
Purkiss-Rose/RSI Page 4 Comprehensive City Wide Parks Master Plan
16. Non -Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity.
A. Consultant shall not discriminate as to race, color, creed, religion, sex,
marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or
sexual orientation, in the performance of its services and duties pursuant to this Agreement, and
will comply with all rules and regulations of City relating thereto. Such nondiscrimination shall
include but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfers,
recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of
compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship.
B. Consultant will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed
by or on behalf of Consultant state either that it is an equal opportunity employer or that all
qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, creed,
religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical
condition, or sexual orientation.
C. Consultant will cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all
subcontracts for any work covered by this Agreement except contracts or subcontracts for standard
commercial supplies or raw materials.
17. Assignment. Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement
nor the performance of any of Consultant's obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent
of City, and any attempt by Consultant to so assign this Agreement or any rights, duties, or
obligations arising hereunder shall be void and of no effect.
18. Performance Evaluation. For any contract in effect for twelve months or longer, a
written annual administrative performance evaluation shall be required within ninety (90) days of
the first anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, and each year thereafter throughout the
term of this Agreement. The work product required by this Agreement shall be utilized as the basis
for review, and any comments or complaints received by City during the review period, either
orally or in writing, shall be considered. City shall meet with Consultant prior to preparing the
written report. If any noncompliance with the Agreement is found, City may direct Consultant to
correct the inadequacies, or, in the alternative, may terminate this Agreement as provided herein.
19. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws,
ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state, and local governments.
20. Non -Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one or
more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other
condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the making by City of any
payment to Consultant constitute or be construed as a waiver by City of any breach of covenant, or
any default which may then exist on the part of Consultant, and the making of any such payment
by City shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City with regard to
such breach or default.
21. Attorney's Fees. In the event that either party to this Agreement shall commence
any legal or equitable action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement,
the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit,
including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including costs of expert witnesses and consultants.
22. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by this Agreement shall be
deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand during regular business hours or by
Purkiss-Rose/RSI Page 5 Comprehensive City Wide Parks Master Plan
facsimile before or during regular business hours; or (b) on the third business day following deposit
in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses heretofore set forth in the Agreement,
or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to
the provisions of this section.
23. Governing Law. This Contract shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
24. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed to be the original, and all of which together shall constitute one and
the same instrument.
25. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and any other documents incorporated herein
by specific reference, represent the entire and integrated agreement between Consultant and City.
This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements.
This Agreement may not be amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a
writing signed by the parties which expressly refers to this Agreement. Amendments on behalf of
the City will only be valid if signed by the City Manager or the Mayor and attested by the City
Clerk.
26. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are incorporated herein by this
reference.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date
first written above.
"City"
ATTEST:
By:
t'ity Clerk.
Approved as to form:
By:
City Attorney
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
By: GLt/Lz
Manor
"CONSULTANT"
By: G.Tfwue (2c*C�
Its: F114 K r—A P I4A__ .
Purkiss-Rose/RSI Page 6 Comprehensive City Wide Parks Master Plan
Agenda No. 6.5
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager 1 4
FROM: Kellee A. Fritzal, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OPPOSING EFFORTS TO MANDATE NEWLY HIRED
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY
PROGRAM
DATE: September 8, 1998
Federal policy makers are developing reform plans for the Social Security program. The mandatory
inclusion of Social Security coverage of newly hired public employees and their employers have
been included in several legislative measures. The money from the coverage would go to help re-
balance the fiscally troubled Social Security program. One of the reasons why the new tax would
apply to newly hired, presumed to be younger public employees, is because the Federal government
would get the money today, with no obligation to pay a benefit for some 40 years. Newly hired
state and local government employees and their employers would be forced to remit 12.4 percent of
pay. This could result in a number of different outcomes including new benefits structures.
The Social Security Act of 1935 prohibited state and local employees and their employers from
participating in the program because the Constitution bans Federal taxation of state and local
governments. In 1955, Congress enacted legislation to allow state and local governments to
voluntarily join and leave the Social Security program. In 1983, state and local governments had
the option to join or leave the program, eliminating the revolving door. In 1986 the Medicare tax
(1.451/o) was extended to all public employers and their employees hired after March 31, 1986.
The Social Security program is in financial trouble. Since 1997, the Federal Government has been
investigating methods to improve the funding shortfall. There are several options that are being
discussed; however, in all options the inclusion of state and local employees is being considered.
According to the White House, the inclusion of the state and local employees, :rill result in the
needed funds, it is simply a matter of fairness and it is every citizen's duty to participate.
Due to the exclusion of not being able to participate in the Social Security Program, state and local
governments developed their own benefit systems. These benefit systems require continued cash
flow for investments that fund benefits, including health insurance. Diverting funds to Washington
could reduce employee benefits.
There will be adverse impacts on the public retirement systems. The California PERS would have
to create two tiers of retirement benefits, those for the "newly hires" and the continuing members.
Employees would be less likely to seek new positions due to the loss of the current benefit level.
Employees in the same classification would be receiving different levels of benefits with different
expenditures, based upon their hire date.
Agenda No. 6.5
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
OPPOSING EFFORTS TO MANDATE ALL NEWLY HIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the President will propose early next year a plan to reform the Social Security
program; and
WHEREAS, the proposal may include forced Social Security coverage of the City of
Diamond Bar; and
WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar would become a Federal taxpayer, compelled to remit
6.2 percent of the salary or wages of newly hired workers; and
WHEREAS, this constitutes an unfunded Federal mandate imposed on the City of Diamond
Bar and other subdivisions of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, in order to pay this new Federal tax the City of Diamond Bar may have no
choice but to reduce services including law enforcement; programs for senior citizens and the
disabled; parks and recreation; and
WHEREAS, in addition to these reduced services, new and/or higher fees may be required
in order for Diamond Bar to pay the tax; and
WHEREAS, such new fees would constitute a double tax on the citizens of the City of
_Diamond Bar because not only are they paying the Social Security tax on their own salaries and
wages, but also they would be funding the new Federal tax on the City of Diamond Bar; and
WHEREAS, this new tax on the City of Diamond Bar is a shift of Federal Government
responsibilities to our communities for which there will be no benefit paid for more than a
generation; and
WHEREAS, the President is encouraging a national dialogue on how to reform the Social
Security program and is seeking input from all parts of the nation.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
does hereby oppose any measure that would impose an unfunded Federal mandate on the City of
Diamond Bar in the form of a new Federal tax on salaries and wages paid to newly hired workers.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1998.
Mayor
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, California do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution Number 98-1
was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, at its adjourned regular meeting held on the
day of , 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
LYNDA BURGESS, CITY CLERK
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: September 15, 1998 REPORT DATE: September 9, 1998
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar Opposing Proposition 9
SUMMARY: Proposition 9 would dismantle California's new competitive electricity market, eliminating
customer choice and competitive electricity rates. If Proposition 9 passes, it is likely to result
in revenue reductions to local governments and critical services such as police and fire, and
may impair the ability of state and local governments to secure low-cost financing for local
infrastructure bonds.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve a Resolution of the City of Diamond
Bar Opposing Proposition 9.
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?
YYes
_ No
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A
_ Yes
—No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? N/A
_ Yes
—No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report? N/A
— Yes
_ No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
1
Terrence L. Bel g r
City Manager
Anne M. Haraksin
Administrative Assistant
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
OPPOSING PROPOSITION 9
WHEREAS, Proposition 9 would dismantle California's new competitive electricity market,
eliminating customer choice and competitive electricity rates;
WHEREAS, the State Legislative Analyst and Department of Finance have determined that the net
impact of this proposition on local governments would be revenue reductions potentially in the tens
of millions of dollars annually through 2001-02;
WHEREAS, the proposition could create a $6 billion hole in the state budget, resulting in significant
reductions in funding to local government and critical services such as police and fire, impairing
community health and welfare, public safety and community quality of life;
WHEREAS, the precedence set by disallowing payment on rate reduction bonds could impair the
ability of state and local governments to secure low-cost financing for local infrastructure bonds and
other types of bonds;
WHEREAS, the proposition serves only to create more bureaucracy and red tape and cost California
taxpayers billions of dollars in lawsuits;
WHEREAS, passage of this measure could exacerbate the financial problems experienced through
unfunded state mandates;
WHEREAS, this proposition jeopardizes the state's economic recovery by creating uncertainty for
California-based companies, as well as those considering relocating to our state;
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities voted to oppose the initiative;
WHEREAS, this proposition is poorly written, misguided, flawed and costly, and will only serve
to eliminate customer choice and competitive electricity rates.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved that the City of Diamond Bar opposes Proposition 9.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of , 1998.
Mayor
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 day of , 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. � 7
`1'O: Honorable Mayor and City Council
MEETING DATE: September 15, 1998 REPORT DATE: September 10, 1998
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1,
Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2.
SUMMARY: Warren Dolezal of The Dolezal Family Limited Partnership is requesting approval of
a one year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1
and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 in order to subdivide 2.55 acres into four lots for the development
of four detached single family residences. The request also includes an amendment to the Oak Tree
Permit for the removal and replacement of one oak tree. The project site is located in the 3000
Block (north side) of Steeplechase Lane, at the terminus of Hawkwood Road, adjacent to "The
Country Estates". At the conclusion of September 1, 1998 public hearing, Council directed staff to
prepare a Resolution of Denial.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review and adopt the Resolution
of Denial for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree
Permit No. 95-2.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report
X Resolution(s)
— Ordinance(s)
_ Agreement(s)
1E;XIERNAL VIS'1'RIBU'1'1ON:
SUBMITTAL. CHECKLIST:
Public Hearing Notification
Bid Specification
_ Other: (see staff report attachments)
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority vote?
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
Terrence L. Belanger
City Manager
X Yes No
X Yes No
X Yes No
_ Yes X No
X Yes _ No
Public Works Division
J es DeStefanc
Deputy City May -ger
A.
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING AN E%TENSION OF TIME
FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23382,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-1, AND OAR TREE
PERMIT NO. 95-2 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE
3,000 BLOCK (NORTH SIDE) OF STEEPLECHASE LANE,
AT THE TERMINUS OF HAWKAOOD ROAD, DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA.
RECITALS.
1. The property owner/applicant, Warren Dolezal of The
Dolezal Family Limited Partnership, has filed an
application for a one year extension of time for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit
No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. The request also
includes an amendment to the Oak Tree Permit, to
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2 and to the
Mitigation Monitoring Program. The project site is
located at the 3,000 Block (north side of Steeplechase
Lane, at the terminus of Hawkwood Road), Los Angeles
County, California, as described above in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Extension of Time, Amended Oak Tree Permit,
Amended Negative Declaration and Amended Mitigation
Monitoring Program shall be referred to as the "Applica-
tion".
2. On June 20, 1995 the City Council adopted Resolution Nos.
95-36 and 95-37 approving the applicant's project. During
project deliberations, the applicant represented to the
Planning Commission and the City Council the retention
and preservation of the existing mature oak tree. In
addition the applicant represented the availability of
project access through the gates of the private community
known as "The Country Estates".
3. The City Council project approval was based on the
applicant's representations that the oak tree would be
preserved and protected and that access would be provided
through "The Country Estates" via Steeplechase Lane and
that the subject property was a part of the TADCO
Agreement.
4. The approved project would subdivide a 2.55 acre parcel
into four residential lots for the development of four
custom single family residences ranging from 4,000 to
8,000 square feet. Lots vary in size from .55 to .90
acres. The proposal incorporated the retention of the
existing multi -trunk oak tree located on Lot 3. The oak
tree has a combined trunk circumference of 116 inches as
1
measured 42 feet above the mean natural grade and a
canopy diameter of 50 feet.
5. The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation
of Low Density Residential -Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per
Acre (R-1-3DU/Acre). It is zoned Single Family
Residential -Minimum Lot Size 8,000 Square Feet (R -1-
8,000).
R-1-
8,000).
6. Generally, the following zones surround the project site:
to the north is the R-1-20,000 Zone and the Commercial -
Recreational (C-R) Zone; to the south is the R-3-8,000
Zone; to the east is the R-1-20,000 Zone; and to the
west is the R-1-9,000 Zone.
7. The City Council project approval would have expired on
June 20, 1997. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act
(Government Code Section 66452.13) the project received
an automatic one year extension of time. As a result,
the project's approval expired June 20, 1998. The
applicant submitted a written request for a one year
extension of time, prior to the expiration of the map, as
required by the Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 of the
Los Angeles County Code (the City's Subdivision
Ordinance).
8. On September 1, 1998, the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the Application at which testimony was received from
interested parties, including the applicant.
9. Notification of the public hearing for this project was
published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on August 10, 1998.
Seventy-one property owners within a 500 foot radius of
the project site were notified by mail on August 5, 1998.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the
City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of
the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this
Resolution are true and correct.
2. This City Council hereby finds as follows:
(a) Due to the Parcel Map's design, access through "The
Country Estates" gates is necessary. As a result,
participation in the TADCO agreement or annexation
to the "The Country Estates" is necessary. The City
Council approved the project on the basis of the
applicant's representation that the project was a
part of the TADCO Agreement. The City has since
learned it is not. The applicant, approximately
three years after the approval of the map, on May 6,
1998, submitted an application to "The Country
Estates" for annexation, which has not received
2
approval. Thus the project has no means of access.
The applicant's lawsuit seeking an easement over
Steeplechase Lane did not provide the necessary
access nor did it delay the applicant either seeking
access or processing the map.
(b) The applicant's request for an extension of time
includes a request for the removal of the existing
oak tree which is required to be preserved and
protected as a condition of the project's approval.
Further investigation through the plan check process
indicated that the tree was located in a different
area of Lot 3 than initially represented by the
applicant, and that due to the existence of a
landslide area, appropriate mitigation measures
would now require removal of the tree. Due to the
oak tree's magnitude and good health, the City's
land use policies encourage preservation and
protection of the tree (Planning and Zoning Code
Section 22.56.2050). As a result, the parcel map
can and should be redesigned in a way that would
preserve the tree.
(c) Despite the automatic extension of time by the
Subdivision Map Act Amendment, within this three
year time period, the applicant has not pursued
compliance with conditions of approval with due
diligence. The following conditions of approval
necessary for final map approval and/or map
recordation have not been met:
Resolution No. 95-36: A. (7), (8), (11), (19), and
(20) ; B. (3) , (5) , (6) , (7) and (19) through (25) ;
and
Resolution No. 95-37: A. (7), (8), (11), (19) and
(20) ; B. (3) , (5) , (6) , (7) and (19) through (25) .
(d) Given the above changes in circumstances, further
extension of the subject map is not warranted. The
applicant should prepare and file a new map that
addresses the foregoing unresolved concerns.
3. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above,
the City Council hereby denies the Application. With the
denial of the extension of time, Tentative Parcel Map No.
23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree
Permit No. 95-2 expire and all privileges granted and
related to these entitlements expire.
The City Clerk shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this
Resolution, by certified mail, to: Warren Dolezal,
The Dolezal Family Limited Partnership, 4251 S.
Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1998, BY
THE City Council OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
BY:
Mayor
I, Lynda Burgess, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular
meeting of the City Council held on the 15th day of September, 1998,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
4
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: September 15, 1998 REPORT DATE: September 2, 1998
FROM: Phil & Deborah Armentrout,
Emergency Services Coordinators
TITLE: Resolution No. 98 -XX: (A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond
Bar authorizing Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Linda Magnuson, Assistant Finance
Director; and Kellee Fritzal, Assistant to the City Manager to submit and file with the
Governor's Office of Emergency Services as designated authorized agents for and on
behalf of the City of Diamond Bar for obtaining financial assistance for emergency
declarations.)
SUMMARY: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (PL
93-288, as amended) was enacted by Congress to provide for an orderly and continuing
means of assistance by the Federal Government to State and local governments in
carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage which results from
disasters. The City has heretofore submitted an application to the Governor's Office of
Emergency Services for the purpose of receiving Federal and/or State financial assistance
for emergency work and other protective measures that were performed during the winter
storms that devastated portions of the State earlier in the year. In order to receive
reimbursement for its eligible costs related to this disaster and future potential disasters,
the City must designate representatives who are authorized to submit certain forms and
other documents to the Governor's Office of Emergency Services.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Designation of
Applicants Agent Resolution recognizing Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Linda
Magnuson, Assistant Finance Director; and Kellee Fritzal, Assistant to the City Manager
as authorized agents of the City of Diamond Bar for the purpose of obtaining Federal
and/or State Disaster Assistance.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report —Public Hearing Notification
Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's
Office)
_ Ordinance(s) X Other: Designation of Applicants Agents
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been N/A _ Yes _ No
reviewed by the City Attorney?
2 Does the report require a majority vote? X Yes _ No
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A _ Yes _ No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? N/A _ Yes _ No
Which Commission?P.'
5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes _ No
Re o discussed with the following affected departments: FINANCE
R I
Te ence L. Bel r Kellee Fritzal
City Manager Assistant to the Ci y Manager
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA N0. � 7
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 15,1998 REPORT DATE: September 8,1998
FROM: Bob Rose, Community Services Director
TITLE: Award of Contract For The Design of Ballfield Lights at Lorbeer Middle School
SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar and Pomona Unified School District have entered into an agreement
for the City to fund the installation of lights for the football field at Lorbeer Middle School. The City released a
Request For Proposals (R.F.P.) to solicit a qualified firm to design this project. Proposals were received from
three different frons, however, one proposal was deemed to be non-responsive. After careful review of the two
responsive proposals, staff recommends that the contract be awarded to David Evans and Associates.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ft is recommended that the City Council award the contract for the design of the
ballfield lights at Lorbeer Middle School to David Evans and Associates, in the amount of $34,090, plus a
contingency of $3,400 (10%), resulting in a total not -to -exceed amount of $37,490.
LIST OF'ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s)
, Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's office)
_ Ordinance(s)
X Other: Request For Proposal
X Agreement(s)
Proposal submitted by David Evans
and Associates
Agreement with Pomona Unified School
District
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
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?
_ Yes X No
What Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
_ Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
Terrence L. Belanger
City Manager
Ja s DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Bob Rose
Community Services Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 15, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Award of Contract for the Design of Ballfield Lights at Lorbeer Middle School
Issue Statement
This contract will result in the development of construction documents for the installation of balifield lights for
the football fold at Lorbeer Middle School. City Council approval is required for contracts in excess of $10,000.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council award the contract for the design of the ballfield lights at Lorbeer
Middle School to David Evans and Associates, in the amount of $34,090, plus a contingency of $3,400 (10%),
resulting in a total not -to -exceed amount of $37,490.
Financial Summary
Funds for this contract are included in the 1998/99 fiscal year budget. The source is Quimby fees.
Background
The City of Diamond Bar and Pomona Unified School District have entered into an agreement that states the
City will fund a capital improvement lighting project at the Lorbeer Middle School football field. In order to
properly plan this project, it is beneficial to develop a master plan of lighting improvements for the outdoor
athletic facilities at Lorbeer Middle School and then necessary to develop construction documents for the
installation of a lighting system for the football field at the school site. The City released a Request For
Proposal (R.F.P.) to solicit proposals for the development of a lighting master plan and completion of
construction documents for the lighting system for the football field. In response to the R.F.P. the City received
three proposals. One of the three proposals was deemed non reponsive because it did not respond to the
master plan requirement stated in the scope of services in the R.F.P.
Proposer Base Proposal Reimbursable Total Proposal Cost
David Evans & Assoc. $31,890 $2,200 $34,090
Purkiss Rose, RSI $38,300 $2,200 $40,500
Reed Corp Eng. Non Responsive
Discussion
The proposals from each of the responsive firms have been reviewed and the proposed project managers
have each been interviewed. Staff has deemed each firm to be equally qualified for this project, Therefore,
based on the lower cost of its proposal, David Evans and Associates is recommended for award of contract.
Prepared by, Bob Rose, Community Services Director
CIT
IIIVII-OND HARI
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
The City of Diamond Bar is seeking responses from qualified firms to provide
professional services for the preparation of plans, specifications and cost estimates
for the design and construction of ballfield lights at Lorbeer Middle School,
including support for the project during the construction phase.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
Lorbeer Middle School is located in Diamond Bar at the corner of Diamond Bar Blvd. and
Golden Springs Drive. It is operated by the Pomona Unified School District. The City of
Diamond Bar and Pomona Unified School District have a joint use agreement for the
construction of ballfield lights on the football field.
A representative of Musco Lighting, Brent Marchetti, has completed a conceptual plan for a
four -pole lighting system for the football field.
The primary work being requested in this RFP is for the design and development of
construction documents for the four -pole lighting system as recommended by Musco Lighting.
However, in order to properly prepare for future phases of improvement construction at
Lorbeer Middle School, the City and the School District are also requesting a fee proposal for
the development of a conceptual master plan for Lorbeer Middle School outdoor athletic
facilities. These facilities include the ballfields to the south and west of the football field, the
outdoor basketball courts and A.D.A. accessible walkways to the athletic facilities, with
security lighting, from the parking lots to the fields.
Although only Phase I construction will be completed at this time, installation of electrical
equipment/conduit/etc. must take into consideration the future expansion of lighting
requirements.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Meet with City and Pomona Unified School District staff to finalize the scope of
services and set a schedule for completion of the project.
City of Diamond Bar 1 RFP - Ballfield Lighting at Lorbeer Middle School
2. Prepare a conceptual master plan of the installation of athletic facility lighting for the
football, baseball and hardcourt areas. Plan to attend two public meetings, one Parks
and Recreation Commission meeting and one City Council meeting and a school
board meeting to support the conceptual plan.
3. When directed by City staff, prepare 20 scale plans and specifications for the
construction of Phase I improvements (construction of Ballfield Lights) and entire bid
document package. Include engineer's estimate of cost to construct project. Plans
must include engineer's calculations on all ballfield light standards using 80 miles per
hour wind load, condition C.
4. Plan to attend one City Council meeting and a school board meeting to support the
bid documents during the approval process of the plans and specifications.
5. Plan to obtain DSA approval of plans and specifications.
6. Prepare and distribute any necessary addendum to the bid documents. Also review
submittals during bid process and recommend approval or rejection.
7. Review all submitted bids for completeness and check licenses and references of all
contractors bidding to complete work.
8. Provide a written recommendation for the apparent low bidder based on information
obtained in the submitted documents, interviews with references, State of California
Consumer Affairs and other sources with first hand knowledge regarding the
competency of the contractor to successfully complete the work described in the bid
documents.
9. Attend the City Council meeting to support the award of the contract to the apparent
low bidder.
10. Attend the pre -construction meeting to present information on the construction
documents. Pre -construction meeting will include a site visit.
11. Review submittals and change order requests and provide written recommendations
on their approval or rejection during the construction phase.
12. Provide support of the construction documents by attending a meeting on-site up to
once per week during the construction process and by providing telephone support
as -needed to City and school district staff, project manager, general contractor and City
Inspector.
13. Attend final walk through of project and provide written recommendation on the
acceptance of the project.
14. Prepare and submit as -built 20 scale drawings on mylar to the City after the
completion of project construction.
City of Diamond Bar 2 RFP - Ballfield Lighting at Lorbeer Middle School
15. Attend the City Council meeting and school board meeting to support acceptance of
the project and the filing of the notice of completion.
16. Complete all reports and submittals required by the City of Diamond Bar, the Pomona
Unified School District and DSA related to this project.
SUBMISSION PROCEDURES
The proposal must include the following:
♦ Cover letter including name, address and telephone number for the firm, background
information and the name of the contact person.
♦ Names and qualifications for the project team that will be providing the services,
including resumes
♦ Scope of Services
♦ Proposed Fee
♦ Proposed hourly billing for each project team member that would be assigned and any
expected additional expenditures
♦ Experience of the assigned team members with similar work
♦ Firm's capabilities relative to performing the required work within reasonable time
frames
♦ At least three references for similar work.
♦ Schedule of required time line to complete the project.
SUBMITTAL DEADLINE
Submit eight (8) copies of the proposal to:
Bob Rose, Community Services Director
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Ste 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Proposals are due by:
Friday, April 10, 1998 by 5:00p.m.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The City and School District staff will review and evaluate the response to this RFP. They will
be considering the following:
1. Responsiveness and comprehensiveness of the proposal with respect to this Request
for Proposals (RFP);
City of Diamond Bar 3 RFP - Ballfield Lighting at Lorbeer Middle School
2. Experience of the firm in the area of working with DSA.
3. Related experience and qualifications of the proposed project manager and project
team.
4. Availability of project team and their ability to complete this project in a timely
manner.
5. Information obtained from references.
6. Reasonableness of the proposed fee.
The criteria should not be construed so as to limit other considerations which may become
apparent during the review and selection process. The City reserves the right to reject any
or all proposals and may elect to make a decision without further discussion or negotiation.
This solicitation for proposals is not to be construed as a contract of any kind. The City is not
liable for any cost or expenses incurred in the preparation of the proposal.
QUESTIONS
All questions concerning this RFP should be directed to Bob Rose, Community Services
Director at (909) 396-5694.
City of Diamond Bar 4 RFP - Ballfield Lighting at Lorbeer Middle School
6, r%'
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERRENCE L. BELANGER, CITY MANAGER ' V
RE: PAUL C. GROW PARK USE AGREEMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the agreement between Walnut Valley Unified
School District and the City of Diamond Bar, for Paul C. Grow Park.
DISCUSSION:
The agreement between the City and Walnut Valley Unified School District for Paul C. Grow
Park at Quail Summit School has expired. The agreement recommended herewith would extend
the use of WVUSD property for park use for fifteen (15) years. The agreement provides for the
City operating Paul C. Grow Park during non -school hours. Liability would accrue to party that
had the right to use the property at the time a cause of action arose. Current City budget for
Paul C. Grow Park is $46,700.
COMMUNITY RECREATION AGREEMENT
WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
AND CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 15th day of September
1998, BY AND BETWEEN
O
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Herein after referred to as "City"
WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Herein after referred to as "District"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Section 10900 et. seq. of the Education code of the State of California authorizes
and empowers cities and school districts to cooperate with each other in organizing, promoting,
and conducting adequate programs of recreation; and
WHEREAS, the District owns a site known as the Quail Summit School Site, as shown herein
on Exhibit "A" hereby incorporated as a part of this agreement, a portion of which is currently
unused for school purposes; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for facilities of public agencies to be put to the fullest
possible public use; and
WHEREAS, the City and the District have found that it will be to the public interest,
economically and practically, to cooperate with each other in regard to the operation of softball
playing fields and appurtenant facilities on a portion of said School site and therefore desire to enter
into an agreement pursuant to the provisions of said Section 10900 et. seq.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions
contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. This agreement shall be in effect, for a period of fifteen (15) years from date of approval of
City Council, unless sooner terminated as provided herein..
2. The District agrees to permit the City to use the south half (approximately 5 acres) of the
School Site hereinafter referred to as Park Site" in accordance with the facility program and
plans contained in exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated as a part of this agreement,
for public recreational programs and activities in accordance with a schedule acceptable to
the District.
9. The District reserves the right to make use of such portions of the "Park Site" as it deems
necessary and appropriate for access to and staging of any construction and/or maintenance
activities which it authorizes on the "School Site." District will make all reasonable efforts to
notify and confer with the City regarding such use. During such use District will minimize
interference with use of the park site to the extent that it finds practical. Nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed by either party to this agreement to place any limits or restrictions
on District's rights to use all or any part of the Quail Summit School Site as it deems necessary
to accomplish those activities which it is authorized and empowered to carry -out under the
Education Code of the State California.
10. District hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the City, its agents, officers, and
employees from and against any and all liability, expense, including defense costs and legal fees,
and claims for damage of any nature whatsoever. including, but not limited to bodily injury,
death, personal injury, or property damage arising from or connected with, either directly or
indirectly, district acts or omissions hereunder.
City hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and save harmless the District, its agents, officers, and
employees from and against any and all liability, expense, including defense costs and legal fees,
and claims for damages of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to bodily injury,
death, personal injury, or property damage arising from or connected with, either directly or
indirectly, City's acts or omissions hereunder.
11. The "Park Site" shall be operated by the City as a public recreational area, open to students of
the Walnut Valley School District or residents of the City and other incorporated and
unincorporated territories of the County..
12. This Community Recreation Agreement may be terminated by either parry at any time and for
any reason upon 180 days' written notice to the other. District may require removal of any
improvements not installed by District.
13. If the "Park Site" or improvements thereon are destroyed by fire, war, earthquake, flood,
storm, or other casualty beyond the control of the parties hereto to such an extent that they
cannot be restored to their previous condition within 120 days after the happening of the
casualty, City shall have the option to restore the "Park Site" and improvements thereon to
their condition as of the date of the casualty. In the event City does not elect to perform such
restoration, the Agreement shall terminate and City shall remove all improvements and personal
property from the "Park Site" and return the Site to its original condition. If the "Park Site"
and improvements are destroyed by any of the causes enumerated above and in the event they
can be restored within 120 days after the happening of the casualty, City shall restore as soon
as feasible to do so and the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. �o i=
TO: Mayor and City Council
MEETING DATE: September 15, 1998 REPORT DATE: September 11, 1998
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Adjustment to GTE Telephone Installation Agreement for Suites 100 & 190.
SUMMARY: On May 5, 1998, the City Council approved a budget amount of $20,000 for the relocation of
telephones for Suites 100 & 190, as well as an upgraded voice mail system. At the time the staff was planning the
move from the then -Suite 100 into the new office space, it was believed that $20,000 would be sufficient to accomplish
the moving of the phone system. The timing of the move into the new office space occurred in such a way that in
order to not have an interruption in normal business hours, GTE was required to work on the weekend of the move.
Finally, with the combination of these changes, circumstances have created a need for additional funds to cover the
cost of the telephone relocation service. The estimate needed to cover the total cost above the budgeted amount is
$2,633.20.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended to approve a contract amendment of $22,633.20; which is $2,633.20
more than the original budgeted amount of $20,000.
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1.
Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
_ Yes
X No
by the City Attorney?
2.
Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
MAJORITY
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed?
N/A
_ Yes
_ No
4.
Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
N/A
` Yes
_ No
Which Commission?
5.
Are other departments affected by the report?
N/A
_, Yes
_ No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
1
Terrence L. Belanger
City Manager
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 14, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Map, Tract 52267
Attached is the subdivision map showing lots between 6,000 square feet and 10,000
square feet.
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERRENCE L. BELANGER, CITY MANAGER
RE: DIAMOND HILLS RANCH SUBDIVISION APPLICATION VIS A VIS
GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE ELEMENT, STRATEGY 1.5:4 (a) FINDINGS
OF SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT RELATED TO REMOVAL THE RIGHT TO
PROHIBIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND
FINDINGS TO APPROVE VTTM NO. 52267
DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve amended Condition 26 of the Planning
Commission Resolution (No.98-11, Section 4, b (26), which approved VTTM No. 52267
(Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership, Ltd/Suncal), with a finding that the consideration received for
the removing of the right to prohibit the construction of residential buildings and the consideration
for approving VTTM No. 52267 is of significant benefit to the community.
DISCUSSION:
At the meeting of September 1, 1998, the City Council directed staff to negotiate with the
Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership, Ltd/Suncal ("Applicant") on the matter of the consideration
that would be received by the City for the removal of right to prohibit the construction of
residential buildings, if VTTM No. 52267 were to be approved.
The Planning Commission had recommended the approval of VTTM No. 52267. The Planning
Conunission Resolution of Approval No. 98-11, in Section 4, b, (26) required of the Applicant:
"In exchange for the removal of map restrictions, the applicant shall fulfill the following
requirements:
(a) Dedicate to the City as public open space: all of Lot 9 Tract No. 31479,
approximately 86 acres; portions of Lots 4, 5, and 7 of Tract No. 31479,
approximately 274.3 acres excluding manufactured slope; and
(b) Contribute $250,000 to the City's Parks and Facility development Fund."
VTTM NO. 52267
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
PAGE THREE
(26) A. Pursuant to the City of Diamond Bar General Plan, Land Use Element, Objective
1. 5, Strategy 1. 5.4 (a); Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership, Ltd. agrees to
$1,470,000 as consideration for the City of Diamond Bar relinquishing its right to
prohibit the construction of residential buildings, on portions ( 9.8 +/- acres ) of
Parcel 5 and Parcel 7. Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership, Ltd. shall remit
$1,200,000 to the City of Diamond Bar. In addition thereto, Diamond Bar Ranch
Partnership, Ltd, agrees to replace paved parkways and medians, located at Gold
Rush and Diamond Bar Boulevard and Tin Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard,
with landscaping; as well as, creating a pastoral, landscaped area, on the corner of
Gold Rush and Diamond Bar Boulevard the value of which is estimated to be
$270,000.
The payment agreed upon herein shall be deposited in the following fund:
$1,200,000 in the City of Diamond Bar Parks and Facilities Development Fund.
Upon mutual agreement by the City and Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership, Ltd.,
the value of the assistance in the construction of parks and/or community facilities,
including but not limited to, site preparation, site grading, public access/use
facilities in the Diamond Bar Open Space Preserve (Diamond Hills Open Space
Preserve) or other similar activities, may be applied to the agreed upon payment as
in-kind parks and facilities development services. In the event in-kind parks and
facilities development services are provided by Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership,
Ltd, the City of Diamond and Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership, Ltd agree that the
sum total amount of cash payment and in-kind services shall not exceed
$1,470,000.
B. Pursuant to the Diamond Bar General Plan, Land Use Element, Objective 1.6,
Strategy 1.6.1(b) and Objective 1. 5, Strategy 1. 5.5 (a), Diamond Hills Ranch
Partnership, Ltd. ("Applicant"):
(a) Dedicate as open space all of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479 and Lots 50 and 51
of Tract No. 42576, which is comprised of 86.0 acres.
(b) Dedicate as open space portions of Lots 4, 5 and 7 of Tract No. 31479,
which is comprised of 264.3 +/- acres; excluding manufactured slopes
created by Tract No. 52267.
(c) Dedicate to the City as public park land a portion of Lot 4 of Tract No.
31479 adjacent to Summit Ridge Park, which is comprised of 10.0 acres.
VTTM NO. 52267
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
PAGE FIVE
And, those 17,500 housing unit entitlements have resulted in 81.5 acres of public open space.
The 130 housing unit project proposed in VTTM No. 52267 results in 350 acres of dedicated,
publicly owned open space. All factors considered, the City Council has a reasonable basis for
making a finding(s) of significant benefit to the City, if were to approve VTTM No. 52267, as
said has been proposed by the Applicant.
VTTM NO. 52267
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
PAGE FOUR
The value of the dedicated acres of land, which the Applicant has offered to deed to the City as
open space land in perpetuity, is estimated to be $10,000 per acre, for a total value of
$3,600,000.
Amended Condition 26 requires the Applicant to dedicate 350.4 acres of land as open space and
dedicate 10 acres of land as parkland. Although it is not a requirement, the Applicant has offered
to deed the dedicated open space land and park land to the City for public access, use and
enjoyment. The deed for the open space would require the City to use the land, solely, as open
space, in perpetuity. The estimated value of this open space dedication, based upon recent offers
for and sales of open space land is approximately $10,000 per acre. There is benefit in having the
property conveyed from private ownership to public ownership, for open space preservation
purposes. Besides eliminating the development pressure that is inherent to private property
ownership, public ownership provides for open space land being preserved in its natural state and
for the public having access, use and enjoyment of the open space land.
The dedication and deeding of open space land to the City satisfies the General Plan, Land Use
Element, Objective 1.6, Strategy 1.6.1 (b). The General Plan requires the dedication of at least
75 % of the land in Planning Area 2 for open space, upon the approval of a residential
subdivision. The Applicant is dedicating over 85% of the land in Planning Area 2 for open space.
Furthermore, the Applicant has offered to deed the open space land to the City for perpetual open
space preservation. The dedication and deeding of open space land to the City satisfies Land Use
Element, Objective 1.5, Strategies 1.5.5 (a) and 1.5.6. Strategy 1.5.5 (a) is satisfied through the
acquisition of land for natural area conservation and park land, through the land entitlement
process. -Strategy 1.5.6 is satisfied, with the offer of the dedication of significant environmental
resources to the City and preserving the resources as open space.
CONCLUSION:
The monetary value ($1,470,000) conferred upon the City, as consideration for the removal of
map restrictions, which is to used for parks, facilities and landscaping projects citywide, almost
doubles the fund balance (from $1,337,200 to $2,537,200) in the Parks and Facilities
Development Fund. The dedication of 350 acres open space land: and, the deeding of the open
space land and 10 acres of park land to the City, as set forth in the amended Condition (26),
increases the amount of dedicated open space in Diamond Bar from 578 acres to 928 acres, which
is an increase in total dedicated open space of 61%. Further, the City currently owns 81.5 acres
of parkland which primarily natural open space. The deeding of 350 acres of open space results
in an increase in deeded, public open space of 430 % (81.5 acres to 431.5 acres). In the history
of Diamond Bar, early 1960s to the present, approximately 17,500 housing units have been
approved and constructed. Those 17,500 housing unit entitlements have resulted in 578 acres of
dedicated open space, with the overwhelming majority being private open space.
VTTM NO. 52267
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
PAGE TWO
After two evenings of public hearings and an evening of City Council deliberation, the Council
directed staff to meet with the Applicant to negotiate the matter of significant benefit to the City,
as same relates to the removal of the City's right to prohibit the construction of residential
buildings.
The Applicant, through VTTM No. 52267, has requested the removal of the City's right to
prohibit the construction of residential buildings on approximately 9.8 +/- acres of land, located
on portions of Lots 5 and 7 of Tract no. 31479. The City of Diamond Bar General Plan, Land
Use Element, Objective 1.5, Strategy 1.5.4 (a) requires:
"Vacant land burdened by non open space restrictions shall be required to be subjected to
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council before any action
can be taken to remove any such restrictions. Any decision to remove said map
restrictions must be supported by findings that such removal is of significant benefit to the
City. "
The Applicant has submitted an application for a subdivision map, VTTM No. 52267, that
includes Lot 6 of Tract No. 31479, which is unencumbered by restrictions of any kind; as well as,
portions of Lots 5 and 7, which are encumbered by a map restriction that gives the City the right
to prohibit the construction of residential buildings. The Applicant has requested the removal of
the map restriction on the 9.8 +/- acres, upon Applicant proposes to build residential buildings.
The finding of significant benefit, regarding Strategy 1.5.4 (a), is a determination that is solely
within the discretion of the City Council. Arguably, the finding(s) should be derived from factors
that are reasonable and understandable to the Council, the Applicant and the community. The
task that the City staff and Applicant have had before them is to reach agreement on the beneficial
consideration that the City would receive, if map restrictions were removed. The staff and
Applicant have agreed that a reasonable and understandable approach would be to ascertain a
value for the removal of the restriction by applying a fair market value to the acres of land upon
which residential buildings would be constructed. The amount agreed upon is $150,000 per
acre. Two important aspects in deriving this estimated fair market amount are that the Applicant
owns the property in fee title and the City possesses the right to prohibit the construction of
residential buildings on the property. All aspects considered and known recent historical values,
the agreed upon fair market amount is considered reasonable. As a result, the beneficial
consideration that the City would receive is derived by multiplying the acres upon which
residential buildings will be constructed (9.8 acres) by the agreed upon fair market value
($150,000), which product is $1,470,000.
The $1,470,000 consideration would be in form of money and landscaping projects, as set forth in
the recommended amended condition 26, which is:
N25 f
¢
Lo
In H10
j Ml
o l
iW Z
: p
gee' �> €6 W o �s ;• k; LU
ual),it
!I > H
W W o4M GyyPy��y91y�4{C4Y
CID
N
a (D a
�No
wN�
> LU
■
F-
og
�
�
Z0
V � 0
Z
wLL
<r
>�U
F—
I
L —
> it S
r_ II
I�I,'III IIIIIIIIII III I�IIIIII II: 111111 II IILI'II II
il,�l'I I�I I,I P I,I I•I�I I I I I I I I I I I I I A I•I I •I I�I � �I V I I I LLLI ISI I I
i.I I I
# 3P �i,i. :'S •f� ,5'ils .+F. }:f4e� '... ..
�Imsa:15xcaxx;alssslxcx7Ey�eaxelseest�a:SPPIPaFaaRw�gjga'Is�a(g�s���81'0
ZQ III F 111111 11111 V III V III II 111111 IIII V III �I III 1111111 (IIII
5� 5��::f �: gli i:;x;:Iv7;:'ss}i'3'.9�_�5=hq'i".��,Y�:#iax_s 3•G �F': Yell?"a_3;�;k•�� y�fi"� y ....v SSI it
IIIIIIhI.11111111111�IIIIfllihl�lllll'I IIIIIIIIIIIII��IIII�IIIIIIIIII�IIIIIII�IIIIiI
'i•i •775 �. !9 . •.... .. �:.P6Co :+}�•' !};.E• 'a:. .'+1• .y �: :�..pp ' �j°
as.i.. .. ....... ,. ... ..... .. ... ..
�-�m.nermm?:C.4:�m�.moR,:FI aA'�xPRRBF^Ax7{8xlx dR9::7i 515 ^.119418 G41 `�d9A G AHb 80�Y x.^.78�wC F'�'. .n.E CC'.8
y`\ W N
aLni
C7Ho
U
44
-' '+ q. : •Ir�'� 7' .� R•.' 4 .Ty�ii`�• Pr
�:' {f.•',.� R� ; �J� I I iiF=,
;G - • � � 574. ! A •' � � .' e/(c/ %tl (�I \\
5 _ I ii • Y. :Y: �, "!•.� �• e,•fr'�f.°v 'f 1Ji
A }
LU
>
xx
X-/�-
�;-����-'JJ<<rll.s�LrV%� ,,,.1) I •.'
�; \ \� \\—."_"�-;\�� 'fir'/f• � � .- -�/ J�,
- � � `•{ ,.. ;iii ��� � `b . � �i / ���- %, °`l .�� ,���\\�� ,' \) 1 �����''�/��/l �J'
ct
�,��� ,��' -- . I IJ �' 'l , \- zs- -. �� 11 ,_.%�\ ',;: -• � �� y�\�
�� � ����I�, 11,1,1 �11��i,i ,,v� r�, � •� � r.. � � �O!%,'� is - , ,III �"�� �', '� -�
may..-��i� ���'���� • � � �..,� �• ;;, a I f �, ��,I, '� �� �``� I �^ �'�,
//,//��(' ,1 .. _ •i,•? �., ,mss .. '!,
t� i
d
r1-1
Lu N
LU
>
xx
X-/�-
�;-����-'JJ<<rll.s�LrV%� ,,,.1) I •.'
�; \ \� \\—."_"�-;\�� 'fir'/f• � � .- -�/ J�,
- � � `•{ ,.. ;iii ��� � `b . � �i / ���- %, °`l .�� ,���\\�� ,' \) 1 �����''�/��/l �J'
ct
�,��� ,��' -- . I IJ �' 'l , \- zs- -. �� 11 ,_.%�\ ',;: -• � �� y�\�
�� � ����I�, 11,1,1 �11��i,i ,,v� r�, � •� � r.. � � �O!%,'� is - , ,III �"�� �', '� -�
may..-��i� ���'���� • � � �..,� �• ;;, a I f �, ��,I, '� �� �``� I �^ �'�,
//,//��(' ,1 .. _ •i,•? �., ,mss .. '!,
t� i
JAMES ANDERSON ROSIE BERN STAN GRANGER
23342 STIRRUP DR. 1010 S. PARK SPRING LN. 23800 GOLD NUGGET AVE.
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
SAM SAFFARI
24075 HIGHCREST DR.
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
JOHN FORBING
23209 CHARWOOD PL.
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
GEORGE DAVIDSON
23426 E. WAGON TRAIL DR
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
DR. CHRISTINA GOODE
624 HOSS ST.
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
HENRY POURZAND
1008 QUIET CREEK LN.
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
ALBERT PEREZ
703 PANTERA DR.
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
DENNIS O'NEIL
HEWITT & McGUIRE
19900 MacARTHUR #1050
IRVINE, CA 92612
THOM PRUITT
1302C DIAMOND BAR BLVD
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
DON GRAVDAHL
23988 MINNEQUA DR.
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
RANDY NAYUDU
24059 HIGHCREST DR.
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
MARTHA BRUSKE
600 GREAT BEND DR.
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
MARTY TORRES
24032 HIGHCREST DR.
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
KEVIN JOHNSON
JOHNSON & McCARTHY LLP
550 WEST "C" ST.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
WENDY ANN GOIN
809 BRIDLE DR.
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
DAVE KERSEY
23403 E. WAGON TRAIL DR.
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
SANDY ERICKSON
22806 RIDGELIKE RD.
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
RON TEHRAN
745 VIEW LN.
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
NICK ANIS
1125 BRAMFORD CT.
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
TODD KURTIN
SUNCAL
5109 E. LA PALMA AVE., #D
ANAHEIM, CA 92807
AGENDA NO. 8.1
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 62267, 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.
Due to the fact that the parties are still negotiating on this matter,
the materials for staff's report will not be available until Monday,
September 14, 1998.
1
2.
3
4.
5.
6.
7.
E
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 40
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
CALL TO ORDER: Chair/Huff called the meetingto order at 11:14 .m.
p
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; Linda Magnuson, Assistant Finance Director
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 - Special Meeting of August 18, 1998 - As submitted.
3.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated September 1, 1998 in the
amount of $40,563.25.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS: VC/Ansari stated that on Monday, August
31, she and Chair/Huff held a Redevelopment Subcommittee meeting.
Chair/Huff stated that conceptual artistic renderings of the City's shopping centers
were reviewed during the August 31 subcommittee meeting.
AGENCY ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct,
Chair/Huff adjourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m.
ATTEST:
Chairman
LYNDA BURGESS, Agency Secretary
L
DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman Huff andBoard of Directors
FROM: Linda G. Magnuson,VAsst. Finance Director
SUBJECT: Voucher Register, September 15, 1998
DATE: September 10, 1998
Attached is the Voucher Register dated September 15, 1998 for the
Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency. The checks will be produced after
any recommendations and the final approval is received.
Please review and sign the attached.
7-.0
;t r' -?i i(._i�r'�t1_ _y`_ti f1i
�'; •t. _ _ - - - _ _ _- -rte-- � T- � _ -
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
JOINT MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1998
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. VISION FOR THE FUTURE AND REDEVELOPMENT
3. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ACTIVITIES
4. EXPECTATIONS OF THE COMMISSION
5. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND IMPACT MITIGATION
6 REGIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND SOLUTIONS
7. WILDLIFE CORRIDOR CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ACTIVITIES UPDATE
8. PROPOSED TRES HERMANOS CONSERVATION AUTHORITY STATUS
9. LARKSTONE PARK LAND TRANSFER STATUS
10. OTHER MATTERS OF MUTUAL INTEREST
11. ADJOURNMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION
12. RECESS OF CITY COUNCIL TO 6:30 P.M. MEETING
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR L) ,
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Date: September 9, 1998 vv/
To: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
t�
From: James DeStefano, Deputy City Ma j
Subject: Suggested Discussion Items for the September 15, 1998
Planning Commission / City Council Joint Meeting
The Planning Commission has suggested the following list of discussion items for the joint
meeting with the City Council on September 15, 1998.
1. City Council Member's vision for the future of Diamond Bar and how the
Redevelopment Agency ties in with their vision. (McManus)
2. The City Council's approach to redevelopment and how quickly the City will get into
matters that will be effected by redevelopment. (Ruzicka)
3. The City Council's expectations of the Planning Commission during the next year and
what the Planning Commission can expect from the City Council during the next year
with respect to redevelopment. (Ruzicka)
4. Clarify the City's involvement with respect to regional transportation planning and a
possible Tonner Canyon Bypass Road. (Nelson & McManus)
5. What potential role can the Planning Commissioners play in finding a solution to
Diamond Bar's traffic of which 95 percent comes from outside of the City. (Nelson)
6. Update and clarification of the City's position on the Wildlife Corridor Conservation
Authority efforts to link the Whittier area with the Santa Ana Mountains. (Nelson)
7. A discussion and status of the potential formation of the Joint Powers Authority to deal
with Tonner Canyon as well as, the status of the $10,000,000 proposed for the Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy. (McManus)
8. Update regarding the status of Larkstone Park and the related negotiations with the
Walnut Valley Unified School District. (Tye)
Four members of the Commission will be in attendance. Although Commissioner Ruzicka
will be out of state, he requests that the joint meeting proceed.
JDS:bp