HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/2/1999,ity Council Agend
lip,
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
4:00 p.m. — Closed Session CC -8
4:30 p.m. — Study Session CC -8
6:30 p.m. — Regular Meeting
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Main Auditorium
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Mayor Wen Chang
Mayor Pro Tem Debby O'Connor
Council Member Eileen Ansari
Council Member Carol Herrera
Council Member Bob Huff
City Manager Terrence L. Belanger
City Attorney Michael Jenkins
City Clerk Lynda Burgess
Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file
in the Office of the City Clerk, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding
an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (909) 860-2489 during regular business hours.
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title H of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance
or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform
the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Council Chambers.
The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same.
DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL RULES
(ALSO APPLIES TO COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS)
PUBLIC INPUT
The meetings of the Diamond Bar City Council are open to the public. A memba of the public may address the Council on the subject of one or mese
agenda items and/or other items of interest which are within the subject matterjurisdiction ofthe Diamond Bar City Council. A request to address the
Council should be submitted in person to the City Clark
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 iotavas d patties for an item maybe requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called onthe calendar. Time Chair may
limit the public input on any item or the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based an the number of people requesting to speak and the
.business of the Council.
Individuals are requested to refrain from personal attacks towards Council Members or atter citmes. Comments which aro not conducive to a
positive business meeting environment are viewed as snacks against the entire City Council and will not be tolerated Your cooperation a greatly
appreciated
In accordance with Government Code Section 54954.3(x) the Chair may fram time to time dispense with public comment on items previously
considered by the Council. (Does not apply to Committee meetings.)
In acoordanoe with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be &clad on by the City Council moat be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Council
meeting. In case of emergency, or when a subject in arises subsequent to the posting ofthe agenda, upon staking 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 fun the Council Chambers any person who commits the following acts in respect to a regular or special meeting ofthe
Diamond Bar City Council.
A. Disorderly behavior toward the Council or any member of the staff thereot; tending to irdentipt 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 ofthe City Council is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal doge.
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 advanoe ofthe meeting. Please telephone (909) 860-2489 between 8 am
and 5 p.m Monday through Friday.
HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS
Copies of Agenda, Rules ofthe Council, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 860-2489
Computer Acoesa to Agendas (909) 860-11NE
General Information (909) 860-2489
NOTE: ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ON ANY ITEM IDENTIFIED ON THE AGENDA.
1. CLOSED SESSION:
STUDY SESSION:
2. CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
INVOCATION:
Lutheran Church
Next Resolution No. 99-09
Next Ordinance No. 04(1999)
4:00 p.m., AQMD Room CC -8
Conference with Legal Counsel -
Pending Litigation (Subdivision (a)
of Section 54956.9) Dolezal vs. City
of D.B.
4:30 p.m., AQMD Room CC -8
Minnequa Landslide
Solid Waste Task Force Reports
6:30 p.m., March 2, 1999
Girl Scout Junior Troop 730
Pastor Dennis Stuve, Mt. Calvary
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Herrera,
Huff, Mayor Pro Tem O'Connor, Mayor Chang
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
3.1 Introduction of two new City employees.
3.2 Presentation by Lanterman Development Center Re: Proposed
Services Expansion Project.
3.3 Proclaiming the week of March 2, 1999 as Girl Scout Week.
3.4 Certificate of Recognition to Janet Eastman for Girl
Scout Gold Award.
3.5 Presentation by Donna Georgino, Region IV Representative
for California Parks & Recreation Society(CPRS)of CPRS
Award of Merit to City Council Re: Pantera Park Design.
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,
MARCH 2, 1999 PAGE 2
pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council generally cannot take
any action on items not listed on the posted agenda. Please
complete a Speaker's Card and give it to the City Clerk
completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five
minute maximum time limit when addressing the City Council.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 PLANNING COMMISSION - March 9, 1999 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.2 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - March 11, 1999 -
7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - March 16, 1999 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.4 COMMUNITY/CIVIC CENTER TASK FORCE - March 24, 1999 - 6:30
p.m., AQMD Room CC -2, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.5 FOUR CORNERS TRANSPORTATION POLICY GROUP COMMITTEE
MEETING - March 29, 1999 - 9:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. - AQMD,
21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.6 CITY 1OT" BIRTHDAY PARTY - April 18, 1999 - 12:00 - 5:00
p.m., Peterson Park, 24142 E. Sylvan Glen Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
6.1.1 Study Session of February 16, 1999 - Approve as
submitted.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of February 16, 1999 - Approve
as submitted.
Requested by: City Clerk
6.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
6.2.1 Regular Meeting of December 8, 1998 - Receive
and File.
6.2.2 Regular Meeting of January 12, 1999 - Receive
and File.
6.2.3 Regular Meeting of January 26, 1999 - Receive
and File.
Requested by: Planning Division
MARCH 2, 1999 PAGE 3
6.3 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated March
2, 1999 in the amount of $539,757.84.
Requested by: Finance Division
6.4 TREASURER'S REPORT - for January, 1999 - Review and
approve.
Requested by: Finance Division
6.5 RESOLUTION NO. 99 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF BALLFIELD LIGHTS
AT LORBEER MIDDLE SCHOOL IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS -
The City has an agreement with Pomona Unified School
District to install ballfield lights for the football/
soccer field at Lorbeer Middle School. Plans and
specifications have been developed for this project and
are ready to be released to advertise for bids.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 99 -XX approving plans and
specifications for installation of ballfield lights at
Lorbeer Middle School and authorize and direct the City
clerk to advertise to receive bids.
Requested by: Community Services Division
6.6 RESOLUTION NO. 99 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INSTALLING MULTI -WAY STOP SIGNS
AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF SANTAQUIN DRIVE/REDGATE CIRCLE
AND KIOWA CREST DRIVE/DEERFOOT DRIVE - Concerns have been
raised by residents in the Kiowa Crest Dr. and Santaquin
Dr. neighborhoods regarding speed. The area is generally
of hilly terrain with both horizontal and vertical
curvatures. Six intersections were evaluated for
potential multi -way stop signs in instances where safety
has been compromised by speeding vehicles and visibility
hindrances. Of these six intersections, 2 were warranted
for multi -way stop signs: Santaquin Dr./Redgate Circle
and Kiowa Crest Dr./Deerfoot Dr.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 99 -XX installing multi -way
stop signs at the intersections of Santaquin Dr./Redgate
Circle and Kiowa Crest Dr./Deerfoot Dr.
Requested by: Engineering Division
6.7 RESOLUTION NO. 99 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INSTALLING MULTI -WAY STOP
MARCH 2, 1999
PAGE 4
SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF MOUNTAIN LAUREL WAY AND
PECAN GROVE DRIVE - As a result of the approved city-
wide school safety study, the intersection of Mountain
Laurel Way and Pecan Grove Dr. was requested to be
evaluated for a multi -way stop. O'Rourke Engineering was
retained to study this intersection for stop warrant
analysis. The traffic engineers noted that there is a
sight distance limitation along Pecan Grove Dr. at
Mountain Laurel. Motorists have limited visibility while
executing turns. Due to this safety concern, this
intersection is warranted for a multi -way stop.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 99 -XX installing multi -way
stop signs at Mountain Laurel Way and Pecan Grove Dr.
Requested by: Engineering Division
6.8 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR SPECIAL LEGAL SERVICES TO RICHARDS,
WATSON & GERSHON FOR REVIEW OF THE CABLE TELEVISION
TRANSFER - The City received an Application for
Franchise Authority Consent to Assignment or Transfer of
Control of Cable Television Franchise - FCC 394, on
February 17, 1999. Pursuant to FCC regulations, a Cable
Transfer request must be acted upon, either approved or
denied, by Council within 120 days of receipt of the
Application. The City requires a franchise processing
fee of $2,500 from the Applicant (Century/TCI) to cover
all legal and/or technical costs required to review the
transfer. Richards, Watson & Gershon provided the legal
review for the Cable Franchise Agreement and Transfer.
Century Communications and TCI Cable Television have
entered into a "Limited Partnership Agreement" with
respect to all cable operations in California. Century
Communication will remain in control of all Southern
California cable operations and TCI will hold a 25%
interest. The City approved a Cable Television Franchise
Agreement with Jones Intercable on May 6, 1997, and with
the approval, the City approved Transfer of the Agreement
to Citizens Century Television Venture.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council authorize a contract with Richards, Watson &
Gershon for special legal services pertaining to the
Cable Television Transfer Application in an amount not -
to -exceed $2,000 and authorize the City Manager to enter
into said contract.
Requested by: City Manager
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as matters
may be heard.
MARCH 2, 1999 PAGE 5
7.1 PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 99 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 98-1 - At the request of
Council, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered
an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element,
Objective 1.5, Strategy 1.5.3 The proposed amendment
would insert text to require an election for removal or
modification of an open space deed, easement, map
restriction or land use map designation. The Planning
Commission took action on January 26, 1999, recommending
Council adoption of GPA No. 98-1.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council open the public hearing, receive public
testimony, close the public hearing and adopt Resolution
No. 99 -XX approving General Plan Amendment No. 98-1.
Requested by: Planning Division
7.2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENT TO
TITLE 22 OF THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCORPORATE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RADIO, TELEVISION AND WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES - The City established a
Telecommunications Task Force to review issues related to
the siting and design of telecommunications facilities.
The Task Force completed it work in October 1998. In
November 1998, Council received a report from the Task
Force outlining its findings and recommendations. The
draft Ordinance establishes new standards and criteria
for placement of radio, television and wireless
telecommunication facilities within commercial,
industrial and, under certain conditions, residential
zones. The Planning Commission concluded its review of
the ordinance on February 9, 1999 and recommends its
adoption. On February 16, 1999, Council opened the
public hearing, received testimony and continued its
discussion to March 2, 1999.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council receive a presentation from staff, reopen the
public hearing, take testimony, close the public hearing
and adopt, by urgency, Ordinance No. XX (1999).
Requested by: Planning Division
8. OLD BUSINESS:
8.1 RESOLUTION NO. 99 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING AN EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
92-12 AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-9 FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED
EAST OF MORNING SUN AVENUE AND NORTH OF PATHFINDER ROAD,
MARCH 2, 1999
PAGE 6
- Amrut Patel of Sasak corporation is requesting approval
of a one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map
No. 51253, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12 and Oak Tree
Permit No. 92-9 in order to subdivide approximately 6.7
acres into 21 single family lots. Th project is located
on the east side of Morning Sun Ave. and generally north
of Pathfinder Rd. On January 12, 1999, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the requested
extension of time. On February 16, 1999, Council
concluded its public hearing and directed preparation of
a resolution of denial.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 99 -XX denying an extension
of time for Tentative Tract Map No. 51253, Conditional
Use Permit No. 92-12 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9.
Requested by: Planning Division
8.2 MATTER OF MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT #1 - for the FY
98/99 General Fund Budget and the FY 98/99 Special Funds
Budget.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council approve the budget adjustments for the FY 98/99
General Fund Budget and the FY 98/99 Special Funds
Budget.
Requested by: Finance Division
8.3 PARK IMPROVEMENTS AND ADA UPGRADES FOR RONALD REAGAN PARK
AND HERITAGE PARK -
(A) For FY 98-99, Ronald Reagan & Heritage Parks were
scheduled for ADA retrofit/upgrades. On December
5, 1998, Council authorized staff to advertise for
bids for the Park Improvements and ADA Upgrades for
these two parks. Staff now proposes to award a
construction contract to the lowest responsible
bidder.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the
City Council (a) approve a budget adjustment which
includes allocation of additional CDBG funds in the
amount of $109,000 to increase the total budget
amount for this project to $439,000 from the
current $311,700, (b) award a construction contract
to 4 -Con Engineering, Inc. in an amount not -to -
exceed $366,650.75 and provide a contingency amount
of $15,000 for project change orders to be approved
by the City Manager, for a total authorization of
$381,650.75.
MARCH 2, 1999 PAGE 7
(B) The City Council will be awarding a construction
contract to 4 -Con Engineering, Inc. for Park
Improvements and ADA Upgrades for Ronald Reagan and
Heritage Parks. Staff now proposes to award a
construction inspection services contract to D&J
Engineering. As the City's Building & Safety
Consultant/Building Official, D & J is thoroughly
familiar with ADA standards and code compliance
requirements.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the
City Council authorize the City Manager to execute
a purchase order for D & J Engineering for
construction inspection services in an amount not -
to -exceed $14,875.
Requested by: Engineering Division
8.4 RESOLUTION NO. 99 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING INSTALLATION OF A
50 -FOOT RED CURB NORTH OF, AND A 25 -FOOT RED CURB SOUTH
OF PASCO COURT ON FALLOW FIELD DRIVE - To improve the
sight visibility distance of motorists at the
intersection of Fallow Field Dr. and Pasco Ct., the
Traffic & Transportation Commission recommended
installation of a 50 ft. red curb north of and a 25 ft.
red curb south of Pasco Ct. on Fallow Field Dr. The
vicinity of this intersection is utilized mainly by
visitors and employees of First Mortgage Company during
the week for two hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 99 -XX approving the
installation of a 50ft. red curb north of and a 25ft. red
curb south of Pasco Ct. on Fallow Field Dr.
Requested by: Engineering Division
9. NEW BUSINESS:
9.1 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR DIAL -A -CAB SERVICES TO DIVERSIFIED
PARATRANSIT - In December 1999, the City released a
Request for Proposals for Dial -a -Cab Services. The RFP
was mailed to six taxi/paratransit service provides and
only one firm responded—Diversified Paratransit, Inc.
Diversified has been providing dial -a -cab services to the
City since April 1995. These services are offered to
residents who are 60 years of age and older and persons
with disabilities, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, as
demand -response system. The boundaries for coverage are
Arrow Hwy. to the north; Imperial Highway/Carbon Canyon
MARCH 2, 1999
PAGE 8
Rd. to the south; Central Ave. to the east and Hacienda
Blvd./Amar/Sunset to the west. In addition to the
boundaries, the City has designated 29 medical
facilities, Ontario Airport and Fullerton Amtrak Station.
The fares are $.50 within City limits and $1.50 outside
City limits within the boundaries or designated
facilities.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council award a contract for Dial -a -Cab Services with
Diversified Paratransit, Inc. for the period April 1,
1999 to June 30, 2000.
Requested by: City Manager
9.2 MATTER OF APPOINTMENT OF TWO DELEGATES AND ONE
ALTERNATIVE TO THE TRES HERMANOS CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS - The City Councils of D.B. and Chino
Hills have entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement which forms the Tres Hermanos Conservation
Authority. The THCA/JPA provides for each City to have
two members on the board of directors and one alternate.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council appoint two delegates and one alternate to the
Tres Hermanos Conservation Authority Board of Directors.
Requested by: City Manager
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY:
Next Resolution No. RA99-02
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera, O'Connor,
VC/Huff, C/Ansari
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:
MARCH 2, 1999 PAGE 9
3.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 16,
1999 - Approve as submitted.
Requested by: Agency Secretary
3.2 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated March
2, 1999 in the amount of $9,306.25.
Requested by: Executive Director
3.3 TREASURER'S REPORT - for January, 1999 - Review and
approve.
Requested by: Finance Division
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
5. 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.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS:
11. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: Items raised by individual
Council Members are for Council discussion. Direction may be
given at this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action
at a future meeting.
12. ADJOURNMENT:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: DATE:
ADDRESS: PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: %C %
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: a�'E't/ rs� ��aa �f DATE: oz. nnco,.C' 9
ADDRESS: l C� 8 Amo Ce.�o �z PHONEiR(_ 7q?_�
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: _Q 1 N✓ v.'S DATE: Kik-fel,
ADDRESS: Gyuve -Nva qft� 0 PHONE:
ORGANIZATION: P i cA
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: ve-rh�,-i ` ,-->,R �J S tA) Cr-Afs
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: 4�'-�' C�7'��--��-- DATE: 3 -�--
T
ADDRESS: PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: ?.
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
i
FROM: DATE:
ADDRESS: PHONE:
ORGANIZATION: /
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: tO•
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: tr--- L�tc'-r DATE: G
ADDRESS: �ALMeF, = Q PHONE: qO4 &12 10gm
ORGANIZATION: mi, c,r-: � "'s
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: V4 r,,- i, jpz:G-, 0-. '-�eLj c_ ��',r.--
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: DATE:
ADDRESS: —rL1 PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above. ,I
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: �j CITY CLERK _ /
FROM: !-mo i ^ t�" r �', CJ �O Qb15 DATE: top,
ADDRESS:
PHONE:b
ORGANIZATION:f�
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
t
'i
ig ture
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: �� Gl / I /`,� DATE: c�-
v-i
ADDRESS: t� VO �2e 4-t PHONE:. UP 457 e. -
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
3 -z -y
FROM: G.c�,� ,v , „ DATE: ,�
ADDRESS: PHONE:A
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:'
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM:
DATE:
ADDRESS: PHONE&
r
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
wi
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
01
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
e V M DATE: `,•"
4L.
K PHONE: %AhV
-t AdrC 6 n 1 9�kw ays t J -P 6f/C7l�'J L'e rTYlrtrrvt `�
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. P ��=inutesreflect my
name and address as written above.
S 4F Signature
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
"QUICK CAP" MINUTES
MARCH 2,1999
CLOSED SESSION: 4:00 p.m., AQMD Room CC -8
Conference with Legal Counsel -
Pending Litigation(Subdivision (a)
of Section 54956.9) Dolezal vs.
City of D.B.
No reportable action taken.
STUDY SESSION:
4:38 p.m., AQMD Room CC -8
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Huff, Mayor Pro Tem
O'Connor, Mayor Chang. C/Huff and C/Herrera were excused.
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, 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, Finance Director; Lynda
Burgess, City Clerk; Rose Manela, Assistant Civil Engineer;
Kellee Fritzal, Assistant to the City Manager and Anne
Haraksin, Administrative Assistant.
Minnequa Landslide - Presentation by Justin Hampton,
Kleinfelder & Assoc.
Public Speakers (in order):
Bill Grey
George Thawley
Tom Saglime - get bids
Kathy Krick
Bill Grey
Ms. Abernathy
Mrs. Abernathy
Kathy Krick
Firman Lopez
from other contractors
Solid Waste Task Force Reports - Presentation by J. Michael
Huls, R.E.A.
Public Speakers (in order):
Bill George
Dave Reynolds
Red Calkins
Bill George
C/Huff arrived at 6:26 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT: 6:31 P.M.
- RrrTTT.AR MPV..TTNC. CAT.T. TO ORnPR - C)-4? n - m -
MARCH 2, 1999
3.
PAGE 2
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, 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, Finance Director and Lynda
Burgess, City Clerk.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Girl Scout Junior Troop 730
INVOCATION• Pastor Dennis Stuve, Mt. Calvary
Lutheran Church
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Presentations were reordered and
Items 8.1 and 9.2 were continued to March 16, 1999.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
3.1 Presented Certificate of Recognition to Janet Eastman for
Girl Scout Gold Award.
3.2 Proclaimed the week of March 2, 1999 as Girl Scout Week.
3.3 Donna Georgino, Region IV Representative for CPRS Award Californiad of
Parks & Recreation Society (CPRS) presented
Merit to City Council and staff Re: Pantera Park Design.
3.4 Introduced two new City employees - Stella Marquez,
Planning Division Secretary and Sharon Gomez, Public
Works Division Secretary.
3.5 Presentation by Lanterman Development Center Re: Proposed
Services Expansion Project. Rose Maple presented the
report and invited the public and Council to an
Information Meeting to be held on March 27, 1999 at 10:00
a.m.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dexter MacBride - On behalf of Mt. Sac
Board of Trustees, invited everyone to attend `The Tillet
Exhibit at the Mt. Sac Art Gallery March 17-26, 1999 to view
a masterpiece entitled The Arrival of the Spanish in Aztec
Mexico" presented for the very first time on the west coast
showing the arrival of Cortez in the New World. No charge or
gallery fee to view this tapestry.
Grace MacBride - Asked why the expansion project was not made
known by Council to the D.B. citizens prior to this. Why
didn't D.B. respond to the EIR? Appears that this expansion
would lead to more violent offenders in the future, even
though no proposal exists to house these types of individuals
at this time. Criticized Council's "wait and see" attitude.
Red Calkins - Also complained about Council's lack of sharing
MARCH 2, 1999 PAGE 3
the information regarding Lanterman's expansion.
Martha Bruske - Asked Council to share the results of their
study session information with the public. Suggested Council
adopt a Mission Statement. Asked for report on Minnequa
Landslide and Solid Waste issues.
Don Gravdahl - Pointed out that D.B. did not respond to the
State's request for comments on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration regarding Lanterman expansion; however, the Cities
of Pomona and Walnut found it important to respond. Also
pointed out that six meetings had been held involving D.B.
Council Members and the City Manager regarding the Lanterman
Expansion Project.
Zack Flisik, Aaron Flisik and Ernie Aldrete - thanked
Council and staff for their support of the Trinity Board Shop.
Requested construction of a skateboard park so that local
parking lots would not be inundated with skateboarders.
Organizing a group to be called "D.B. Skateboarders Assn."
Dr. Lawrence Rhodes - Sex offenders and criminal types that
could escape and be a problem to the community would not be
allowed to be at Lanterman per State law.
Mrs. Maple - persons will not be coming from any State
hospital; they must be mentally retarded, not just mentally
ill. Ages 4-10 with mild to profound retardation. Will not
be serving the criminally insane, sexual predators or violent
sexual offenders.
Capt. Richard Martinez, Walnut Sheriff Station, stated that he
had been meeting regularly with officials from Lanterman.
Felt that every effort was being made to ensure that the
facility is as safe as possible and to protect the public from
every foreseeable problem.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 PLANNING COMMISSION - March 9, 1999 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.2 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - March 11, 1999.-
7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - March 16, 1999 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.4 COMMUNITY/CIVIC CENTER TASK FORCE - March 24, 1999 - 6:30
p.m., AQMD Room CC -2, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.5 FOUR CORNERS TRANSPORTATION POLICY GROUP COMMITTEE
MEETING - March 29, 1999 - 9:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. - AQMD,
21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.6 CITY 1OTH BIRTHDAY PARTY - April 18, 1999 - 12:00 - 5:00
p.m., Peterson Park, 24142 E. Sylvan Glen Dr.
MARCH 2, 1999
PAGE 4
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by C/Ansari, seconded by C/Huff to
approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item No.
6.5. Motion carried 4-0-1 by Roll Call vote (C/Herrera
absent) .
6.1 APPROVED MINUTES:
6.1.1 Study Session
submitted.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting
submitted.
of February 16, 1999 - As
of February 16, 1999 - As
6.2 RECEIVED & FILED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
6.2.1 Regular Meeting of December 8, 1998.
6.2.2 Regular Meeting of January 12, 1999.
6.2.3 Regular Meeting of January 26, 1999.
6.3 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated March 2, 1999 in the
amount of $539,757.84.
6.4 REVIEWED & APPROVED TREASURER'S REPORT - for January,
1999.
6.6 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 99-09: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INSTALLING MULTI -WAY
STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF SANTAQUIN
DRIVE/REDGATE CIRCLE AND KIOWA CREST DRIVE/DEERFOOT
DRIVE.
6.7 RESOLUTION NO. 99-10: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INSTALLING MULTI -WAY STOP
SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF MOUNTAIN LAUREL WAY AND
PECAN GROVE DRIVE.
6.8 AWARDED CONTRACT FOR SPECIAL LEGAL SERVICES TO RICHARDS,
WATSON & GERSHON FOR REVIEW OF THE CABLE TELEVISION
TRANSFER - pertaining to the Cable Television Transfer
Application in an amount not -to -exceed $2,000 and
authorized the City Manager to enter into said contract.
MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.5 RESOLUTION NO. 99-09: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF BALLFIELD LIGHTS
AT LORBEER MIDDLE SCHOOL IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS
In response to C/Ansari, CM/Belanger stated that the
funds will be coming from Quimby funds that are received
from developers.
MARCH 2, 1999 PAGE 5
Joe Nolan, Dream Engineering - presented site plan
showing location of the poles.
Moved by C/Ansari, seconded by MPT/O'Connor to adopt
Resolution No. 99-11 approving plans and specs for
installation of ballfield lights at Lorbeer Middle
School. Motion carried 4-0-1 by Roll Call vote
(C/Herrera absent).
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as matters
may be heard.
6.2 PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 99-12: A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 98-1 - At the request of
Council, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered
an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element,
Objective 1.5, Strategy 1.5.3 The proposed amendment
would insert text to require an election for removal or
modification of an open space deed, easement, map
restriction or land use map designation. The Planning
Commission took action on January 26, 1999, recommending
Council adoption of GPA No. 98-1.
M/Chang opened the Public Hearing.
There being no testimony offered, M/Chang closed the
Public Hearing.
Moved by C/Huff, seconded by C/Ansari to adopt Resolution
No. 99-12 approving General Plan Amendment No. 98-1.
Motion carried 4-0-1 by Roll Call vote (C/Herrera
absent).
6.3 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENT TO
TITLE 22 OF THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCORPORATE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RADIO, TELEVISION AND WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES - The City established a
Telecommunications Task Force to review issues related to
the siting and design of telecommunications facilities.
The Task Force completed it work in October 1998. In
November 1998, Council received a report from the Task
Force outlining its findings and recommendations. The
draft Ordinance establishes new standards and criteria
for placement of radio, television and wireless
telecommunication facilities within commercial,
industrial and, under certain conditions, residential
zones. The Planning Commission concluded its review of
the ordinance on February 9, 1999 and recommends its
adoption. On February 16, 1999, Council opened the
public hearing, received testimony and continued its
MARCH 2, 1999
EF
PAGE 6
discussion to March 2, 1999.
M/Chang opened the Public Hearing.
Martha Bruske asked what circumstances would apply should
the City wish to install an antenna in a residential
neighborhood.
Timothy Davis, So. Calif. Edison
Montey Brown - Amateur radio operator. Questioned why
City would want to limit radio antennaes in
neighborhoods.
Marty Zimmerman, NexTel - Complimented staff on
preparation of well-written document. Moratorium made it
impossible to install wireless antennas since July 1997.
Urged Council to adopt Urgency Ordinance.
There being no further testimony offered, M/Chang closed
the Public Hearing.
Moved by C/Huff, seconded by C/Ansari to waive full
reading and adopt, by urgency, Ordinance No. XX (1999)
entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 22 OF THE DIAMOND BAR
MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCORPORATE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
RADIO AND TELEVEISION ANTENNAS AND WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATINS ANTENNA FACILITIES (CASE NO. ZCA 98-2)
AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. Motion carried 4-0-1
by Roll Call vote (C/Herrera absent).
OLD BUSINESS:
8.1 RESOLUTION NO. 99 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING AN EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
92-12 AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-9 FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED
EAST OF MORNING SUN AVENUE AND NORTH OF PATHFINDER ROAD
- Amrut Patel of Sasak corporation is requesting
approval of a one-year extension of time for Tentative
Tract Map No. 51253, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12 and
Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9 in order to subdivide
approximately 6.7 acres into 21 single family lots. The
project is located on the east side of Morning Sun Ave.
and generally north of Pathfinder Rd. On January 12,
1999, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
requested extension of time. On February 16, 1999,
Council concluded its public hearing and directed
preparation of a resolution of denial.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
MARCH 2, 1999 PAGE 7
Council adopt Resolution No. 99 -XX denying an extension
of time for Tentative Tract Map No. 51253, Conditional
Use Permit No. 92-12 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9.
CONTINUED TO MARCH 16, 1999.
8.2 MATTER OF MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT #1 - for the FY
98/99 General Fund Budget and the FY 98/99 Special Funds
Budget.
Moved by MPT/O'Connor, seconded by C/Huff to the budget
adjustments for the FY 98/99 General Fund Budget and the
FY 98/99 Special Funds Budget. Motion carried 4-0-1 by
Roll Call vote (C/Herrera absent).
8.3 PARK IMPROVEMENTS AND ADA UPGRADES FOR RONALD REAGAN PARK
AND HERITAGE PARK -
(A) For FY 98-99, Ronald Reagan & Heritage Parks were
scheduled for ADA retrofit/upgrades. On December
5, 1998, Council authorized staff to advertise for
bids for the Park Improvements and ADA Upgrades for
these two parks. Staff now proposes to award a
construction contract to the lowest responsible
bidder.
Moved by MPT/O'Connor, seconded by C/Huff to: (a)
approve a budget adjustment which includes
allocation of additional CDBG funds in the amount
of $109,000 to increase the total budget amount for
this project to $439,000 from the current $311,700,
(b) award a construction contract to 4 -Con
Engineering, Inc. in an amount not -to -exceed
$366,650.75 and provide a contingency amount of
$15,000 for project change orders to be approved by
the City Manager, for a total authorization of
$381,650.75. Motion carried 4-0-1 by Roll Call
vote (C/Herrera absent).
(B) Council awarded a construction contract to 4 -Con
Engineering, Inc. for Park Improvements and ADA
Upgrades for Ronald Reagan and Heritage Parks.
Staff proposed to award a construction inspection
services contract to D&J Engineering. As the
City's Building & Safety Consultant/Building
Official, D & J is thoroughly familiar with ADA
standards and code compliance requirements.
Moved by MPT/O'Connor, seconded by C/Ansari to
authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase
order for D & J Engineering for construction
inspection services in an amount not -to -exceed
MARCH 2, 1999 PAGE 8
$14,875. Motion carried 4-0-1 by Roll Call vote
(C/Herrera absent).
8.4 RESOLUTION NO. 99-13: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING INSTALLATION OF A
50 -FOOT RED CURB NORTH OF, AND A 25 -FOOT RED CURB SOUTH
OF PASCO COURT ON FALLOW FIELD DRIVE - To improve the
sight visibility distance of motorists at the
intersection of Fallow Field Dr. and Pasco Ct., the
Traffic & Transportation Commission recommended
installation of a 50 ft. red curb north of and a 25 ft.
red curb south of Pasco Ct. on. Fallow Field Dr. The
vicinity of this intersection is utilized mainly by
visitors and employees of First Mortgage Company during
the week for two hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Moved by MPT/O'Connor, seconded by C/Huff to adopt
Resolution No. 99-13 approving the installation of a
50ft. red curb north of and a 25ft. red curb south of
Pasco Ct. on Fallow Field Dr. Motion carried 4-0-1 by
Roll Call vote (C/Herrera absent).
9. NEW BUSINESS:
9.1 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR DIAL -A -CAB SERVICES TO DIVERSIFIED
PARATRANSIT - In December 1999, the City released a
Request for Proposals for Dial -a -Cab Services. The RFP
was mailed to six taxi/paratransit service provides and
only one firm responded—Diversified Paratransit, Inc.
Diversified has been providing dial -a -cab services to the
City since April 1995. These services are offered to
residents who are 60 years of age and older and persons
with disabilities, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, as
demand -response system. The boundaries for coverage are
Arrow Hwy. to the north; Imperial Highway/Carbon Canyon
Rd. to the south; Central Ave. to the east and Hacienda
Blvd./Amar/Sunset to the west. In addition to the
boundaries, the City has designated 29 medical
facilities, Ontario Airport and Fullerton Amtrak Station.
The fares are $.50 within City limits and $1.50 outside
City limits within the boundaries or designated
facilities.
Martha Bruske - felt that the City is throwing away its
Prop A funds by providing this program.
C/Ansari proposed that the fee for trips to Ontario
Airport be increased from $1.50 to $5.00 per trip.
C/Huff left the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Moved by C/Ansari, seconded by M/Chang to award a
MARCH 2, 1999 PAGE 9
contract for Dial -a -Cab Services with Diversified
Paratransit, Inc. for the period April 1, 1999 to June
30, 2000 and direct staff to bring back a report on
increasing the fees for ridership to Ontario Airport and
the Amtrak Station in Fullerton. Motion carried 3-0-2 by
Roll Call vote (C/Huff and C/Herrera absent).
9.2 MATTER OF APPOINTMENT OF TWO DELEGATES AND ONE ALTERNATE
TO THE TRES HERMANOS CONSERVATION AUTHORITY BOARD OF
DIRECTORS - The City Councils of D.B. and Chino Hills
have entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
which forms the Tres Hermanos Conservation Authority. The
THCA/JPA provides for each City to have two members on
the board of directors and one alternate.
CONTINUED TO MARCH 16, 1999.
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: 10:21
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, O'Connor, C/Ansari.
AM/Herrera and VC/Huff were excused.
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, Finance Director and Lynda
Burgess, Agency Secretary.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by AM/O'Connor, seconded by AM/Chang
to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 3-0-2 by Roll
Call vote (AM/Herrera and VC/Huff absent).
3.1 APPROVED MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 16, 1999
- As submitted.
3.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated March 2, 1999 in the
amount of $9,306.25.
3.3 REVIEWED AND APPROVED TREASURER'S REPORT - for January
1999.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
S. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
MARCH 2, 1999 PAGE 10
7. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS :
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 10:25 p.m.
10. COUNCIL SUB-COWITTEE REPORTS:
11. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:43 p.m.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
"QUICK CAP" MINUTERS
FEBRUARY 16, 1999
STUDY SESSION: 5:13, AQMD Room CC -2
Goals & Objectives
Short Term Traffic Solutions
Present: Council Members Ansari, Herrera, Huff, MPT/O'Connor
and Mayor Chang.
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Amanda
Susskind, Assistant City Attorney, James DeStefano, Deputy
City Manager; David Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works; Bob
Rose, Community Services Director; Mike Nelson, Communications
& Marketing Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Lynda
Burgess, City Clerk; Kellee Fritzal Assistant to the City
Manager and Rose Manela, Assistant Civil Engineer.
(� 35
1. CLOSED SESSION: None
2. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Chang called the meeting to
order at 6:43 p.m. in the Auditorium of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar,
California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: South Pointe Middle School Wind
Ensemble, conducted by Steve Acciani
and Leading the Pledge, Jane Kim
Linda Bishop, representing the parents of the children in the
ensemble, thanked Council for opportunity to play. They are
the only middle school band every invited to play at Carnegie
Hall which will cost approximately $104,000.
RECESS: 7:03 p.m.
RECONVENE: 7:18 p.m.
INVOCATION: Pastor Larry Grigsby, Calvary Chapel
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Herrera,
Huff, Mayor Pro Tem O'Connor, Mayor
Chang
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Amanda
Susskind, Assistant City Attorney, James DeStefano, Deputy
City Manager; David Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works; Bob
Rose, Community Services Director; Mike Nelson, Communications
& Marketing Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director and
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 2
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
4. PUBLIC CCtSWNTS: Theresa White, Pres., Council of
African-American Parents re Black History Month. Announced
their Culture Fair this coming Saturday. Thanked Council and
staff for their help in organizing their upcoming run -walk
during their health fair.
Dr. Lawrence Rhodes - regarding lack of watering and
fertilizing of street trees.
Jeff Koontz, Exec. Director, Chamber of Commerce, thanked
Council and staff for their participation in the Chamber's
Auction on 2/12. Reminded everyone of their upcoming retreat,
health fair and involvement in the City's 10th Birthday
celebration.
Clyde Hennessee - asked about Items 6.8 and 6.9.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 PLANNING COMMISSION - February 23, 1999 - 7:00 p.m.,
AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.2 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - February 25, 1999 -
7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - March 2, 1999 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by C/Ansari, seconded by
MPT/O'Connor to approve the Consent Calendar with the
exception of Items No. 6.9 and 6.10. Motion carried 5-0 by
Roll Call vote.
6.1 APPROVED MINUTES:
6.1.1 Regular Minutes of January 19, 1999 - As
submitted.
6.1.2 Study Session of February 2, 1999 - As
submitted.
6.1.3 Regular Minutes of February 2, 1999 - As
submitted.
6.2 RECEIVED & FILED TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MINUTES - Regular Meeting of November 12, 1998.
6.3 RECEIVED & FILED PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES -
Regular Meeting of December 17, 1998 - Receive & File.
6.4 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated February 16, 1999 in
the amount of $323,268.81.
6.5 RECEIVED AND FILED TREASURER'S REPORT - for the month of
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 3
December 1998.
6.6 DENIED CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES:
6.6.1 Filed by Rosa M. Jones on November 4, 1998
6.6.2 Filed by Thomas & Lorraine O'Rourke on January
29, 1999.
and referred the matters for further action to the City's
Risk Manager.
6.7 BOND REDUCTIONS:
A) REDUCED SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT BONDS (FAITHFUL
PERFORMANCE, LABOR AND MATERIAL) FOR TRACT NO.
47850 DIAMOND BAR WEST PARTNERS -
a) Bond No. 4188535 - Grading Bond, from
$1,596,279 to $399,069.75
b) Bond No. 418854S - Sewer/Street/S.D. from
$682,946 to $341,473
c) Bond No. 418855S - Domestic Water from
$208,401.60 to $104,200.80
d) Bond No. 418857S - Monumentation from $4,250
to $2,125;
and directed the City Clerk to notify the Principal
and Surety of these actions.
B) APPROVED REDUCTION AND EXONERATION OF SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENT BONDS FOR TRACT NO. 47851 (DIAMOND BAR
EAST PARTNERS) - Bond No. 1513035 by Developers
Insurance Co. for landscape/irrigation from $25,000
to $12,500 and directed the City Clerk to notify
the Principal and Surety of these actions.
6.8 RESERVED TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 3
(SB 821) ALLOCATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 98-99 - $20,517 for
the Brea Canyon Rd. streetscape improvement project.
MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.9 PARK IMPROVEMENTS AND ADA UPGRADES FOR RONALD REAGAN PARK
AND HERITAGE PARK - Continued to March 2, 1999.
A) For FY 1998-99, Ronald Reagan & Heritage Parks have
been scheduled for ADA retrofit/upgrades. On December
15, 1998, Council authorized staff to advertise for
bids for Improvements and ADA Upgrades for these
parks. Staff proposes to award a construction
contract to the lowest responsible bidder.
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 4
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council (a) approve a budget adjustment to increase
the total budget amount for this project to $437,700
from the current $311,700,(b) award a construction
contract to 4 -Con Engineering, Inc. in an amount not -
to -exceed $366,650.75, and provide a contingency
amount of $15,000 for project change orders to be
approved by the City Manager, for a total
authorization amount of $381,650.75.
B) Council will be awarding a construction contract to
4Con Engineering, Inc. for Park Improvements and ADA
Upgrades for Ronald Reagan & Heritage Parks. Staff
proposes to award a construction inspection services
contract to D & J Engineering. As the City's Building
& Safety Consultant/Building Official, D & J
Engineering is thoroughly familiar with ADA standards
and code compliance requirements.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council authorize the City Manager to approve a
purchase order for D & J Engineering for construction
inspection services in an amount not -to -exceed
$14,875.
Moved by MPT/O'Connor, seconded by C/Huff to continue
the matter to March 2, 1999 and include
recommendations for other potential funding sources.
Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote.
6.10 EXTENSION OF CONTRACT AMOUNT FOR WEST COAST ARBORISTS
FOR THE STREET TREE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT - Moved by
C/Ansari, seconded by C/Huff to authorize additional
street tree maintenance work to be performed by West
Coast Arborists during FY 98/99 in a total amount not -
to -exceed $70,000, an increase of $10,000 in the
existing street tree maintenance contract. Motion
carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 RESOLUTION NO. 89-97M: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING THE CITY'S CONFLICT
OF INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED CITY PERSONNEL - All
cities are required to adopt conflict of interest codes
designating certain positions participating in making
decisions which may affect financial interests. Since
adoption of the City's Code on October 3, 1989,
amendments have been necessary to add new positions or
delete obsolete positions.
M/Chang opened the Public Hearing.
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 5
There being no testimony offered, M/Chang closed the
Public Hearing.
Moved by MPT/O'Connor, seconded by C/Ansari to adopt
Resolution No. 89-97M adding the positions of Finance
Director and Accountant II and deleting the positions of
Asst. Finance Manager and Senior Accountant. Motion
carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote.
7.2 PUBLIC HEARING - INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENT TO TITLE 22 OF
THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCORPORATE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR RADIO, TELEVISION AND WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES.
M/Chang opened the Public Hearing.
O/Connor - add language that antennas can be added to
"new" lattice towers to prevent new towers being
constructed.
Following discussion, M/Chang continued the Public
Hearing to March 2, 1999.
7.2 EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-12 AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-9
M/Chang opened the Public Hearing.
Following a question and answer period, M/Chang closed
the Public Hearing.
Moved by C/Herrera, seconded by C/Huff to direct staff to
prepare a resolution of denial, containing findings as
set forth by ACA/Susskind, for the extension of time
request. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote.
8. OLD BUSINESS: None
9. NEW BUSINESS:
9.1A)RESOLUTION NO. 99-05: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDERING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND TO FILE A REPORT RELATED TO
MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 AND ANY
ASSESSMENT THEREON FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000.
B) RESOLUTION NO. 99-06: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDERING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND TO FILE A REPORT RELATED TO
MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 6
DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 AND ANY
ASSESSMENT THEREON FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000.
C) RESOLUTION NO. 99-07: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDERING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND TO FILE A REPORT RELATED TO
MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 AND ANY
ASSESSMENT THEREON FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000
Moved by C/Ansari, seconded by C/Herrera to adopt
Resolutions No. 99-05, 99-06 and 99-07 initiating the
proceedings for Districts 38, 39 and 41 ordering
preparation of the appropriate engineering reports.
9.2 RESOLUTION NO. 99-08: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING ADVANCE AND
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT NO. 11 WITH THE DIAMOND BAR
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY -
Moved by C/Ansari, seconded by C/Huff to adopt
Resolution No. 99 -XX approving Advance and
Reimbursement Agreement Number 1 with the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Agency in the amount of $32,000. Motion
carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote.
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: 10:44 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ansari called the meeting to
order at 10:44 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,
O'Connor,VC/Huff, C/Ansari
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, Executive Director;
Amanda Susskind, Assistant Agency Attorney, James DeStefano,
Deputy City Manager; David Liu, Deputy Director of Public
Works; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Mike Nelson,
Communications & Marketing Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance
Director and Lynda Burgess, Agency Secretary.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by AM/Chang, seconded by
AM/Herrera to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried
5-0 by Roll Call vote.
3.1 APPROVED MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 2, 1999 -
As submitted.
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 7
3.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated February 16, 1999 in
the amount of $31.05.
3.3 RECEIVED AND FILED TREASURER'S REPORT - for the month of
December 1998.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS:
6.1 RESOLUTION NO. RA99-01: A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING ADVANCE AND REIMBURSEMENT
AGREEMENT NUMBER 11 WITH THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
Moved by AM/Chang, seconded by AM,/O'Connor to adopt
Resolution No. RA99-01 approving Advance and
Reimbursement Agreement No. 11 with the City of Diamond
Bar in the amount of $32, 000. Motion carried 5-0 by
Roll Call vote.
6.2 REAL ESTATE AND ECONOMIC ANALYSES CONSULTANT SERVICES -
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP RELATED TO LOTS 22 AND 23 OF
GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER.
Moved by AM/O'Connor, seconded by AM/Huff to approve the
proposal tendered by Rosenow Spevacek Group (RSG) for
real estate and economic consulting services relating to
office complexes on Lots 22 and 23 of the Gateway
Corporate Center in an amount not -to -exceed $20,000 and
that the Board authorize and direct the Executive
Director to execute the agreement. Motion carried 5-0
by Roll Call vote.
6.3 AWARDED CONTRACT WITH STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH
FOR SPECIAL LEGAL SERVICES.
Moved by AM/O'Connor, seconded by AM/Chang to approve
continued special legal services with the firm of
Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth in an amount not -to -
exceed $12,000 and authorize and direct the Executive
Director to execute an amendment to the agreement.
Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote.
7 . AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS:
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 10:56 p.m.
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS:
11. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
FEBRUARY 16, 1999
12. ADJOURNMENT:
conduct, M/Chang
of Adam DeLeon.
PAGE 8
There being no further business to
adjourned the meeting at 11:09 p.m. in memory
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
1999-2000 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
SHORT TERM TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS
FEBRUARY 16, 1999
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Chang called the meeting to order at 5:13
p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Room CC -8, 21865 E.
Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
2. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Herrera, Huff, Mayor Pro
Tem O'Connor and Mayor Chang.
Also Present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Amanda Susskind,
Assistant 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, Finance Director; Lynda
Burgess, City Clerk, Kellee Fritzal, Assistant to the City Manager and Rose Manela,
Assistant Civil Engineer.
A. GOALS FOR 1999-2000:
M/Chang stated that the refined list of 1999-2000 Goals consists of 19 goals with
sub listings.
GOALS:
Acquire property for Civic Center/Community Center/Library.
C/Huff recommended that this category be redefined by eliminating "Acquire
property for." Council concurred.
2. Economic Development Strategic Plan. (including five subtitles)
C/Huff felt that if the City and Council does not identify the retail needs that
are not being met in the community, it is difficult to determine what kind of
economic development program needs to be put into place.
MPT/O'Connor suggested that Council take a look at all of the sub-
categories to determine if any should be eliminated with the remainder being
lumped together.
C/Huff asked if it is appropriate at this time to prioritize redevelopment
project areas.
CM/Belanger responded that one of the requirements of the Redevelopment
Project Area Plan is to create interim plans. One of the things the Council
will be doing within 9 months to a year will be to create the three programs
that were identified in the Project Area: Commercial Rehabilitation Program,
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 2 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Business Retention and Attraction Program, and a Park Improvement
Program. He also explained that B and C under item 2 are very closely
related. D is connected to B and C and is an essential part of A.
Responding to MPT/O'Connor, CM/Belanger explained the steps involved
in annexation (Item 2. E). Shell Oil Properties are within the City's sphere
of influence and SEA 15. Their primary holdings are located in Brea Canyon
and not in Tonner Canyon.
C/Huff stated that the City has tax base benefit from Commercial (Item 2 E).
If the City attracts residential, how does that benefit the City?
CM/Belanger responded that the potential benefit is part of the analysis.
When annexations are evaluated, they are evaluated on the basis of a net
revenue benefit to the City. Having them in the City is not necessarily a
benefit unless other types of benefits such as property tax, sales tax, etc.
can be realized. For example, if all four communities are gated, it is likely
there will not be the same law enforcement demand as in other areas that
are not gated. Fire services will remain about the same since the area is
already being serviced by Station 119. And the City does not provide street
maintenance in gated communities. Staff will provide an analysis of
positives and negatives regarding annexation.
Council concurred with the ranking of Items 2 A, B, C, D and E
No discussion of Item 3A.
Discussion of Item 313: C/Huff believed that since many letters are
addressed to Council Members, Council Members should respond. In
addition, technical staff should be responding once the matter is referred to
them. If the Council Member has the answer, the response stops there. If
not, the person who initiated the question knows who will be responding.
When the response is forwarded to the resident in question, the Council will
be copied.
CM/Belanger asked if it is the Council's intention that Council's response will
be prepared by staff and any personal response will be prepared by
individual Council Members.
C/Huff stated CM/Belanger's assumption is correct.
Council concurred.
Item 3 C:
C/Ansari stated that the Walnut/Diamond Bar publication is a good
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 3 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
newsletter. How much would it cost the City for a regular insert?
C/Huff expressed concern that people will not realize where to look for
information. In addition, there may be perceived favoritism. Therefore, it
may be better to include Council information in a City newsletter.
Jeff Koontz said the Chamber of Commerce includes information as a
courtesy to the City and is not paid for providing the service.
C/Huff said it is frustrating to residents when they have to review several
different documents to find information. He said he would not have a
problem hot -linking to the Chamber newsletter on the web site.
Mr. Koontz said the Business Registry program is not going well and the
Council may want to contract out this responsibility.
MPT/O'Connor did not believe it is the City's responsibility to develop a
Citizen's Resource list (3 E).
C/Ansari believed that a Citizen's Resource list is a courtesy to the
community.
MPT/O'Connor felt that the yellow pages should provide sufficient resources.
C/Huff pointed out that, in the case of a homeless person, the resource list
is beneficial.
Council discussed 3 F and agreed to consider a monthly Sidewalk City Hall
with one Council Member and one staff member rotating between
departments.
Council concurred to renumber Item 3 as follows: A, B, C, E(tie) D E(tie) and
F.
Council Members discussed the remaining items and agreed to add
"Enforcement of to 5G and "study the feasibility of to 5H.
With respect to Item 1, Page 4, M/Chang asked CM/Belanger to prepare an
RFP for Council team building and present options and suggestions.
Council Members discussed Item 2, Page 4 - Coordination of Y2K
compliance. CM/Belanger explained that staff is currently discussing this
matter with utility companies. He suggested that a Town Hall Public Forum
be held on Saturday, June 5.
FEBRUARY 16, 1999
PAGE 4 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
B. SHORT TERM TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS:
Richard Barretto, Linscott, Law and Greenspan, and Steve Sasaki of WPA Traffic
Engineers, presented updated information regarding traffic volumes that impact
Grand Ave. and D.B. Blvd. as well as turning movements in and out of the three
shopping centers adjacent to the intersection.
CM/Belanger explained that creating more travel ways can have an impact on the
ability of vehicles to get in and out of commercial centers around D.B. Blvd. and
Grand Ave. In terms of determining traffic solutions, there is a balancing act
between trying to move traffic through the City at a faster pace and making sure that
people are not discouraged from shopping in certain areas because it may be
difficult to get in and out of those areas.
Steve Sasaki explained that the first alternative for short-term traffic solutions
involves striping, the cost of which is minimal and implementation is relatively easy.
The adverse effects of striping would create a more difficult right turn into the
driveway of the commercial shopping center.
CM/Belanger stated that the purpose of creating an acceleration/deceleration lane
and for allowing right hand turns is to take those kinds of traffic movements out of
the through lanes. Those goals were satisfied. By creating a third lane with
striping, the deceleration lane is effectively eliminated, the lane nearest the curb
becomes a right -hand -tum -through lane and creates geometric problems going out
of the intersection because it then becomes a merge lane.
Mr. Sasaki stated that, on the plus side, there are long cues that tend to block the
driveways and therefore, getting out of driveways is difficult so that as vehicles get
to the intersection, there is an expectation that the cue will be somewhat shortened
which will tend to improve traffic that is backed up. Alternative 3 was essentially the
same type of situation with the same considerations of the through lanes being up
against the driveways. However, under this configuration, there was a proposal for
widening which would allow retention of the exclusive right -turn lane with a third
through lane. With these alternatives, there is a significant cost (cost to improve
the curbs and pavement as well as, right-of-way costs) of approximately $100,000
for each of four potential right turn lanes. Under this scenario, additional right-of-
way would need to be acquired. Another option is to pursue a request that the
County make the changes to accommodate the traffic. However, the County may
view such a proposal as an attempt by the City to discourage through traffic.
Another approach is to ask the County to re -time the traffic signals to promote traffic
flow.
C/Huff said he would like to know what it will cost for the City to take control of the
signals. D.B. became a City so that it could "do its own thing" and to the extent that
the City is allowed to take control within the law, he would like that flexibility. If this
option is financially impossible, then the City should ask the County for shorter
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEBRUARY 16, 1999
CLOSED SESSION: None
STUDY SESSION: Called to order at 5:13 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the
South Coast Air Quality Management Building.
a) Discussion of Goals and Objectives for 1999-2000
b) Short Term Parking Solutions
2. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Chang called the meeting to order at 6:43
p.m. in the Auditorium of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865
E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
Mayor Chang announced that today is the first day of the Chinese New Year. On
behalf of Council, he wished the Chinese American citizens a very happy New
Year.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Jane Kim
and the South Pointe Middle School Wind Ensemble, conducted by Steve Acciani.
Linda Bishop, representing the parents of the children in the South Pointe Middle
School Wind Ensemble, thanked Council for inviting the group to play. She stated
that this is the only middle school band ever invited to play at Carnegie Hall, but will
cost the group approximately $104,000. She asked Council and residents for their
support of this event.
RECESS: Mayor Chang recessed the meeting at 7:03 p.m.
RECONVENE: Mayor Chang reconvened the meeting at 7:18 p.m.
INVOCATION: The Invocation was given by Pastor Larry Grigsby of Calvary
Chapel.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Herrera, Huff, Mayor Pro Tem
O'Connor, Mayor Chang.
Also Present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Mike 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, Finance Director and Lynda Burgess, City
Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Approved as presented.
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: None.
FEBRUARY 16, 1999
C
PAGE 5 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
cueing and shorter cycles that will allow residents to go in and out of the
commercial centers and residential areas.
C/Herrera stated she would like an opportunity to digest the information before
making a recommendation.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, Mayor Chang
adjourned the Study Session at 6:35 p.m. to the regular City Council Meeting.
ATTEST:
Mayor
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 2
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Theresa White, Vice President of the Council of
African-American Parents, invited Council to attend the Saturday, February 20,
1999 7th Annual Cultural Fair at Heritage Park to recognize the contributions of
black Americans. She thanked Council and staff for their help in organizing the first
annual Run -Walk for Health. She also thanked Jack Istik for his assistance to the
organization.
Dr. Lawrence Rhodes spoke about the lack of watering and fertilizing for the trees
on Washington Street.
Jeff Koontz, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, thanked Council and
staff for their participation in the Chamber's February 12 auction. He reminded
everyone about the forthcoming retreat, health fair and involvement in the City's
10th Anniversary/Birthday Celebration.
Clyde Hennessee asked for clarification of Consent Calendar Items No. 6.8 and 6.9.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 PLANNING COMMISSION - Tuesday, February 23, 1999 - 7:00 p.m.,
SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.2 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - February 25, 1999 - 7:00 p.m.,
SCAQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - March 2, 1999 - 6:30 p.m., SCAQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Ansari moved, MPT/O'Connor seconded, to
approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Consent Calendar Items No.
6.9 and 6.10. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Herrera, Huff, MPT/O'Connor,
M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6.1 APPROVED MINUTES: -
6.1.1 Regular Meeting of January 19, 1999 -As submitted.
6.1.2 Study Session of February 2, 199 - As submitted.
6.1.3 Regular Meeting of February 2, 1999 - As submitted.
6.2 RECEIVED & FILED TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MINUTES - Regular meeting of November 12, 1998.
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 3
6.3 RECEIVED & FILED PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES -
Regular Meeting of December 17, 1998.
6.4 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER dated February 16, 1999 in the amount
of $323,268.81.
6.5 RECEIVED AND FILED TREASURER'S REPORT - for December, 1998.
6.6 DENIED CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES:
6.6.1 Filed by Rosa N. Jones on November 4, 1998.
6.6.2 Filed by Thomas & Lorraine O'Rourke on January 29, 1999.
And referred the matters for action by Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk
Manager.
6.7 BOND REDUCTIONS:
A) REDUCED SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT BONDS (FAITHFUL
PERFORMANCE, LABOR AND MATERIAL) FOR TRACT NO. 47850
DIAMOND BAR WEST PARTNERS -
a) Bond No. 418853S - Grading Bond, from $1,596,279 to
$399,069.75
b) Bond No. 418854S - Sewer/Street/S.D. from $682,946 to
$341,473
c) Bond No. 418855S - Domestic Water from $208,401.60 to
$104,200.80
d) Bond No. 418857S - Monumentation from $4,250 to $2,125;
and directed the City Clerk to notify the Principal and Surety of these
actions.
B) APPROVED REDUCTION AND EXONERATION OF SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENT BONDS FOR TRACT NO. 47851 (DIAMOND BAR
EAST PARTNERS) - Bond No. 151303S by Developers Insurance
Co. for Landscape/irrigation from $25,000 to $12,500 and directed the
City Clerk to notify the Principal and Surety of these actions.
6.7 RESERVED TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 3
(SB821) ALLOCATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998-1999 — in the amount of
$20,517 for the Brea Canyon Road streetscape improvement project.
MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.9 PARK IMPROVEMENTS AND ADA UPGRADES FOR RONALD REAGAN
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 4
PARK AND HERITAGE PARK - Continued to March 2, 1999.
A) For FY 98-99, Ronald Reagan and Heritage Parks have been
scheduled for ADA retrofit/upgrades. On December 15, 1998,
Council authorized staff to advertise for bids for Improvements and
ADA Upgrades for these parks. Staff proposed to award a
construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder.
B) Following award of a construction contract to 4Con Engineering, Inc.
for Park Improvements and ADA Upgrades for Ronald Reagan and
Heritage Parks, staff proposed to award a construction inspection
services contract to D&J Engineering. As the City's Building & Safety
Consultant/Building Official, D&J Engineering is thoroughly familiar
with ADA standards and code compliance requirements.
Following discussion, MPT/O'Connor moved, C/Huff seconded, to
continue the matter to March 2, 1999 and include recommendations
for other potential funding sources. Motion carried by the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MaPTIO'Connor, M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6.10 EXTENSION OF CONTRACT
MAINTENANCE F R WEST COAST ARBORISTS
FOR THE STREET
CSD/Rose stated, in response to Dr. Rhodes' concern, that the street trees
on Washington Street are doing much better due to the fact that the species
has been changed to a Crepe Myrtle. In spite of the fact that vandals have
destroyed 10 to 15°x6 of the trees, the survival rate is much better than that
of the previous species. The trees are currently on a weekly watering
program. He said he would check on the fertilization of the trees.
Following discussion, C/Ansari moved, C/Huff seconded, to authorize
additional street tree maintenance work to be performed by West Coast
Arborists during FY 98/99 in a total amount not -to -exceed $70,000, an
increase of $10,000 in the existing street tree maintenance contract. Motion
carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Herrera, Huff, MPT/O'Connor,
M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 5
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 RESOLUTION NO. 89-97M: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF
INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED CITY PERSONNEL - All cities are
required to adopt conflict of interest codes designating certain positions
participating in making decisions which may affect financial interests. Since
adoption of the City's Code on October 3, 1989, amendments have been
necessary to add new positions or delete obsolete positions.
M/Chang opened the Public Hearing.
There being no testimony offered, M/Chang closed the Public Hearing.
MPT/O'Connor moved, C/Ansari seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 89-97M
adding the positions of Finance Director and Accountant 11 and deleting the
positions of Assistance Finance Manager and Senior accountant. Motion
carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES. COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari,errera, Huff, MPT/O'Connor,
9
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
7.2 PUBLIC HEARING - INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENT TO TITLE 22 OF
THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIFORAL O
DE TO RADIO, TELEVISION AND WIRELESS
TE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDSESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES,
Ric Stephens, Consultant, spoke about the document.
M/Chang opened the Public Hearing.
Joe Richards, Land Use Consultant for AirtoUCh Cellular, complimented the
City for its work on the ordinance. He asked that the document be modified
to allow the mounting of wireless antenna to existing Southern California
Edison towers.
Art O'Daly asked if the City requires a specific level of service from
providers.
DCM/DeStefano stated that the City does not have, nor does the proposed
Ordinance declare, a requirement that a service provider guarantee access
to cellular facilities throughout the community.
MPT/O'Connor asked if, where appropriate, language could be added to the
FEBRUARY 16, 1999
PAGE 6
Ordinance to indicate that antennas can be installed on currently existing
lattice towers only.
C/Huff expressed concern about placing antennas on lattice towers due to
the potential adverse aesthetic effects of the antennas as well as ancillary
equipment enclosures.
Following discussion, M/Chang continued the Public Hearing to March 2,
1999.
7.3 EXTENSION OF IME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. PERMIIT 92-12 AND OAK REE PERMIT O. 92-9.
CONDITIONAL USE
M/Chang opened the Public Hearing.
Jan Dabney, J.C. Dabney & Assoc., agent for Mr. Patel, spoke on behalf of
the applicant and stated that he is not Mr. Patel's engineer of record. Mr.
Patel has not addressed the conditions of approval because the project was
approved in May, 1995 and the landslide had already occurred. Patel's
project did not have enough mass to butress the overall landslide that
occurred during this period of time. Therefore, Mr. Patel had no choice but
to wait until the school district's mitigation took place and possible litigants
were determined. The school district spent hundreds of thousands of dollars
for geotechnical review to determine what had actually caused the landslide.
However, they did not make the information available to Mr. Patel or any of
his neighbors. For about 26 months, Mr. Patel had no means to do anything
on his property that might have a bearing on the landslide or the conditions
of approval placed on the project. Therefore, additional time is needed in
order to meet the conditions of approval.
Clyde Hennessee spoke in favor of granting a one-year extension.
Following an extensive question and answer period with the applicant's
agent, M/Chang closed the Public Hearing.
In response to C/Huffs question about whether the residents of Morning Sun
Ave. were notified of tonight's Public Hearing, CM/Belanger indicated that
they were.
In response to C/Huff, CE/Wentz stated that the condition of Mr. Patel's
property is difficult to determine because pertinent information is not
available to the City, based upon the work completed and representations
made to the City that the remediation work done by the school district was
done in accordance with their geotechnical engineer's recommendation.
The missing piece is Mr. Patel's property and completion of the stablization
of the small portion of area. The question of whether Mr. Patel is able to
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 7
stabalize the remainder of the site must be addressed by Mr. Patel's
geotechnical engineer.
C/Huff believed that this project made sense as a part of the South Pointe
Master Plan but not on its own merits. There are too many unanswered
questions regarding what was a flawed project from the beginning. The City
has been unable to satisfactorily work with the applicant on this project. And
in spite of the fact that Mr. Dabney has made an eloquent effort on behalf of
Mr. Patel, he said he could not support an extension of this map.
C/Ansari said she was told by one of the residents of Morning Sun Ave. that
they are in litigation and are, therefore, not present for tonight's meeting. Mr.
Dabney did well by Mr. Patel. However, she was against this project in 1995
and now, with the problems of dealing with Mr. Patel and with the fact that
the land is moving, she cannot, at this time, vote in favor of an extension for
this project. If Mr. Patel wishes to bring the City another map which
proposes construction of 12 houses, that is another matter.
ACA/Susskind recommended that in the event of denial of the extension of
time, that the Council direct staff with respect to required findings contained
in the Subdivision Map Act. The Council has indicated items of concern that
would qualify as findings such as, consistency with the General Plan and
the Specific Plans; physical suitability for the type of development and for the
proposed density of the development; design of the subdivision or type of
improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems; substantial
environmental damage, etc.
Following discussion, C/Herrera moved, C/Huff seconded, to direct staff to
prepare a Resolution of Denial containing findings as set forth by
ACA/Susskind, for the extension of time request.
MPTIO'Connor stated that she would vote to deny the extension of time.
Further, she did not understand how the City can continue with the map
since so much has changed because of the landslide. She questioned
whether a new Environmental Impact Report is needed because the original
EIR was done for the entire South Pointe Master Plan which no longer
exists. She questioned whether the map would be approved under the new
General Plan and Development Code. She also questioned how many of
the original conditions of approval may have changed due to the landslide.
Further, she wondered whether the Buyers Awareness Package would
include the fact that the homes are built on a landslide. How can the City
approve a project built on a known landslide and what proof does the City
have that the landslide poses no further public danger. The project might
possibly move forward without the school district's property but it would need
to be a different configuration. The land continues to move. Where would
an access be located if the school district's property is not included in the
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 8
project. She indicated that her questions may add to the findings of denial
and that she wass not asking for answers to her questions.
In response to C/Ansari about the City's legal responsibility when it approves
a project and landslides occur after completion of the project, ACA/Susskind
responded that, contained within the Municipal Code, are immunities for
approval of developments.
CM/Belanger pointed out that the City has approved projects that are on
historic landslides.
Motion carried by the following Roil Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Herrera, Huff, MPT/O'Connor,
M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
8. OLD BUSINESS: None
9. NEW BUSINESS:
9.1 A) RESOLUTION NO. 99-05: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDERING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND TO FILE A REPORT RELATED TO
MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 AND ANY
ASSESSMENT THEREON FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000.
B) RESOLUTION NO. 99-06: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDERING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND TO FILE A REPORT RELATED TO
MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 AND ANY
ASSESSMENT THEREON FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000.
C) RESOLUTION NO. 99-07: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDERING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO PREPARE AND TO FILE A REPORT RELATED TO
MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 AND ANY
ASSESSMENT THEREON FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000.
Moved by C/Ansari, seconded by C/Herrera to adopt Resolutions No.
99-05, 99-06 and 99-07 initiating the proceedings for Districts 38, 39
FEBRUARY 16, 1999
PAGE 9
and 41 ordering preparation of the appropriate engineering reports.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Herrera, Huff,
MPT/O'Connor, M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
9.2 RESOLUTION NO. 99-08: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING ADVANCE AND
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT NO. 11 WITH THE DIAMOND BAR
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
C/Ansari moved, C/Huff seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 99-08 approving
Advance and Reimbursement Agreement Number 11 with the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Agency in the amount of $32,000. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Herrera, Huff, MPT/O'Connor,
M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING: M/Chang recessed the City
Council Meeting to the Redevelopment Agency at 10:44 p.m.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
Council meeting at 10:56 p.m.
M/Chang reconvened the City
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS AND COUNCIL MEMBER
COMMENTS: C/Ansari stated that she had attended several Chamber of
Commerce and Water Quality meetings and was pleased that the Kiwanis Club held
a training seminar for softball and baseball at Heritage Park last week.
C/Herrera was proud of the South Pointe Middle School's Wind Ensemble
performance this evening, as well as their invitation to play at Carnegie Hall. She
congratulated their instructor, Steve Acciani for his commitment and inspiration to
his students.
C/Huff said it is exciting to see young people of the community involved in their
activities which is a tribute to the parents, teachers and community activists. He
wished the Council of African-American Parents success with their 7th Annual
Cultural Fair. He wished Chinese residents and friends Kung Hsi Fa Tsai.
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 10
C/O'Connor said she attended the Kiwanis Club softball and baseball training
seminar. D.B. has a great deal to offer its citizens and the City needs the
participation of its residents. She encouraged people and organizations to be
involved with and to support the City's 10th Birthday Celebration. She stated she
will be unable to attend the weekend Chinese and African-American festivities
because she will be assisting in the distribution of more than 3,000 cases of Girl
Scout Cookies. Happy New Year to the Chinese citizens of D.B.
M/Chang stated he also attended the Kiwanis Club softball and baseball training
clinic. He represented the City at the Eldorado School Eagle Scout festivities in
Walnut. He was invited to attend the Chinese Provincial Officials MBA
commencement ceremonies at Cal State Fullerton on February 8, 1999. He stated
that the current owner of the shopping center at the corner of Lemon Ave. and
Golden Springs Dr. has completed improvements and substantially lowered the
vacancy rate. Today the center is about 85°x6 of capacity. He asked for support to
improve the tenancy rate at the Country Hills Towne Center.
11. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Chang adjourned
the meeting at 11:09 P.M. in memory of Adam DeLeon.
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
ATTEST:
Mayor
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF TBE PLANNING COMIVIISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management Hearing Board Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Kuo.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairman Steve Tye and Commissioners
George Kuo and Joe Runcka.
Absent: Commissioner Nelson was excused.
Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner,
Linda Kay Smith, Development Services Assistant; and Sonya Joe,
Development Services Assistant.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As submitted.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Extension of Time for Approved Tract Map No. 51253, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-
12 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9 (pursuant to Code Sections 21.40.180, 22.56.140 and
22.56.2250) is a request for approval of a one year extension of time of the City's approval
dated May 17, 1995. The approval permits a 21 unit, single-family residential subdivision on
6.7 acres (Continued from November 24, 1998).
PROJECT ADDRESS: Fast of Morning Sun Avenue and North of Pathfinder
Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91789
PROPERTY OWNER/ Amrut Patel, Sasak Corporation
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 2
APPLICANT: 858 West 9th Street
Upland, CA 91785
DCM/DeStefano presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
continue the Public Hearing to January 12, 1999.
Chair/McManus reopened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this item.
GRuzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to continue the public hearing for Extension of Tune for
Approved Tract Map No. 52153, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12, and Oak Tree Permit
No. 92-9 to January 12, 1999. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMNIISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING:
Kuo, Ruzicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus
None
Nelson
1. Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance.
Currently, the. City has a moratorium (Ordinance No. 4-b (1998) on wireless
telecommunication facilities which will be of no further force and effect as of July 17, 1999.
A draft wireless telecommunication facilities ordinance has been prepared for the Planning
Commission's consideration If approved by the City Council, the wireless telecoomauurication
facilities ordinance will be incorporated into the adopted Development Code, Article III,
Section 22.42.130.
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide
APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
DCM/)eStefano presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
open the public hearing, receive testimony and continue the public hearing.
C/Ruzicka asked if Paragraph C on Page I of the Draft Ordinance includes the Eric Stone
installation.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the language includes Mr. Stone's property. However, Mr.
Stone's facility is specifically conditioned to operate in its current manner. Any modification
to the current facility would require a public hearing.
DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 3
In response to C/Ruzicka, Ric Stephens, consultant, explained the types of potential
installations.
DCM/DeStefano indicated to C/Ruzicka that as a part of the Telecommunication Facilities
Regulations, cities maintain land use control with respect to land use and design of facilities.
Pursuant to th4 Federal Communications Act of 1996, cities are not to decide for or
against a project based upon any perceived or real emissions generated by these devices.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Kuo that he is not aware of any approved devices located
on approved sites that would be determined to be located in an inappropriate zone upon
approval of the ordinance.
Ric Stephens responded to C/Kuo that an approved site could be a church and the church may
be located in a residential zone which would be the exception allowed for under the Draft
Ordinance.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing
Marty Zimmerman, NexTel Communications, complemented the task force for their work.
He suggested that the Commission consider the following changes to the Draft Ordinance:
1) That the requirement for any structures to be at least 3 meters or at least 10 feet from a
non-residential building be considered on a case by case basis. 2) With respect to Paragraph
I.2. on Page 13, he asked that consideration be given to leaving the device in place upon
abandonment in the event the city determined it had future value. 3) Regarding H. 11.
Signage, the FCC occasionally requires carriers to place small signs at the bottom of
structures. He suggested the following language be included: "unless the signage is an
integral part of the stealth design of the structure". 4) He said he is concerned about the
nexus for requiring the property owner's approval for a rooftop installation (H. 12.
Collocation Agreement on Page 13).
Mr. Zimmerman explained to VC/Tye how signage can benefit a stealth structure. For
example, the City of LaHabra requested that the city name be a part of a clock tower
installation. He reiterated that he believes it was the intent of the task force to allow this type
of signage to occur.
Responding to C/Ruzicka, Mr. Zimmerman stated that with respect to abandonment of
devices, his company installed a bell stricture just north of the UC campus which, by mutual
agreement, will be retained by the University.
DCM/DeStefano responded to VC/Tye that the language of H. 11. can be revised to
incorporate retention of structures when deemed feasible.
DCM/DeStefano presented a graphic of an auto center sign located in the City of Anaheim
which speaks to the signage issue. This is an example of a device which was attached to a
sign. Currently, a common occurrence is the inclusion of such devices within signs. He said
he believes the WalMart/HomeBase sign on westbound SR60 includes a telecommunications
DECEMBER 81 1998
PAGE 4
device. He agreed that Mr. Tmimecman's comm arts with respect to signage are appropriate.
He explained that the task force was concerned about the opportunity for incorporating
devices within fixture freeway oriented signs and was determined to insure that future
applicants for such freeway signage be notified of the opportunity for incorporation of a
facility. The task force was determined to avoid installations such as the Walnut Pools
installation which hes signage attached to the tower. He explained why the City embraces the
concept of collocation. .
In response to VC/Tyr,, DCM/DeStetano stated he believes that Mr. Zim merman's statement
regarding setback is a good observation. Staff will pursue the issue. The intent of the section
was to respond to insure that froestanding devices were a certain distance away from a
building.
DCM/Destefano responded to VC/Tye that the City Attorney is writing appropriate language
for Page 14, I. 3. Bonding/Liability.
C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Tye seconded, to continue the public hearing to January 12, 1999.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COM IISSIONER&
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMIVIISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMIVIISSION COMMENTS:
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
Kuo, Ruzicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus
None
Nelson
None
DCM/DeStefano reminded the Commission that the anmusl holiday party will be held tomorrow night
at the golf course. The Travelers Insurance Company and Allstate Insurance are moving rapidly to
relocate to the Gateway Corporate Center. Construction should commence within about 45 days.
He reported that additional restauraarts have indicated an interest in Diamond Bar as a result of the
impending moves by Travelers and Allstate. In January the Planning Commission will consider
additional proposals to construct office buildings within the Gateway Corporate Center. Building
valuation has increased by about 15 million during calendar year 1998 and will continue to increase
in the coming months.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As presented.
DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 5
ADJOURNMENT:
C/Runcka moved, CXuo seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no fiuther business to come
before the Planning Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
*&qlp
es DeStefan
Secretary to the Planning Commission
Attest:
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12,1999
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management Hearing Board Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Chairman Tye.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairman Steve Tye and Commissioners
George Kuo, Steve Nelson and Joe Ruzicka.
Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; George Wentz, City Engineer, Ann
Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda Kay Smith, Development Services Assistant,
and Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As submitted.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of November 24, 1998 and December 8, 1998.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve the minutes of November 24, 1998 and
December 8, 1998 as presented. Motion carried 5-0 with C/Nelson abstaining on the minutes
of December 8, 1998.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Extension of Tune for Approved Tract Map No. 51253, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-
12 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9 (pursuant to Code Sections 21.40.180, 22.56.140 and
22.56.2250) is a request for approval of a one-year extension of time of the City's approval
dated May 17, 1995. The approval permits a 21 unit, single-family residential subdivision on
6.7 acres. (Continued from December 8, 1998)
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE Z
PROJECT ADDRESS: East of Morning Sun Avenue and North of Pathfinder
Road, Diamond Barg CA 91789
PROPERTY OWNER/ Amrut Patel, Sasak Corporation
APPLICANT: 858 West 9th Street
Upland, CA 91785
AstP4 mgu presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend City Council denial of the extension of time request.
ChairfMcManus reopened the public hearing.
Jan Dabney, J. C. Dabney & Associates, Agent and Engineer for the proposed project, stated
that Mr. Patel cannot be present for tonight's meeting because he is in St. Louis, Missouri on
business. He explained the time line for the project and spoke about the Morning Sun Avenue
slide. He stated that Mr. Paid completed his portion of the required slide mitigation. He
further stated that the Map was originally approved in May, 1995 with the understanding that
the Map could not proceed without the participation of the Walnut School District. He
indicated that as a result of the landslide, the school district needed Mr. Patel's property in
order to mitigate the landslide to benefit their ownership. He explained the negotiations and
agreements between Mr. Patel and the school district and how Mr. Patel has been damaged.
He stated he believes that a denial of this project is not warranted. He claimed fault for
assuming that due to a two and one-half year delay because of the school district's landslide
that there would be a token consideration for further extension. He indicated he believes a
one year extension is a reasonable request at this time on this specific project in this
community.
Mr. Dabney responded to Chair/McManus that the school district's mitigation was completed
in early Fall of 1997. Since that time, the applicant has completed three grading plans, two
separate hydrologies, designed reconstruction of Morning Sun Drive, submitted a grading
plan to the school district, and submitted a preliminary hydrology report to the City. In order
to proceed, the applicant needs approval of the extension.
Responding to C/Ruaicka, Mr. Dabney stated that during a 90 day period all of the required
data could be submitted to the City's staff. The stabilization drilling may require a longer
Period than 90 days. He stated he does not believe that a token 90 day extension is
reasonable. All improvement plans can be submitted to the City within a 90 day period of
time.
CE/Wentz stated that he is concerned from an engineering standpoint that staff has not seen
any formal submittals from the -applicant until November/Decetmber, 1998. He explained that
due to the lengthy process of obtaining approvals from the County a resolution will not occur
within 90 days. Staff is prepared to receive and review the applicant's submittals. It is up to
the applicant to supply the information in a timely manner.
JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 3
DCM/DeStefano stated that a 90 day period would be considered from the date of City
Council approval of the extension. Within that time period there is definitive factual
demonstrated performance of a bona fide application
Mr. Dabney stated that the civil engineering aspect of the job is reasonable within a 90 day
time frame. However, he cannot speak for the geotechnical engineer with whom he has no
business relationship.
Mr. Dabney responded to VC/Tye that he is capable of having the job completed within the
requested one year extension period. The only hesitancy he has is with respect to a plan
check issue with the County. Staff is correct that the applicant does not have permanent
access onto school property. The applicant has temporary access for purposes of
construction. If the final map is never approved, there is no access to the proposed map
because access comes across school district property.
CE/Wentz said he believes that staff can initiate the necessary language to assure that if the
map proceeds to its final form that the property is owned by the map.
Mr. Dabney confirmed to VC/Tye that Mr. Paters understanding is that regardless of the
makeup of future school district boards, that they will provide access.
Mr. Dabney explained to C/Kuo that because this project is a relatively small project for his
firm he can assure the Commission that he will be able to complete the project in the time
allotted if he is granted the extension.
C/Ruzicka asked if staff has a problem with the assertion that the applicant can perform in a
timely manner.
CE/Wentz said that the August time frame requires that Mr. Dabney submit his improvement
Plans very quickly.
DCM/DeStefano stated that staff has had a long relationship with the applicant and the
speaker. Over the years Mr. Dabney has demonstrated his ability to provide the required
documentation in a timely fashion. It is up to Mr. Patel to provide Mr. Dabney with the
direction and resources to accomplish the required documentation and responses within any
given period of time. Staffs cm&rt level will only rise when the demonstrated performance
is evident.
There being no one else who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/McManus closed the
public hearing.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to recommend City Council approval of a one year
extension of time for Approved Tract Map No. 52153, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12,
and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9 of the City's approval dated May 17, 1995.
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 4
RECESS: Chair/.McManus recessed the meeting at 8:09 p.m. to allow staff time to prepare a
resolution of approval. • . -
RECONVENE: - -Chair/McManus reconvened the meeting at 8:19 P.M.
DCM/DeStefano read the revised resolution.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
Kuo, Ruzicka, Chair/McManus
VC/Tye
Nelson
None
VC/Tye explained the reason for his "NO" vote is based upon Dr. Hockwalt's letter of
December 3, 1998, stating that he believes that two new members of the school board who
were not part of the, prior discussion would require additional discussion.
2. Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance.
Currently, the City has a moratorium (Ordinance No. 4-b (1998) on wireless
telecommunication facilities which will be of no further force and effect as of July 17, 1999.
A draft wireless telecommunication facilities ordinance has been prepared for the Planning
Commission's consideration. If approved by the City Council, the wireless telecommunication
facilities ordinance will be incorporated into the adopted Development Code, Article III,
Section 22.42.130. Continued from December 8, 1998. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission reopen the public hearing and continue this matter to January 26, 1999.
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide
APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Chair/McManus reopened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this item.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to continue the public hearing to January 26, 1999.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VCfrye, Chair/McManus
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 5
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. General plan Amendment Na 98-1 is a request to amend objective No. 1.5, Strategy 1.5.3,
page I-15 of the Citys General Plan. The requested amendment proposes to insert the
following language into the said Objective Strategy.
"Any decision to rescind, terminate, abandon, remove or modify a deed must be
supported by findings that the decision is of significant benefit
to the City and the matter must be submitted as a ballot
measure to the registered voters of Diamond Bar at an
election; whereat a majority of those voting must vote in the
affirmative on the ballot measure."
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide
APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
DCM/DeStefano presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
open the public hearing, receive testimony and recommend City Council approval of Geral
Plan Amendment No. 98-1.
C/Ruzicka stated that he believes development is one of the more obvious reasons for
requesting the lifting of map and deed restrictions. What other reasons are there for lifting
map and deed restrictions?
DCM/DeStefano responded that he is not aware of a reason for requesting a restriction to be
modified or removed unless it had something to do with development.
Chair/Ruzicka asked whether the lifting of restrictions would be considered for expansion of
a park or some other recreational use.
DCM/DeStefano indicated that restrictions would probably not effect a proposal for a passive
park, nature trails, etc. and neither would they impact a proposal for an active park.
However, they may effect other types of recreational use.
C/Nelson asked how, if this General Plan Amendment was approved, the City may have
exposure to litigation or some other type of conflict.
DCM/DeStefano stated that the City Attorney has not indicated he is concerned that the
proposed language would provide an opportunity for inverse or some other taking issue.
Whether or not someone wishes to litigate is their choice.
JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 6
C/Nelson asked what effect this amendment would have on the proposal to place a civic
center up near Summitridge Park which he believes falls within designated open space at
Grand Avenue and Summitridge Drive.
DCM/DeStefano stated it depends on where a civic center/community center type facility
might be located. Summitridge Park is dedicated Parkland which has a different kind of
"restriction" placed on it. He said he does not believe that the different type of restriction or
issue would be impacted by a proposal to build a fiwcility at that location. It might be an issue
if the City .attempted to build such a facility on one of the ridges adjacent to Summitridge Park
that would be a part of the SunCal dedication to the City.
C/Nelson stated that a newspaper article referred to the building of a civic center/community
center at the immediate northwest intersection of Grand Avenue and Summitridge Drive
which obviously cannot occur because it is on top of Surnmitridge Park He said he does not
believe that the community would tolerate giving up part of its parkland. Therefore, it would
have to be some other portion of land which is dedicated open space and he is asking ii; by
approving this amendment, the City is painting itself into a comer to prevent a citywide vote
to place the civic center in that location.
DCM/DeStefano said he does not believe that this amendment would jeopardize the ability
to place such a facility within open space deeded/designated property. The physical
characteristics of the SunCal property in that arca may not lend themselves to the kind of
facility that is being discussed. Whatever has been written or said about Summitridge Park
as a candidate for such a facility is speculation at this point on the part of the writer. The City
Council appointed a task force to look at amenities, size and location of a proposed facility.
The task force will conclude its investigation and recommendation in June, 1999. The
proposed facility could be situated at any number of locations within the City of Diamond
Bar. There will no doubt be debate on the merits of any location that is ultimately selected.
With respect to Summitridge Park, the area within the park grounds that would appear to be
a candidate is the area north of the ball fields and north of the long driveway into the park off
of Summitridge Drive at the end of the concrete walkway leading up to the peak of the park.
From an engineering perspective, it is feasible to reduce the peak/ridge down and fill a two
.acre area just slightly north of that location. Presently, there is a grassy volleyball facility at
that location. It is possible to cut and fill in order to create about seven ('n flat acres for
development. Such an undertaking is not without cost and environmental impacts.
VC/Tye asked if it is correct that if a year ago this matter was before the City Council and the
amendment was forwarded to City Council for approval and they approved the amendment,
there still would have been no impact on the SunCal matter because the SunCal project did
not involve open space.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the SunCal property was not restricted as open space. In
addition, it was a Vesting Tentative Map which would not, in his estimation, have been
subjected to this issue.
JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 7
VC/Tye asked if the following scenario would require a vote of the people: If the City is
deeded property from the SunCal project and the City Council, at some point in the future,
determines that it would be a good idea to sell the property for development and use those
funds for developing a community center, building a library, etc.
DCM/DeStefano responded that a sale of the property may not trigger this event. However,
a proposed reuse of the property from open space may trigger this circumstance.
VC/Tye asked why the references within the proposed wording are to "deed" when Strategy
1.5.3 talks about land designated as open space by deed, easement or man restriction?
DCM/DeStefano indicated that the language suggested adds to the section that describes a
deed only. However, the entire strategy discusses all three elements. He said he is unable to
directly answer VC/Tye's question because there was no discussion of this matter at the City
Council level. If the Commission has questions about the wording staff will pursue the matter
and provide an explanation.
C/Ruzicka asked if the Commission could assume that the Council intended to include all
three elements.
DCM/DeStefano responded that he believes it would be more appropriate for the Commission
to make a definitive recommendation so that the Commissiods action points out that it wishes
all three elements to be addressed. He said he does not believe that the Commission should
assume that the Council intended to include all three items.
VC/Tye said that if he had property that may be effected by this amendment he would be
present to participate in the discission. He asked if the Commission can imply from the fact
that no audience members are present that this matter is of little concern to the public.
DCM/DeStefano stated that it is difficult for him to surmise the intentions of the interested
parties. He said that staff notified those persons who might be most directly effected.
VC/Tye gave the following example. If "The Country Estates" had 150 acres designated as
park and the association members decided that they wanted to develop 30 acres and leave the
remaining 120 acres as open space. If the General Plan is amended, would that circumstance
have to be put to a vote of the general community?
Chair/McManus stated that the development of "The Country Estates" impacts the entire
City.
C/Nelson said that VC/Tye's question raises an issue that concerns him. He indicated he can
envision many scenarios, one of which is that there may be a group of individuals that wants
to go into open space to develop active parklands. He said he believes this is a very real
possibility and he so stated during the SunCal deliberations. People are not going to buy
natural open space. And yet there may be a voting contingency that wants natural open space
JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 8
and the rest of the citizens who do not care about natural open space do not show up to vote.
Conversely, the opposite can occur. He said that it scares him to put it out to a political
process to where small active special interest groups can get together where the minority out
votes the majority simply because the majority is uninformed or unconcerned.
DCM/DeStefano reiterated that he does not believe that passive open space issues would
trigger a vote but he was not certain about whether active open spaces would trigger a vote.
He said he is not prepared to answer questions about the implementation of the details at this
point in time. He recalls that the open space area contained within "The Country Estates" is
not designated by map restriction as open space. It is designated prohibiting the construction
of residential buildings. "The Country Estates" would still need to come to the City for
removal of that restriction, but it is not open space restriction and would not be impacted by
Strategy 1.5.3. The removal of that type of restriction is discussed in Strategy 1.5.4.
DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/McManus that the Commission's action will be
forwarded to the City Council. The matter would not come back to the Commission unless
there was further direction from the Council or unless the Council sought to incorporate
issues that were not contained within the Commission's recommendation.
Responding to C/Kuo, DCM/DeStefano stated that cities referred to in staffs report include
the City of Napa and its County where they have designated areas of the community which
require an election for consideration of nearly any type of development. The City of Cypress
contains industrial area that require an election for modification to that land use. Several
cities in San Diego County and in Central and Northern California have ballot initiatives to
consider insertion of this type of language due to growth control issues in those areas.
C/Kuo asked if there is a trend of other cities and counties to adopt this type of amendment.
DCM/DeStefano stated he does not believe there is a trend to adopt such an amendment but
rather a reaction to growth policies that are not deemed to be appropriate for those
communities. He said he believes it is unusual for a local government to initiate such a
provision.
C/Kuo asked if staff is aware of any problems encountered by communities and counties that
have adopted this type of amendment.
DCM/DeStefeno indicated he does not have a good historical record of what has been done
in other communities. Almost every election speaks to issues in this arena.
C/Nelson asked why staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendment.
DCM/DeStefano responded that staff is recommending approval because it is an issue that
the City Council wishes to entertain and it is reflective of concerns expressed by some
residents through the SunCal process that open space land that would be dedicated to the City
would be turned for profit to another developer and they view this amendment as a means to
JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 9
mitigate that concern. Furthermore, the proposed amendment is reflective of issues that were
raised in the 1996 Initiative General Plan. This matter was discussed throughout all of the
versions of the General Plan from 1991 forward. It seems to be reasonable to bring the
matter forward for the City Council to ultimately conclude. Therefore, staff is recommending
approval to move the matter forward and allow the elected members to make the ultimate
decision.
Chair/.McManus opened the public hearing
There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/McManus closed the
public hearing.
DCM/DeStefano indicated to C/Kuo that consideration of this General Plan Amendment
requires a public hearing before the City Council.
C/Ruacka summarized that tonight's discussion has indicated that the Commissioners believe
in the elected officials and their good intentions of considering an amendment such as this to
the City's General Plan. However, he hopes that Council Members will take into account
some of the very valid concerns that have been expressed during this discussion.
VC/Tye concuured with C%mcka that he has faith in the reasonable intentions of the present
City Council Members. However, he is concerned about four and eight years from now. He
wants to know if this is impacting few parcels and if so, is this a change for the sake of
change?
C/Runcka reiterated each Commissioner's concerns and said he believes that valid concerns
have been expressed during this discussion. He hopes that the elected representatives will
note the concerns expressed during their deliberations.
Chair/McManus stated he believes the Commissioners would like to see open space remain
open space - something between the current General Plan and Measure D.
DCM/DeStefano stated that Measure D was much more restrictive in that it required voter
approval for specific areas, specific land uses, and subdivisions. This amendment focuses on
open space designated map and easement restricted properties. From that standpoint it is
much less restrictive upon the entire community.
C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Tye seconded, to continued the matter to January 26, 1999 and asked
staff to provide answers to issues of concerns including what are the reasons why map and
deed restrictions are asked for except for the obvious reason of home development and why
easement and man restriction is not included with deed restriction. Motion carried by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus
NOES:COMNIISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 10
PLANNING COM MSION CONEM72 S:
DCM/DeStefano responded to CJNelson that as a result of the Sandstone Canyon/Pacific Standard
project about a four acre portion ofthe upper portion of sycamore Canyon park has been designated
to include acpanding the wetland ares by about one-half acre and creating about a three and one-half
oak woodland with the planting of 300-400 oak trees. This project is being designed and funded by
the project as a matter of mitigation that was discussed within the Environmental Impact Report. He
stated he will provide a copy of the City Council report on this project to the Commission. The
project is proposed to be completed within about 60 days.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
DCM/DeStefano stated that yesterday, Diamond Bar won the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
lawsuit. The Commissioners are invited to a groundbreaking ceremony scheduled for 4:00 p.m. to
7:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 21, 1999 for the Travelers Insurance Company building project, Lot
2 of the Gateway Corporate Center.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As agendized
ADJOURNMENT:
C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Tye seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business to
come before the Planning Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
ASt99V1,-
I.
Attest:
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 26,1999
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management Hearing Board Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Kuo.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairman Steve Tye and Commissioners
George Kuo, Steve Nelson and Joe Ruzicka.
Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner,
Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant, and Stella Marquez,
Administrative Secretary.
DCM/DeStefano introduced Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary for the City's Planning
Department.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As submitted.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of January 12, 1999.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve .the minutes of January 12, 1999 as
present. Motion carried 5-0.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance.
Currently, the City has a moratorium (Ordinance No. 4-b (1998) on wireless
telecommunication facilities which will be of no further force and effect as of July 17, 1999.
JANUARY 26, 1999
PAGE 2
A draft wireless telecommunication fidlib s ordinance has been prepared for the Planning
Commission's considerstion. If approved by the City Council, the wireless telecommunication
f ci ities-ordinance will be incorporated into the adopted Development Code, Article III,
Section 22.42.130. Continued from January 12, 1999: Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission reopen the public hearing -and continue this matter to February 9, 1999.
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide
APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Chair/McManus reopened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter.
C/Nelson moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to continue the public hearing for the Wireless
Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance to February 9, 1999. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMNIISSIONERS: None
2. General Plan Amendment No. 9&1 is a request to amend Objective No. 1.5, Strategy 1.5.3,
page I-15 of the City's General Plan. The requested amendment proposes to insert the
following language into the said Objective Strategy..
"Any decision to rescind, terminate, abandon, remove or modify a deed must be
supported by findings that the decision is of significant benefit to the City and the
matter must be submitted as a ballot measure to the registered voters of Diamond Bar
at an election; whereat a majority of those voting must vote in the affirmative on the
ballot measure."
Continued from January 12, 1999.
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide
APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
DCM/DeStefano presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
reopen the public hearing, receive public testimony, discuss the proposed General Plan
JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 3
Amendment, and adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 99-1.
In response to a question raised at the January 12, 1999 meeting, DCM/DeStefano stated that
staff does not believe that there is a reason other than development for which a lifting of map
and deed restriction might be requested. With respect to the lands of uses that could be
developed within the open space areas, he pointed out that the general definition of open
space as described within the General Plan is included in the Commissioners' packets. This
definition is the guide for what may or may not occur within open space areas. With respect
to why this amendment is being proposed, he stated that this issue was raised by a member
of the City Council with concurrence from the City Council Members to refer the matter to
the planning Commission for discussion of its merits and to provide a recommendation to the
City Council. The intent of the amendment is to provide more permanence and security to
the public regarding open space properties and whether or not subsequent City Councils may
attempt to modify the will of the people and attempt to approve project through the removal
of map and deed restrictions or easements on open space properties. By taking this type of
land use request to the voters it allows the voting. public to directly participate in these issues.
In addition, it is a measure that would send a message to landowners or potential land
developers that such a request would require a statement of significant benefit in order to gain
public approval. Such a process would place a level of uncertainty to the applicant as well
as, add to his/her burden and length of time and cost involved in transforming an open space
designated property to some other land use. The City Council commented that this
amendment would help to insure that the Council, as stewards of the public trust, would be
able to provide an additional opportunity to secure open spaces for a significant period of
time in the future.
DCMMeStefano responded to VC/Tye that the response to his question of January 12
regarding "The Country Estates" property being map restricted to open space was correct -
that it is not map restricted to open space. It has map restrictions that prohibit the
construction of residential buildings. On January 12 the subject was subdivision map
restrictions. Tonight we have added the General Plan Land Use Map. The property is
designated through the General Plan's Land Use Map as Open Space.
VC/Tye asked if the following scenario would be subjected to the vote of the people: Certain
park expansion and/or development of an existing park such as Summitridge Park to include
a ballfield or trails element.
DCM/DeStefano responded that VC/Tye's example would first be subjected to an
examination as to whether or not it is inconsistent with the Open Space designation. If it is
deemed to be inconsistent with the designation and the approved uses within the designation
it would trigger a change which would require a vote of the people.
VC/Tye asked how many parcels are subject to this amendment.
JANUARY 26, 1999
PAGE 4
DCM/DeStefano stated that the items listed on Page 4 of staffs report are the properties that
would be subject to this amendment.
Wrye asked how a future City Council could delete this amendment.
DCM/DeStefano responded that if the Planning Commission may wish to consider language
regarding such a provision to the proposed amendment such as, "the removal of such
language would require a vote of the people", or remain silent on the issue.
C/Ruzicka said he concurs with VC/Tye's concern regarding removal of this amendment by
a future City Council. He said he is concerned that because such a small portion of the
registered voters participate in elections, that special interest groups may prevail in these
matters.
C/Nelson said he expressed the same concern regarding special interest groups at the January
12, 1999 ming. Since considering the matter, it occurs to him that the same concern would
apply to any panel or committee of five people. Therefore, he no longer has the concern and
will trust the public to render its decision.
CAbAcka said he believes it is good that the Commission has discussed the matter and placed
their concerns in the minutes.
Chair/McManus reopened the pubic hearing.
There being no one who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the public
hearing.
C/R=cka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to adopt a resolution recommending City Council
approval of General Plan Amendment No. 98-1. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus
None
None
1. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 98-15 (pursuant to Code Section 22.72.020) is a request
to construct a two-story office building of approximately 56,600 square feet on a vacant lot
within Gateway Corporate Center.
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 21810 E. Copley Drive
(Lot 22 of Tract No. 39679)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 5
PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Bar Associates
c/o NEW Capital Management, LP
601 S. Figueroa #2150
Los Angeles, CA 90017
APPLICANT: Opus West Corporation
2030 Main Street
Irvine, CA 92614
Associate Planneraxmgu presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission approve Development Review No. 98-15, Findings of Fact and conditions as
fisted within the Resolution.
C/Nelson said that it is great that this area as masterplanned is finally happening. He
requested that the invasive exotics designated for landscaping in the open space area of slope
behind the Gateway Corporate Center be eliminated. He asked that staff assure him that
traffic is mitigated at Golden Springs Drive and Grand Avenue.
DCM/DeStefano responded that with respect to elimination of a particular invasive species,
staff and the applicant's architect should be able to determine alternative replacement species
that will not be invasive to the area. Regarding potential traffic impacts to Golden Springs
Drive at Grand Avenue and/or Golden Springs Drive at Brea Canyon Road, he stated that the
Gateway Corporate Center project was approved through an Environmental Impact Report
several years ago which identified a mixture of land uses, acres per land use and a trip
generation budget requiring improvements that have been completed - the traffic signals at
Gateway an Copley Drives, the medians, etc. In addition, the developer provided funds to
mitigate the downstream impacts of traffic. Some of the monies have been used for
improvements on Golden Springs Drive and some have been used for Brea Canyon Road.
Staff believes that to this point in time, the project has mitigated impacts that were anticipated
and that this specific project does not exceed the thresholds established by the EIR and trip
budget. Further project development within the Gateway Corporate Center may require
traffic studies to determine the feasibility of the findings contained within the EIR.
C/Rumcka stated his concerns regarding potential traffic impacts on Golden Springs Drive
at Grand Avenue and in particular, the right hand turn lane from eastbound Golden Spring
Drive southbound (and Avenue. .
DCM/DeStefano indicated that studies are currently underway to consider the traffic impacts
in the area of concern.
Responding to C/Ruucka, DCN"td m indicated that at this time, staff has no knowledge
of what the proposed signage for the building will be. ff the request for signage exceeds what
is permitted by code, it will likely be a matter of a request to incorporate larger letters on the
freeway side of the buildings.
JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 6
DCM/DeStefano explained to VC/Tye the difference between bevel of Service C and Level
of Service F.
VC/Tye expressed his concern about the increased daily trips that will result from these
projects and is it within the City's purview to create a freeway access from the Gateway
Corporate Center.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
Jeff Bill, Opus West Corporation, stated that the deed restriction on the Gateway property
disallows direct freeway access. Linscott, Law and Cnnenspan has looked at the cumulative
effect of these projects and determined that this project will further mitigate the traffic
impacts.
DCM/DeStefano stated that due to the configuration of the freeway system it is unlikely that
direct freeway access is feasible.
C/Kuo concurred with Commissioners' concerns expressed about possible traffic impacts as
a result of this and future projects.
DCM/DeStefano explained to C/Kuo that the intent of the General Plan under the
Office/Professional Land Use category was to describe a maximum Land Use Floor Area
Ratio between .25 and 1.0 for the designated area. The Gateway Corporate Center has
generally been developing between about .20 to about .52. The application is consistent with
the General Plan standard for a project within this range within this Gateway Corporate
Center.
Mike Wertman, Architect, responded to C/Kuo that with respect to reflectivity of the glass
selected for the building, it is a green glass .28 reflective which is well within normal
standards and most likely less reflective than a couple of the buildings currently contained
within the Gateway Corporate Center project. It is virtually impossible to prevent sunlight
from bouncing off of any kind of surface. The glass is not a rellectivehnirrored type of glass.
Responding to C/Ndson, he stated that with respect to outdoor lighting levels, the applicant
is currently workdng with the electrical design consultants who will provide the parking light
standards and sight lighting standards which will comply with the code. The area will be well
lighted by pole lights that will shine down onto the property so that light will not spill over
onto neighboring properties.
Chair/McManus closed the public hearing.
ClRuzicka moved to approve Development Review No. 98-15, Findings of Fact and
conditions as listed within the Resolution. ClNelson amended the motion to add the
following: Non invasive species will be used in the landscaping so that it does not degrade
the open space areas. C/Ruzicka accepted the amendment. VC/Tye seconded the motion.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
JANUARY 26, 1999
PAGE 7
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
DCM/DeStefano stated that the required amendment will be added to Condition 5.c. on Page
6 of the Resolution.
2. DEVELOPMENT REVEEW NO. 98-16 (pursuant to Code Section 22.72.020) is a request
to construct a two-story office building of approximately 39,000 square feet on a vacant lot
within Gateway Corporate Center.
PROPERTY ADDRESS
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
1550 S. Valley Vista Drive
(Lot 12 of Tract No. 39679)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Diamond Bar Associates
c o AEW Capital Management, LP
601 S. Figueroa #2150
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Opus West Corporation
2030 Main Street
Irvine, CA 92614
Associate Planner/Lungu presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission approve Development Review No. 98-16, Findings of Fact and conditions as
listed within the Resolution.
Associate Planner/Lungu explained to C/Kuo that the parking space requirement is based
upon the net floor area. The Gateway Corporate Center requires that 30 percent of the
parking spaces be designated for parlang. The applicant has incorporated 39 compact parldng
spaces.
C/Ruzicka reiterated his concerns regarding traffic and signage impacts.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
Jeff ITill, Opus West Corporation, stated the applicant will follow the Gateway Corporate
Center's guidelines for signage. If a major tenant requests modification, Opus will contact the
City to determine the feasibility of the tenant's desires.
There being no further testimony offered, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing.
JANUARY 26, 1999
PAGE 8
C&azicka moved to approve Development Review No. 98-16, Findings of Fact and
conditions as listed within the Resolution. CJNelson amended the motion to add the
following: Non invasive species will be used in the bmdscapmg so that it does not degrade
the open space areas. C/Runcka accepted the amendment. VOTye seconded the motion.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMbIISSIONER& Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VCITye, Chair/McManus
NOES: CO)V missIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
PLANNING COMAUSSION COMMENTS:
C/Nelson thanked C/Kuo for being so thorough in his review of the documents.
C/Ruzicka spoke about a tragic accident that occurred on Golden Springs Drive in the area previously
expressed as an area of concern by the Commissioners during these deliberations.
VC/Tye talked about a recent newspaper article and congratulated staff for its effort in promoting
Diamond Bar as one of the friendliest cities to do business.
Chair/McManus welcomed Stella Marquez as a new member of the City's Planning Department.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
DCM/DeStefano explained that the COSMOT Study listed Diamond Bar as being within the top 10
cities out of the hundreds of cities it considers for processing of projects, fees, utility taxes, etc The
City intends to use this information to encourage businesses to locate to this area.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As agendized.
JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 9
ADJOURNMENT:
C/Runcka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business to
come before the Planning Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Aes Stefano
Secretary to the Planning Commission
Attest:
f; , —
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Pro Tem O'Connor and Councilmember Herrera
FROM: Linda G. Magnuson , Finance Director
SUBJECT: Voucher Register, March 2, 1999
DATE: February 25, 1998
Attached is the Voucher Register dated March 2, 1999. 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.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
VOUCHER REGISTER APPROVAL
The attached listing of vouchers dated March 2, 1999 have been
reviewed, approved, and recommended for payment. Payments are
hereby allowed from the following funds in these amounts
FUND DESCRIPTION
001 GENERAL FUND
010 LIBRARY SERVICES
115 INTEGRATEZI WASTE MGT FUND
118 AIR QLTY IMPR FD (AB2766)
125 COM DEV BLK GRANT FUND
126 CITIZENS OPT -PUBLIC SFTY
250 CAPITAL IMPROV/PROJ FUND
REPORT FOR ALL FUNDS
APPROVED BY:
Finance Director
T�rrence L. Bela"ger
City !1arager,
PREPAID
VOUCHERS
TOTAL
96,429.18
508,380.90
604,810.08
.00
135.73
135.73
.00
3,560.00
3,560.00
.00
264.53
264.53
.00
97.78
97.78
.00
777.11
777.11
.00
17,235.54
17,235.54
96,429.18
530,451.59
626,880.77
Deborah H. O'Connor
Mayor Pro Tem
Carol Herrera
Councilmember
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
RUN DATE: 02/25/1999 13:52:10
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE: I
DUE THRU: 03/02/1999
PREPAID
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PO #
INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
DATE CHECK
AAA ACCURATE ROOFING
001-34110--
PERMIT #12561 REFUND
114.16
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS;
114.16
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
114.16
TSEDAY ABERRA
0015510-42340--
TUITION REIMB. FY98-99
500.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
500.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
500.00
AEI CASC ENGINEERING
0015210-44250--
7920
981249A PROF SVC -TELECOM TSKFRCE
27.54
TOTAL PREPAIDS
00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
217.54
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
27.54
ALUMINUM SEATING INC
0015311-42210--
8322
1201 GROW PK -BLEACHER MAINT
97.18
TOTAL PREPAIDS
•00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
97.18
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
97.18
PATTY ANIS
0015350-44100--
P&R COMM. -1/26
40.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
•00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
40.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
40.00
APPLEONE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
0015510-44000--
8300
6811/9624/25 TEMP.SCVS 1/16 & 1/23/99
854.75
0015510-44000--
8054
3553194/6811 TEMP SVCS -1/9 & 1/161199
653.25
0015210-44000--
8300
6811/9624/25 TEMP.SCVS. 1/2199
416.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
1,924.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,924.00
ARMA INT`L PUBLICATION SALES
0014040-41200--
6938 PBLCTN RECDS-BAL. DUE
4.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
4.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
4.00
ARMENTROUT CONSULTANTS
0014440-44040--
7771
JAN. 99 SERVICES FOR JAN. -99
1,444.65
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VDUCHERS
1,444.65
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,444.65
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
RUN DATE: 02/25/1999 13:52:10
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE: 2
DUE THRU: 03/02/1999
PREPAID
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PO #
INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK
AT&T
0014090-42125--
LONG DIST SVCS
9.03
0014090-42115--
LONG DIST. SVCS
182.93
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
191.96
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
191.96
AUCTION EXPRESS TITLE SERVICE
0014040-44000--
73171 REGISTRATION '99 JP CHRKE
20.00
TOTAL FREPAIDS
.OU
TOTAL VOUCHERS
20.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
20.00
BARRO BROTHERS PIZZA
OOi5W)-44300--
SR VALENTINES DAY FUNCTN
131.30 03/02/1999 35285A
TOTAL PREPAIDS
131.30
TOTAL VOUCHERS
•00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR.
131.30
CITY OF BREA
0015350-45300--
7916
63813 REC. SVCS FOR JAN.'99
43,196.42
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
43,196.42
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
43,196.42
BRYAN STIRRAT L ASSOCIATES INC
0015510-45227--
981644 ENG. INSPECTION
67.22
0015510-45227--
8137
981349 RETAINING WALL INSPECTION
141.54
0015551-45223--
8015
981720 ENGR PLAN CHECK SVCS
126.44
0015551-45223--
8012
981720 ENGR-PLAN CHECK SVCS
98.43
0015551-45223--
8015
981850 ENGR PLAN I}ECK: SVCS
59.01
0015510-45227--
8051
981849 GRADING INSPECTION
76.79
0::15551-45223--
7501
981767 ENGINEERING PLAN CHECK
33.13
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
602.56
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
602.56
CABLING SYSTEM WAREHOUSE
0014095-46230--
8356
951901 CABLE SUPPLIES/EBUIPMT
680.65
TOTAL PREPAIDS
•00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
680.65
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
680.65
CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF JUSTICE
0015350-41200--
8364
BKGND CK. VOLUNTR COACHES
128.00
TOTAL PREPAIOS
•00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
128.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
128.00
CCEC
0015210-42315--
1999 CA CODE ENFORCE. VRBSHP
20.00
TOTAL PREFAIDS
•44
TOTAL VOUCHERS
20.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
20.60
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
RUN DATE: 02/25/1999 13:52:10
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE: 3
DUE THRU: 03/02/1999
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PO #
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
AMD UNT DATEID CHECK
CHARLES ABBOTT ASSOCIATES INC
2505510-46412-14799-46412
8253
049-419 TRFFC IMPROVEMENTS STUDY
5,910.81
2505510-46412-14799-46412
8006
049-419 TRFFC STUDY IMPROVEMENTS
7,000.00
0015510-45506--
7570
049-430 MRKNG h SIGNING -JAN
1,753.26
0015510-45522--
7572
049-430 STREET MAINT.- JAN.
4 849.50
0015510-45502--
7571
049-435 RD MAINT.-SIDEWALK REPAIR
7,602.65
0015510-45502--
7571
049-430 ROAD MAINT.-JAN 99
21,257.25
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
48,373.47
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
48,373.47
CINTAS CORPORATION
0015310-42130--
7539
15207329 MAINT.STFF UNIFORMS 2/8
19.47
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
19.47
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
19.47
CLOUT
0014010-42325--
MEMBRSHP MTG-CMBR ANSARI
15.00 03/02/1999 35293
TOTAL PREPAIDS
15.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.06
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
15.00
COFFEESMITH COMPANY
0014090-42130--
7665
3979 EQ RENTAL -FEB
17.95
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
17.95
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
17.95
COMP USA
0014090-46235--
8240
FIN. SYSTEM SOFTWARE
6,524.23
7DTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
6,524.23
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
6,524.23
SANDRA DAVIS
001-34780--
RECREATION REFUND
30.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
30.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
30.00
DELTA DENTAL
001-21104--
FEB99 FEB.DENTAL PERMS
1,658.32 03/02/1999 35281
TOTAL PREPAIDS
1,658.32
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.D0
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,658.32
DEWAN LUNDIN & ASSOCIATES
0015510-45227--
7930
DB -008L1-1 INSPECTION/GRADING
795,00
0015510-45227--
001-23012--
DB -008-11-1 INSPXN-1636 DERRINGER ORD
656.89
DB -008G4-1 REVSN PLAN CK. EN97-179
127.50
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
1,579.39
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,579.39
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
RUN DATE: 02/25/1999 13:52:10
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE: 4
DUE THRU: 03/02/1999
PREPAID
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PO #
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
DIAMOND BAR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
0014010-42325--
MTS 2/12 - ANSARI
70.00 03/02/1999
35286A
0014010-42325--
MTG 2/12-O'CONNOR
70.00 03/02/1999
35282A
TOTAL PREPAIDS
140.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
140.00
DIAMOND BAR GOLF COURSE
0014415-42325--
DEP.VOLUNTR PATROL 4/30
100.00 03/02/1999
35291
TOTAL PREPAIDS
100.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
100.00
DIAMOND BAR HILI SCHOOL
0014095-42115--
8378 1998 CIF DIV.BANIW
750.00 03/02/1999
35280
0014095-42355--
8378 TABLE SPONSOR
250.00 03/02/1999
35280
TOTAL PREPAIDS
1,000.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,000.00
DIAMOND BAR IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
0014095-42115-- 8354
2468 ADVERTISING -CITY ANNIVSRY
440.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
440.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
440.00
DIAMOND BAR INTERNATIONAL DELI
0014090-42325-- 8248
70 REDVLPMT CLSD SESSN-2119
51.52
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
51.52
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
51.52
DIAMOND BAR MOBIL
0014415-42310--
JAN 99 JAN.FUEL-VLNTEER PATROL
157.71
0015310-472310--
JAN 99 JAN.FUEL-COMM. SVCS
204.82
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
362.5:3
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
362.53
EEGA
001-23012--
G901271A.320 SOILS REV. EN97-199
200.00
001-23012--
6901271.A333 GEOTECH.REVIEW-EN98-298
300.00
001-23012--
0901061A.330 SOILS REV. EN97-199
350.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
850.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
850.00
ENTENMANN-ROVIN CO
0014010-41200--
153140 BADGE ENGRAVED -MAYOR
73.07
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
73.07
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
73.07
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
RUN DATE: 02/25/1999 13:52:10
VOLDIER REGISTER
PAGE: 5
DUE THRU: 03/02/1999
PREPAID
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PO #
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
FEDERAL EXPRESS
001-23010--
4-777-71470 FPL -98 -062 -EXP MAIL
12.50
001-23010--
4-777-71470 FPL -98 -010 -EXP MAIL
32.50
0014090-42120--
4-777-71470 EXPRESS MAIL -GEN GOVT
46.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
91.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
91.00
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS
001-21114--
PP22-PP4 PYRLL DEDC.-SAVGS BONDS
100.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
100.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
100.00
ANNETTE FINNERTY
0015350-44100--
P&R COMM -1/28
40.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
40.00
TOTAL DUE VENOM
40.00
FIRSTSOURCE.COM
0014095-46235--
8360
1025981 C&M COMPUTER SOFTWARE
186.89
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
186.89
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
186.89
GFB FRIEDRICH & ASSOCIATES INC
0015551-45223--
7939
9012-07 GRADING/PLAN CHECK
123.76
0015510-45227--
8213
9212-06 GRADING INSPECSTN.
184.91
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
308.67
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
308.67
GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIES
0014050-46200--
7950
18189713 MEDIA CABINET -FINANCE
754.99
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
754.99
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
754.99
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
RUN DATE: 02/25/1999 13:52:10 VOUCHER REGISTER PAGE: 6
DUE THRU: 03/02/1999
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
GTE CALIFORNIA
0014010-42125--
0014090-42125--
0015322-42125--
0015314-42125--
0015331-42125--
00140%-42125--
0014090-42125--
0105355-42125--
ItS5098-42125--
0015331-42125--
1185098-42125--
0015331-42125--
0014040-42125--
0015316-42125--
GTE LEASING
0014090 -42130 --
HALL & FOREMAN
0015551 -45223 --
0015551 -45223 --
CAROL HERRERA
0014010-42325--
HIGHPOINT
0014095 -42111 --
0014095 -42111 --
0014095 -42111 --
KAREN HOLDER
0015350-44100--
PO 4 INVOICE DESCRIPTION
CCNCL MODEM
PH.SVCS-RECREATION
PH. SVCS -RONALD REGAN
PH.SVCS-HRTG COMM. CTR
PH.SVCS-SYC CYN PK
PH.SVCS-BLDG & SFTY
GENL GOVT PHONE SVCS-GENL GOVT
PH.SVCS-LIBRARY PROJECT
PH.SVCS-BBS MODEM
PH.SVCS-SYC CYN PK
PH.SVCS-CITY ON LINE
PH.SVCS-SYC CYN PK
MODUM LINE -CITY CLERK
PH.SVCS-MAPLE HILL
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
7688 2184149 NORSTAR MODULAR-MARCH'99
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
8211 038238/39-42 GROG PLN CK SVCS
8093 038237 FINE GRDNG PLAN CHECK
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
MILEAGE FOR MEETINGS
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR,
AMOUNT
20.91
117.44
44.38
33.56
56.23
235.04
.,097.02
135.73
87.65
71.81
176.88
59.53
37.57
43.65
.00
3,217.40
3,217.40
420.11
.00
420.11
420.11
5,257.64
88.69
.00
5,346.33
5,346.33
108.55
.00
108.55
108.55
PREPAID
DATE CHECK
64769/64770 PREPRESS SCVS-ADS/BUS CDS 30.31
64779 PREPRESS SVCS.-PVG PMTS 32.48
64821 PREPRESS SVCS -ADS 32.48
TOTAL PREPAIDS .00
TOTAL VOUCHERS 95.27
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 95.27
P&R COMM. -1/28 40.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS .00
TOTAL VOUCHERS 40.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 40.00
CITY OF DIAMOND BAF'
RUN DATE: 02/25/1999 15:52:10
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE: 7
DUE THRU: 03/02/1999
PREPAID
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PO #
INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK
HORIZON PACIFIC
001-34130--
PERMIT #10765-REFUND
448.72
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
448.7
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
448.72
ROBERT S. HUFF
0014010-42330--
CPRS AWARDS-FEB 18-20
130.50 03/02/1999 35292
TOTAL PP.EPAIDS
130.50
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
130.50
J. MICHAEL HULS
1155515-44000--
SW06/01-99 SOLID WASTE ADM.-JAN
3,560.00
0015510-44240--
06/01-99/NPD EDUCATION MNGEMT-NPDES
3,276.00
0015510-44240--
06/01-99/NPD INTEGRATED MNGEMT-NPDES
3,450.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
10,286.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
10,286.00
INDUSTRY EQUIPMENT RENT
1255215-42130--
7516
IE205262 TRUCK RENTAL FOR JAN.
70.71
TOTAL PREPAIDS
•00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
70.71
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
70.71
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN
001404042115--
02502607 LGL AD-CONFLICT ON INT
38.03
001-'23010--
31504413/422 LEGAL AD FPL98-52
54.12
001-23010--
31504413/422 LEGAL AD FPL98-63
58.96
001-23010--
31504413/4T2 LEGAL AD FPL98-48
54.09
001-23010--
31504413/422 LEGAL AD FPL98-47
54.12
001-23010--
02502443 LEGAL AD-FPL 98-10
155.03
001-23010--
31504413/422 LEGAL AD FPL98-38
54.12
001-23010--
31504413/422 LEGAL AD FPL98-62
59.97
0014040-42115--
7578
2502796 LEGAL AD-GEN PLN AMNDMENT
362.23
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
890.67
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
890.67
INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INC
0014411-45410--
7860
7462 CRSSNG GRD SVCS-1/24-1/29
6,180.30
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
6,180.30
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
6,180.30
JACKS LOCK k KEY
0014090-42210--
27884 DUPLICATION OF KEYS
14.29
0014090-42210--
26963 INSTALL LOCKS-CONF RM
106.78
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
121.07
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
121.07
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
RUN DATE: 02/25/1999 13:52:10
VOUCHER, REGISTER
PAGE, 8
DUE THRU: 03/02/1999
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PO # INVOICE DESCRIPTION
PREPAID
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
JOBS AVAILABLE
0014090-42115--
8121 822036 AD -ADMIN SECRETARY
64,40
TOTAL PREPAIDS
,(K)
TOTAL VOUCHERS
64.40
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
64.40
JOE A GONSALVES 5 SON
0014010-44000--
7797 PROF LEGISLATIVE SVCS -FEB
3,000.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
3,000,00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
3,000.00
ELLI JUDODIHARDJO
001-34780--
RECREATION REFUND
25.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
,40
TOTAL VOUCHERS
25.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
25.00
KLEINFELDER
001-23012--
588908 GEOTECH. REV. EN98-203
822.50
001-23012--
588908 GEOTECH. REV. EN98-203
177.50
001-23012--
589113 GEOTECH. REV. EN98-211
572.50
001-23012--
589032 GEOTECH.REV. EN96-157
141.25
001-23012--
58971732 GEOTECH.REV. EN96-157
358.75
TOTAL PREPAIDS
,00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
2,072.50
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
2,072.50
GEORGE KUO
0015210-44100--
PLNG COMM. -12/8,1/12,1/26
180.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
180.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
180.00
LA CELLULAR
0014440-42125--
3986/84620 EMER PREP PHONE
17.20
0014440-42125--
3986/84620 EMER PREP PHONE
23.37
0014440-42125--
3986/84620 EMER PREP PHONE
17.20
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
57.77
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
57.77
LA ROCOUE BETTER ROOFS INC
001-34110--
PERMIT #12790 REFUND
78.64
TOTAL PREPAIDS
,00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
78.64
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
78.64
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
Cx?14030-42325--
GENL MBRSHP MTG-CMGR
23.00
0014010-42325--
GNRL MEMBERSHIP MTG-3/4
115.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
138.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
138,00
CITY OF DIAMOND RAR
RUN DATE: 02/25/1999 13:52:10 VOUCHER REGISTER PAGE: 9
DUE THRU: 03/02/1999
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
001 -23012 --
001 -23012 --
001 -23012 --
001-23012--
0D1-23012--
001-23012--
2505310-46415-11298-46415
001-23012--
001-23012--
WINNIE LEUNG
001-3478()--
LEWIS ENGRAVING INC
0014090 -42113 --
0014095 -41400 --
0014090 -42113 --
DAVID G LIU
0015551 -42325 --
LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
0015510 -45530 --
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
0014411-45402--
0014411-45402--
0014411-45401--
0014411-45401--
0014411-45402--
1264411-42340--
0014411-45402--
PO # INVOICE
DESCRIPTION
LE10006787
GEOTECH.REV.EN95-139
LEI0006787
GEOTECH.REV.EN96-151
LEI0006787
GEOTECH.REV.EN98-222
LEI0006787
SOILS REV. EN98-223
LEIOD06787
SOILS REV. EN96-140
LE10006737
SOILS REV. EN98-217
LEI0006787
GEOTECH.INVESTIGATION
LEI0006787
GEOTECH.REV.EN95-139
LEID006787
SOILS REV. EN98-219
TOTAL PREPAIDS
551.66
TOTAL VOUCHERS
JAN. CONTRACT SVCS.
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
RECREATION REFUND
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
PREPAID
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
350.00
484.61
170.00
455.00
672.50
90.00
602.50
732.89
332.50
.00
3,890.00
:3,890.00
95.00
.00
95.00
95.00
7905 32071 ENVGRAVING SVCS-GITMED
17.32
32055 MONEY CLIPS WITH CTY LOGO
649.50
7905 32038 ENGRAVING NAME BADGES
16.12
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
682.94
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
682.94
REIMBSEMT.STAFF MTG 54.93
TOTAL PREPAIDS .00
TOTAL VOUCHERS 54.93
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 5A. 93
7865 3818
DEC. INDSTRL WST SVCS
943.58
TOTAL PREPAIDS
•00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
943.58
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
943.58
12723
TRAFFIC SCHLS-AUG-SEPT.
3,976.71
10930
BIKE PTRL/LIBRAR Y DPNG
989.43
12065
OCT. HELICPTER M.
551.66
13068
JAN. CONTRACT SVCS.
304,264.74
13081
BIKE PATROL -DEC 98
19,677.78
12724
PROF.SVCS-BIKE TRNG 11/17
777.11
13081
TRAFFIC CK. POINT
4,324.33
TOTAL PREPAIDS
•00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
334,561.76
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
334,561.76
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
RUN DATE: 02/25/1999 13:52:10
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE: 10
DUE THRU: 03/02/1999
PREPAID
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PO # INVOICE DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
NANCY LYONS
001-23002--
49169 RECREATION REFUND
200.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
•00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
200.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1.100.00
M&M PRINTING
0014010-42110--
8146 COLOR STATIONERY-CCMMBRS
165.62
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
165.62
TOTAL DILE VENDOR
165.62
MARRIOTT SANTA CLARA
0015310-42330--
CPR CONF.-Y PRUITT
112.43 03/02/1999
35289
0015310-42330--
CPR COW .-K HOLDER
112.43 03102/1999
35289
0015310-42330--
CPR CONF.-BOB ROSE
324.86 03/02/1999
35289
0015310-42330--
CPR COW. -A FINNERTY
218.65 03/02/1999
35289
0015310-42330--
CPR COW. -PATTY ANIS
218.65 03/02/1999
35289
0015310-42330--
CPR CONF.-D NOLAN
218.65 03/02/1999
35289
TOTAL PREPAIDS
1,205.67
TOTAL VOUCHERS
•00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,205.67
JOE MCMANUS
0015210-44100--
PLNG.COMM-12/8,1/12,1/26
180.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
•00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
180.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
180.00
KAHTY MEJIA
001-23002--
49357 RECREATION REFUND
50.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
50.00
MICROAGE COMPUTERMART DIAMOND BAR
0014095-46230--
8347 23259 COLOR PRINTER
3,355.75
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
3,355.75
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
3,355.75
MISS DIAMOND BAR BEAUTY PAGEANT
0014095-42355--
SCHLRSHP & SPNSORSHP
1,500.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
1,500.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,500.00
MONTEFINO HOA
001-34110--
PERMIT #10312 -REFUND
366.80
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
366.80
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
366.80
O'ROURKE ENGINEERING
0015551-45221-- 8099 MU981011/2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL ANALYSIS 2,148.00
:;5(15510-46412-14799-46412 8091 MU981U12 C/W SCHL TRFFIC IMPROVMT 3,020.50
TOTAL PREPAIDS ,00
TOTAL VOUCHERS 5,168.50
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 5,168.50
OFFICE DEPOT
0014090-41200--
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
SUPPLIES -PUBLIC WORKS
RUN DATE: 02/25/1999 13:52:10
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE: 11
SUPPLIES GENL-62186297
DUE THRU: 03/02/1999
0014050-41200--
061374123
SUPPLIES -FINANCE
PREPAID
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PO 4 INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
DATE CHECK
MR ROOTER
0014030-41200--
7666/OPEN
001-34130--
PERMIT#11360-REFUND
6.52
060848201
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
0015350-41200--
TOTAL VOUCHERS
6,52
20.52
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
6,52
MT. BALDY UNITED WAY
10.29
1255215-41200--
001-21113--
PP3-4 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS
92.00
0014440-41200--
TOTAL PREPAIDS
,00
226.24
TOTAL VOUCHERS
92.00
SUPPLIES -PUBLIC WORKS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
92,00
MT. SAC AUXILIARY SERVICES
SUPPLIES-COMH.SVCS
20.99
0014095-42115--
8379 AD THUNDER&SILK FSTIV PGM
75.00
30.65
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
SUPPLIES -FINANCE
TOTAL VOUCHERS
75,00
061383840
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
75.00
STEVEN G. NELSON
7666/OPEN
SUPPLIES -MEMO CREDIT
0015210-44100--
PLNG COMM.1/12,1/26
120.00
SUPPLIES -GEN GOVT
TOTAL PREPAIDS
,On
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
120.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
120.00
O'ROURKE ENGINEERING
0015551-45221-- 8099 MU981011/2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL ANALYSIS 2,148.00
:;5(15510-46412-14799-46412 8091 MU981U12 C/W SCHL TRFFIC IMPROVMT 3,020.50
TOTAL PREPAIDS ,00
TOTAL VOUCHERS 5,168.50
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 5,168.50
OFFICE DEPOT
0014090-41200--
061380529
SUPPLIES -PUBLIC WORKS
206.79
0014090-41200--
7666/OPEN
SUPPLIES GENL-62186297
467.62
0014050-41200--
061374123
SUPPLIES -FINANCE
17.51
0014040-41200--
7666/OPEN
SUPPLIES -MEMO CREDIT
-10.17
0014030-41200--
7666/OPEN
SUPPLIES CM -62185951
36.58
0014050-41200--
060848201
SUPPLIES -FINANCE
8.76
0015350-41200--
061383840
SUPPLIES -FINANCE
20.52
0014040-41200--
7666/0 PEN
SUPPLIES CC -62387082
10.29
1255215-41200--
7666/OPEN
SUPPLIES CDBG-58680963
30.84
0014440-41200--
7666/OPEN
SUPPLS EVER PREP -62186100
226.24
0015510-41200--
058680258
SUPPLIES -PUBLIC WORKS
218.05
(10153.50-41200--
060847135
SUPPLIES-COMH.SVCS
20.99
0015210-41200--
058679612
SUPPLIES -PLANNING
30.65
0014050-41200--
062186707
SUPPLIES -FINANCE
121.45
0015350-41200--
061383840
SUPPLIES-COMM.SVCS
158.59
1255215-41200--
7666/OPEN
SUPPLIES -MEMO CREDIT
-3.77
0015510-41200--
061382102
SUPPLIES -GEN GOVT
172.04
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
1,732.98
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,732.98
PAGE: 12
PREPAID
AMW DATE CHECK.
69.76
.00
69.76
69.76
69,300.00 03/02/1999 PP4A
69,300.00
.00
69,300.00
51.13
.00
51.13
51.13
509.69
4,299.03
198.78
32.55
3,921.58
.00
8,921.63
8,921.63
369.90
.00
369.90
369.90
40.00
.00
40.00
40.00
218.23
.00
218.23
218.23
13.49
.00
13.49
13.49
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
RUN DATE: 02/25/1999 13:52:10
VOUCHER REGISTER
DUE THRU: 03/02/1999
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PO # INVOICE DESCRIPTION
PARK, ROOFING
001-34110--
PERMIT #12661 -REFUND
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
PAYROLL TRANSFER
001-10200--
PAYROLL TRANSFER - PP4
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
PENTAMATION ENTERPRISES INC
0014090-42125--
JAN. -DATA LINE CHARDS
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
PERS RETIREMENT FUND
001-21109--
PP4 MILITARY BUY BACK
001-21109--
PP4 RETIRE CONTRIB.-EE
001-21109--
PP4 RETIRE CONTRIB.-RETRO PAY
001-21109--
PP4 SURVIVOR BENEFIT
001-21109--
PP4 RETIRE CONTRIB.-ER
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
PITNEY BOWES INC
0014090-42130--
7657 3816188-FB99 POSTAGE EO.RENT-FEB
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR,
YVONNE PRUITT
0015350-44100--
P6R COMM. -1/28
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
R Y D BLUEPRINT
2505310-46415-11798-46415
41169 PRTG-PLANS 1 SPCCS
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY
0014090-42325--
SUPPLIES FOR 2/16 C/C MTC
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
PAGE: 12
PREPAID
AMW DATE CHECK.
69.76
.00
69.76
69.76
69,300.00 03/02/1999 PP4A
69,300.00
.00
69,300.00
51.13
.00
51.13
51.13
509.69
4,299.03
198.78
32.55
3,921.58
.00
8,921.63
8,921.63
369.90
.00
369.90
369.90
40.00
.00
40.00
40.00
218.23
.00
218.23
218.23
13.49
.00
13.49
13.49
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
RUN DATE: 02/25/1999 13:52:10
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE: 13
DUE THRU: 03/02/1999
PREPAID
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PO #
INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
DATE CHECK:
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS INC
0014090-42110--
9546 BUSINESS CARDS
29.79
0014095-42110--
8352
9534 PRTS REPLY CARDS-CM
76.50
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
106.29
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
106.29
REMEDY
0015210-44000--
8168
97895 TEMP. CLERICAL SRVCS.
373.77
0015210-44000--
8168
90983/94592 TEMP. CLERICAL SRVCS.
779.21
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
1,152.98
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,152.98
RENAISSANCE MAYFLOWER HOTEL
0014030-42330--
HTL ACCM-NATL LEAG-CMGR
801.52
0014010-42330--
HTL ACCM.-NAIL LEAG CCNCL
3,206.08
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
4,007.60
TOTAL DJE VENDOR
4,007.60
RICHARDS WATSON t GERSHON
001-2=:012--
DEC.LEGAL SVCS-EN94-065
40.50
0014020-44020--
DEC.LEGAL SVCS-PARKING
1,760.00
0014020-44020--
DEC.LEGAL SVCS-PERSONNEL
1,456.50
0014020-44020--
DEC.LEGAL SVCS-GENERAL
5,680.31
2505510-46412-12598-46412
DEC.LEGAL SVCS-SGNL
483.50
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
9,420.81
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
9,420.81
BOB ROSE
0015310-42330--
CPRS CONF.FEB 17-21,1994
537.50 03/02/1999 35287
TOTAL PREPAIDS
537.50
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
537.50
JOSEPH RU?ICKA
0015210-44100--
PLNG COMM-12/8,1/12,1/26
180.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
180.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
180.04
S.C.A.C.E.O.
0015210-42315--
11798 CODE ENFORCE. MEMBERSHIP
40.04
TOTAL. PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
40.00
TOTAL DLIE VENDOR
40.00
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
RUN DATE: 02/25/1999 13:52:10 VOUCHER REGISTER PAGE: 14
DUE THRU: 03/02/1999
PREPAID
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PO # INVOICE DESCRIFTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK:
SAM'S MOBIL
0015210-42310-- 2685 JAN.FUEL-PLNG 52.86
0014090-42310-- 2685 JAN.FUEL-GENL GOVT 63.43
0015310-42310-- 2685 JAN.FUEL-COMM. SVCS 16.34
TOTAL PREPAIDS .00
TOTAL VOUCHERS 132.63
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 13••2.63
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY ECONOMIC COUNCIL
0014010-42325-- REG.TRANS ISSUES-O'CONNOR 45.00 03/02/1999 35284
TOTAL PREPAIDS 45.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS .00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 45.00
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE
0014040-42115--
7579 19400
AD-CONFLCT/INTRST
56.16
0014040-42115--
7579 23498
LEGAL AD-GEN.PLN AMDNDMT
358.56
001-23010--
16852
PUBLIC NOTICE-FPL98-62
91.44
001-23010--
04762
LEGAL AD -FPL 98-47
65.34
001-23010--
16785
LEGAL AD -FPL 98-10
144.00
001-23010--
04762
LEGAL AD -FPL 98-38
65.34
001-23010--
16852
PUBLIC NOTICE-FPL93-63
91.44
001-23010--
0476::
LEGAL AD -FPL 98-52
65.34
001-23010--
0476:2
LEGAL AD -FPL 98-48
65.34
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
1,002.96
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,002.96
SECTRAN SECURITY
0014090-44000-- 7870 2103 BANK COURIER SVCS -FEB 187.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS .00
TOTAL VOUCHERS 187.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 187.00
SGV ECONOMIC PRTRSHP OF COMM & CITY
0014010-4232-- VALLEY DEV.SMNAR-O'CONNR 25.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS .00
TOTAL VOUCHERS 25.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 25.00
SMART & FINAL
0014090-41200-- 344522 OFFICE SUPPLIES -GEN GOVT 55.79
0015314-42210-- 7522 289544 SUPPLIES -COMMUNITY CENTER 17.31
TOTAL PREPAIDS .00
TOTAL VOUCHERS 73.10
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 73.10
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
0015510-42126-- ELECTRIC SVCS-TRFFC CONTL 4,376.20
0015510-42126-- ELECTRIC SVCS-TRFFC CONTL 146.30
TOTAL PREPAIDS .00
TOTAL VOUCHERS 4,522.50
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 4,522.50
PAGE: 15
PREPAID
AMOUNT DATE CHECK.
600.00
.00
600.00
600.00
11.97
.00
11.97
11.97
22,046.49 03/02/1999 35288
22,046.49
.00
22,046.49
180.00
.00
180.00
180.00
1,500.00
.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
44.00
.00
44.00
44.00
1,132.40
.00
1,132.40
1,132.40
27.50
.00
27.50
27.50
89.32
.00
89.32
89.32
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
RUN DATE: 02/25/1999 13:52:10
VOUCHER REGISTER
DUE THRU: 03/02/1999
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PO #
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
SOUTHLAND FARMER'S MARKET ASSOC.
0014090-44000-- 8353
FEASIBILITY STUDY
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
SUBWAY
0014090-42325--
SUPPLIES -COUNCIL MTG 2/16
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
SWIFT JEEP
0014090-46100--
9-08 JEEP CHEROKEE
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
STEVEN TYE
0015210-44100--
PLNG COMM.12/8,1/12,1;26
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL. VOUCHERS
TOTAL. DUE VENDOR
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
0014090-42120--
REPLENISH POSTAGE METER
TOTAL i SEPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
SATISH M VERMA
001-34780--
M SATISH
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
VIDEO MOVIE MAGIC
0014095-42115-- 8:317
10194 PROF SVCS-PNTRA VIDEO
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
WALNUT SAN DIMAS SHERIFF'S BOOSTER
0014010-42325--
VOL RECOG-HERRERA-3/12
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
0015558-45509--
TREE WATERING -12/31-1/31
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
PAGE: 15
PREPAID
AMOUNT DATE CHECK.
600.00
.00
600.00
600.00
11.97
.00
11.97
11.97
22,046.49 03/02/1999 35288
22,046.49
.00
22,046.49
180.00
.00
180.00
180.00
1,500.00
.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
44.00
.00
44.00
44.00
1,132.40
.00
1,132.40
1,132.40
27.50
.00
27.50
27.50
89.32
.00
89.32
89.32
CITY OF DIAMX BAR
RUN DATE: 02/25/1999 13:52:10
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE: 16
DUE THRU: 03/02/1999
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PO #
INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
PREPAID
DATE CHECK
WARREN SIECK.E
00155.51-45223--
8323
4213 PLN REVW/BREA CYN/PATHFDR
148.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
,00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
148.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
148.00
WESTIN SANTA CLARA
0014010-42330--
CPRS AWARDS BAK.-MAYOR
119.40 03/02/1999 35290
TOTAL PREPAIDS
119.40
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DIE VENDOR
119.40
PAUL WRIGHT
0014090-44000--
7584
AN SVCS-2/9,2/16,CC 2/16
560.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
560.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
560.00
XPEDX
0014090-41200--
8370
PAPER SUPPLIES
541,27
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
541.27
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
541,27
SEUNG MIN YOO
001-34760--
RECREATION REFUND
205.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
,00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
205.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
205,00
REPORT TOTAL PREPAIDS
96,429.18
REPORT TOTAL VOUCHERS
540,451.59
REPORT TOTAL
626,880.77
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
VOUCHER REGISTER APPROVAL
The
attached listing of vouchers
dated March
2,
1999 have been
reviewed,
approved, and recommended
for
payment.
Payments are
hereby
allowed from the following
funds
in these
amounts
FUND
DESCRIPTION
PREPAID
VOUCHERS
001
GENERAL FUND
96,429.18
508,380.90
01O
LIBRARY SERVICES
'00
135.73
115
INTEGRATED WASTE MGT FUND
.00
3,560.00
118
AIR QLTY IMPR FD (AB2766)
.V0
264.53
125
COM DEV BLK GRANT FUND
.00
97.78
126
CITIZENS OPT -PUBLIC SFTY
.00
777.11
250
CAP�TAL IMPROV/PROJ FUNTT�
.00
17,235.54
REPORT FOR ALL FUNDS
APPROVED BY:
Finance Director
96,429.18 530,451.59
Lo
Deborah H. O'Connor
Mayor Pro Tem
- - -------- ---------
Carol Herrera
Councilmember
TOTAL
604,810.08
135.73
3,560.0�
264'53
97.78
777.11
17,235.54
626,880.77
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: March 2,1999 AA REPORT DATE: February 24,1999
FROM: Linda G. Magnusolr,Finance Director
TITLE:
Treasurer's Report—January 31, 1999
SUMMARY:
Submitted for the City Council's review and approval is the Treasurer's Statement for the month of January
1999. It should be noted that this report no longer contains information related to the City employee's deferred
compensation plan. Due to new legal requirements, in December 1998, the City Council adopted resolutions
to eliminate the City's trustee relationship with these funds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review and approve.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City
Clerk's office)
_ Ordinance(s) _ Other:
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
_ Yes
_ No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority vote?
_ Yes
_ No
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? NIA
_ Yes
_ No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? NIA
_ Yes
_ No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report? N/A
_ Yes
_ No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIE D BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Terrence . elanger Linda G. Magnuso
City Manager Finance Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 2,1999
AGENDA NO.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Treasurer's Statement— January 31, 1999
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Per City policy, the Finance Department presents the monthly Treasurer's Statement for the City
Council's review and approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the January 1999, Treasurer's Statement.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
No fiscal impact.
BACKGROUND:
Submitted for the Council's review and approval is the Treasurer's Statement for the month of January
1999. This statement shows the cash balances for the various funds, with a breakdown of bank
account balances, investment account balances and the effective yield earned from investments.
PREPARED BY:
Linda G. Magnuson
TREASURER'S MONTHLY CASH STATEMENT
January 31,1999
TOTAL CASH $23,256,945.15
Note: The City of Diamond Bar is invested in the State Treasurer's Local Agency Investment Fund. All funds are available
for withdrawal within 24 hours. Investment in the Local Agency Investment Fund is allowed under the City's formally
adopted investment policy.
As a secondary investment option, the City continues to maintain the US Treasury Sweep Account with Wells Fargo. Any
excess funds are "swept" on a daily basis from the City's bank accounts and are invested overnight into an investment pool
of US Treasury Notes. Interest is credited to the City's bank account on a monthly basis.
L.A.I.F - Effective Yield for January 1999 5.265%
Money Market -Effective Yield for December 1998 4.840%
All investments are placed in accordance with the City of Diamond Bar's Investment Policy.
The above summary provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six month's
estimated expenditures. , n I,
Terrence L. Belanger, Treasurer
9.11.. MINGtT
ERS
ttI61E11$
ibg1lR$Eir'fS
1N.OU::
EIALANG I:
GENERAL FUND
$11,784,978.79
$1,187,745.87
$1,070,967.47
$216,561.49
$12,118,318.68
LIBRARY SERVICES FUND
107,095.68
3,588.37
691.81
109,992.24
COMMUNITY ORG SUPPORT FD
281.26
281.26
GAS TAX FUND
3,316,307.79
45,520.29
(434,282.08)
2,927,546.00
TRANSIT TX (PROP A) FD
1,826,286.95
117,266.01
34,916.27
(30,000.00)
1,878,636.69
TRANSIT TX (PROP C) FD
2,244,587.09
109,548.30
(295,308.41)
2,058,826.98
INTEGRATED WASTE MGT FD
190,454.53
3,401.48
1,183.58
192,672.43
SLTPP FUND
0.00
0.00
AIR QUALITY IMPRVMNT FD
157,813.89
1,945.84
6,708.70
153,051.03
TRAILS 3 BIKEWAYS FD (SB 821)
29,669.25
396.54
. 30,065.79
PARK FEES FUND
208,312.20
3,603.90
(37,039.89)
174,876.21
S PARKS GRANT (PRP A) FD
(598,533.64)
(598,533.64)
FACILITIES & PARK DEVEL. FD
1,375,466.04
20,430.14
1,395,896.18
COM DEV BLOCK GRANT FD
(37,411.42)
5,055.14
(81,737.77)
(124,204.33)
CITIZENS OPT -PUBLIC SAFETY FD
340,289.22
5,071.16
308.34
345,052.04
NARCOTICS ASSET SEIZURE FD
313,989.28
4,217.31
318,206.59
LANDSCAPE DIST 938 FD
480,300.30
31,728.88
5,793.05
506,236.13
LANDSCAPE DIST 039 FD
155,342.04
18,036.58
5,244.22
168,134.40
LANDSCAPE DIST 041 FD
289,174.01
15,814.10
8,019.67
296,968.44
GRAND AV CONST FUND
139,130.78
139,130.78
CAP IMPROVEMENT PRJ FD
(390,651.90)
44,082.72
661,806.66
227,072.04
SELF INSURANCE FUND
928 354.58
12 438.63
2,074.00
938 719.21
TOTALS
$22.1111111111:236.72
$115801753.40
1,185,G".97
$0.00
23,256,945.15
SUMMARY OF CASH:
DEMAND DEPOSITS:
GENERAL ACCOUNT
$67,729.28
PAYROLL ACCOUNT
260.58
CHANGE FUND
250.00
PETTY CASH ACCOUNT
500.00
TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS
$68,739.86
INVESTMENTS:
US TREASURY Money
Market Acct.
$379,994.96
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FD
22,808,210.33
TOTAL INVESTMENTS
$23,188,205.29
TOTAL CASH $23,256,945.15
Note: The City of Diamond Bar is invested in the State Treasurer's Local Agency Investment Fund. All funds are available
for withdrawal within 24 hours. Investment in the Local Agency Investment Fund is allowed under the City's formally
adopted investment policy.
As a secondary investment option, the City continues to maintain the US Treasury Sweep Account with Wells Fargo. Any
excess funds are "swept" on a daily basis from the City's bank accounts and are invested overnight into an investment pool
of US Treasury Notes. Interest is credited to the City's bank account on a monthly basis.
L.A.I.F - Effective Yield for January 1999 5.265%
Money Market -Effective Yield for December 1998 4.840%
All investments are placed in accordance with the City of Diamond Bar's Investment Policy.
The above summary provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six month's
estimated expenditures. , n I,
Terrence L. Belanger, Treasurer
POOLED MONEY INVESTMENT ACCOUNT
SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT DATA
A COMPARISON OF JANUARY 1999 WITH JANUARY 1998
(Dollars in Thousands)
JANUARY 1999 JANUARY 1998 CHANGE
Average Daily Portfolio
$35,563,802
$30,280,872
+ $5,282,930
Accrued Earnings
$159,024
$147,663
+$11,361
Effective Yield
5.265
5.742
-.477
Average Life—Month End (in days)
184
201
-17
Total Security Transactions
Amount
$14,656,462
$18,131,329
-$3,474,867
Number
328
416
-88
Total Time Deposit Transactions
Amount
$1,358,290
$479,100
+$879,190
Number
88
50
+38
Average Workday Investment Activity
$842,882
$930,521
-$87,639
Prescribed Demand Account Balances
For Services
$189,020
$196,070
-$7,050
For Uncollected Funds
$201,336
$202,938
-$1,602
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND*
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY
JANUARY 1999
BEGINNING BALANCE DEPOSITS WITHDRAWALS
$14,653,688,333.19 $2,024,253,058.56 $1,228,079,295.15
*Local Agency Investment Fund Invested Through Pooled Money Investment Account
MONTH END BALANCE
$15,449,862,096.60
Fair Value Including Accrued Interest $ 37,256,851,337.61
Repurchase Agreements, Time Deposits, AB 55 & General Fund loans, and
Reverse Repurchase agreements are carried at portfolio book value (carrying cost).
Pooled
State of California
Money Investment Account
Market Valuation
1/31/99
Description
Carrying Cost Plus
Accrued riterest_Purch.
Fair Value
Accrued Interest
United States Treasury.
Bills
Notes
$
$
3,466,518,535.64
4,776,936,821.79
$
$
3,549,469,681.20
4,807,338,500.00
$
NA
66,365,673.75
Federal Agency:
Bonds
Floaters
MBS
GNMA
SBA
FHLMC PC
Discount Notes
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,559,093,326.94
170,000,000.00
77,956,683.93
1,939,613.67
285,123,867.87
18,905,902.28
3,268,880,631.05
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,560,046,525.85
169,931,400.00
79,307,547.32
2,182,143.49
285,907,731.25
20,159,609.53
3,323,841,767.40
$
$
$
$
$
$
37,149,415.03
1,938,046.80
457,917.72
19,185.26
2,536,523.20
303,468.76
NA
Bankers Acceptances
$
77,145,994.77
$
78,109,940.36
NA
Corporate:
Bonds
Floaters
$
$
572,098,086.01
1,054,534,283.29
$
$
573,943,361.16
1,052,271,721.00
$
$
10,754,599.36
7,362,485.09
CDs
Bank Notes
$
$
5,453,577,302.73
1,818 119,003.31
$
$
5,448,936,379.54
1,818,629,625.74
$
$
52,360,653.78
29,439,813.89
Repurchase Agreements
NA
NA
NA
Time Deposits
$
2,004,640,000.00
$
2,004,640,000.00
NA
AB 55 & GF Loans
$
2,125,693,674.33
$
2,125,693,674.33
NA
Commercial Paper
$
9,840,449,957.16
$
9,913,590,208.20
NA
Reverse Repurchase
$
762,843,107.00
$
762,843,107.00
$
2,993,154.40
TOTAL
$
36,808,770,577.77
1 $
37,051,156,709.37
$
205,694,628.24
Fair Value Including Accrued Interest $ 37,256,851,337.61
Repurchase Agreements, Time Deposits, AB 55 & General Fund loans, and
Reverse Repurchase agreements are carried at portfolio book value (carrying cost).
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999 REPORT DATE: February 25, 1999
FROM: Bob Rose, Community Services Director
TITLE: Resolution No. 99 -XX of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar approving the Plans and
Specifications for the Installation of Ballfield Lights at Lorbeer Middle School in said City and authorizing and
directing the City Clerk to advertise to receive bids.
SUMMARY: The City Council has an agreement with Pomona Unified School District for the City to install
ballfield lights for the football/soccer field at Lorbeer Middle School. Plans and Specifications have been
developed for this project and are ready to be released to advertise for bids.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 99 -XX approving
the Plans and Specifications for the Installation of Ballfield Lights at Lorbeer Middle School in Diamond Bar
and authorize and direct the City Clerk to advertise to receive bids.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report Public Hearing Notification
X Resolution(s) X Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerks once)
_ Ordinance(s) _ Other:
_ 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? X Yes _ No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: n/a
REVIEWED BY:
(1q.
Terrence L.*
Bela
Manager
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
4Boose
Community Services Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 99 -XX of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar approving
the Plans and Specifications for the Installation of Ballfield Lights at Lorbeer
Middle School in said City and authorizing and directing the City Clerk to
advertise for bids.
Issue Statement
Shall the City Council approve Resolution No, 99 -XX approving the Plans and Specifications for the Installation
of Ballfield Lights at Lorbeer Middle School?
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 99 -XX approving the Plans and Specifications
for the Installation of Ballfield Lights at Lorbeer Middle School in Diamond Bar and authorize and direct the City
Clerk to advertise to receive bids.
Financial Summary
Engineer's estimate for cost of construction is $167,300. This amount includes features required by the
Department of State Architecture (D.S.A.) that were not anticipated by City staff, but are required for projects
constructed at school sites. It also includes taller light poles than originally planned and several items
requested by the Pomona Unified School District related to managing a joint use facility. There are $150,000
in funds available in the 1998/99 fiscal year budget to design and construct this project. The bid specifications
include bid alternates so that the cost of this project can be controlled.
Background
The City Council has an agreement with Pomona Unified School District for the City to install ballfield lights
for the football/soccer field at Lorbeer Middle School. Plans and Specifications have been developed for this
project and are ready to be released to advertise for bids.
Discussion
Construction of this project is being coordinated with Pomona Unified School District so that the Lorbeer Middle
School campus is not disrupted. The project will take three to four months to complete, depending on the lead
time necessary for the contractor to order and receive the light poles. The goal is to have construction
completed and the project accepted by the end of daylight savings time, which ends on October 31, 1999.
This project will result in four lighting standards 105 feet tall one at each comer of the football/soccer field, For
comparison purposes, the tallest poles lighting the ballfields at Peterson Park are 80 feet tall. The poles at
Lorbeer are taller because they are located at the comers of the field. In order to completely light the field from
City Council Report
Lorbeer Middle School Lighting Installation
Meeting Date: March 2, 1999
Page 2
the comers, the poles must be taller. The poles are being placed at the corners of the field because there is
a lack of space between the north side of the field and the adjacent slope. Due to cost considerations, it is not
advisable to place the lighting standards on the slope. The additional cost for these taller poles is
approximately $30,000.
In addition to lights for the football/soccer field, there will also be lights on each pole to light the track that
circles the field. These lights will make it possible for exercise enthusiasts to walk around the track when the
ballfield lights are turned off. These lights were requested by Pomona Unified School District staff. District
staff also requested a master plan for the recreation facilities at Lorbeer Middle School. The cost for these
added items is approximately $32,000,
Department of State Architecture (D.S.A.) required battery operated exit illumination lights for this project.
These lights come on only if there is a power outage during a night time event and provide illumination so that
program participants and spectators can exit the site safely. This item added about $20,000 to the cost of the
project.
Prepared by:
Bob Rose
Community Services Director
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF BALLFIELD
LIGHTS AT LORBEER MIDDLE SCHOOL IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS.
B. Recitals
(i) WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Diamond Bar to construct certain
improvements in the City.
(ii) WHEREAS, the City has prepared plans and specifications for the
construction of certain improvements.
(iii) WHEREAS, the City has entered into an agreement with Pomona Unified School
District to construct improvements at Lorbeer Middle School that benefit the entire
community.
B. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications
presented by the City be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for:
The Installation of Ballfield Lights at Lorbeer Middle School.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and
directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing
of the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall
be in form and content as approved by the City Attorney and a copy of this Resolution shall
be contained in each specification package for the work:
"NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS"
Pursuant to a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar,
directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the said City of Diamond Bar will
receive at the office of the City Clerk in the City Hall of the City of Diamond Bar, on or before
the hour of 10:00a.m. on the 6t' day of April, 1999, sealed bids or proposals for:
The Installation of Ballfield Lights at Lorbeer Middle School
Bids will be opened and publicly read immediately thereafter.
City of Diamond Bar 1 Lorbeer Middle School Lighting Installation
Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City
of Diamond Bar clearly marked:
"Bid: City of Diamond Bar Installation of Ballfield Lights at Lorbeer Middle School, in
Diamond Bar".
PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the
provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the
Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for
work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less
than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the
locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate
of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the
Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined
such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem
wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100, Diamond
Bar, California, and are available to any interested party on request. The Agency also shall
cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site.
Pursuant to Labor Code § 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the
City, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed
for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workmen, or mechanic is paid less
than the general prevailing rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under the
attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions
of said Labor Code.
In accordance with the provisions of § 1777.5 of the Labor Code, as amended,
and in accordance -with the regulations of the California Apprenticeship Council, properly
indentured apprentices may be employed in the prosecution of the work.
Attention is directed to the provisions in § § 177.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor
Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under
him.
§ 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing
tradesmen in any apprenticeable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee
nearest the site of the public works project and which administers apprenticeship program in
that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to
journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to
journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except:
A. When employment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship
committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior
City of Diamond Bar 2 Lorbeer Middle School Lighting Installation
to the request for certificate, or
B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio
of one to five, or
C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1130 of its
membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis
statewide or locally, or
D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs unregistered
apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than
one apprentice to eight journeymen.
The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the
administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen
in any apprenticeable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site
are making such contributions.
The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the
requirements of § § 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices.
Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other
requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex -officio the
Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of
Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices.
Eight (8) hours of labor -shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen
employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under
him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do
with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code
of the State of California as amended.
The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City, twenty-five dollars ($25.00)
for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him
or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work hereinbefore mentioned, for each
calendar day during which said laborer, workmen, or mechanic is required or permitted to
labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code.
Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed
to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are
defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreements filed in accordance with Labor
Code § 1773.8.
City of Diamond Bar 3 Lorbeer Middle School Lighting Installation
The bidder must submit with his proposal cash, cashier's check, certified check,
or bidder's bond, payable to the City for an amount equal to at least ten percent 00%) of the
amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the
same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashier's
check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City.
If the City awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the
lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City to the difference between the low bid and
the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any, shall be returned to the lowest bidder.
The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the
contract for said work shall be one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price thereof, and
an additional bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price
for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies
furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, will also
be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his
employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and
the said City for the construction of said work.
No proposal will be considered from a Contractor who is not licensed as a Class
A and/or C-10 contractor at time of bid in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's
License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000, et seq.) and rules and
regulations adopted pursuant thereto or to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the
City.
The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and
specifications of the City of Diamond Bar on file in the office of the City Clerk. Copies of the
plans and specifications will be furnished upon application to the City and payment of $20.00,
said $20.00 is non-refundable.
Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will
be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an
additional non -reimbursable payment of $10.00 to cover the cost of mailing charges and
overhead.
The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the
City.
In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions,
as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the
Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost
and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance
retention).
City of Diamond Bar 4 Lorbeer Middle School Lighting Installation
The City of Diamond Bar reserves the right to reject any and all bids. No bidder
may withdraw a bid for a period of sixty (60) days after the date of the bid opening.
Engineer's Estimate: $167,300.00
By order of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar.
Dated this day of
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED
1999.
day of , 1999
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 a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Diamond held on day of 1999, by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS-
NOES:
OUNCILMEMBERS-
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS -
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS -
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS -
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
City of Diamond Bar 5 Lorbeer Middle School Lighting Installation
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999 REPORT DATE: February 23, 1999
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Resolution No. 99 -XX entitled: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar Installing Multi -way Stop Signs at the Intersections of Santaquin
Drive/Redgate Circle and Kiowa Crest Drive/Deerfoot Drive."
SUMMARY: There has been concerns raised by residents in the Kiowa Crest Drive and
Santaquin Drive neighborhoods regarding speeding. The area is generally of hilly terrain with
both horizontal and vertical curvatures. Six (6) intersections were evaluated for potential multi -
way stop signs in instances where safety has been compromised with speeding vehicles and
visibility hindrances. Of these six (6) intersections, 2 were warranted for multi -way stop signs:
Santaquin Drive/Redgate Circle and Kiowa Crest Drive/Deerfoot Drive.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve and adopt Resolution No. 99 -XX
entitled: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar Installing Multi -way Stop
Signs at the Intersections of Santaquin Drive/Redgate Circle and Kiowa Crest Drive/Deerfoot
Drive."
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report
x Resolution(s)
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification
x Other: T&T minutes for 1/14/99, 2/11/99
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed x Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A _ Yes _ No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? x Yes —No
Which Commission? Traffic and Transportation Commission
5. Are other departments affected by the report? N/A _ Yes _ No
REVIEWED BY:
N�l �,
Terrence L. Belang
City Manager
*W
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
a d . Liu
Deputy Director of Public Works
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 99 -XX entitled: "A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar Installing Multi -way Stop Signs at the
Intersections of Santaquin Drive/Redgate Circle and Kiowa Crest
Drive/Deerfoot Drive."
ISSUE STATEMENT
To address the safety concerns for pedestrians and motorists in the residential neighborhood of
Santaquin Drive and Kiowa Crest Drive by installing multi -way stop signs at the intersections of
Santaquin Drive/Redgate Circle and Kiowa Crest Drive/Deerfoot Drive.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve and adopt Resolution No. 99 -XX entitled: "A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Diamond Bar Installing Multi -way Stop Signs at the Intersections of
Santaquin Drive/Redgate Circle and Kiowa Crest Drive and Deerfoot Drive."
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
The installation of multi -way stop signs will be funded under the City's signing and striping
maintenance budget allocated for this FY 1998-1999.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
There has been concerns raised by residents in the Kiowa Crest Drive and Santaquin Drive
neighborhoods regarding speeding. The request was from residents to address the speeding
concern in the area of Kiowa Crest Drive and Santaquin Drive. Residents along Santaquin Drive
have signed a petition advocating speed reduction in their neighborhood. These issues were
reviewed and discussed at the Traffic and Transportation Commission Meetings of January 14,
1999 and February 11, 1999.
The area is generally of hilly terrain with both horizontal and vertical curvatures. This terrain is
unsuitable for suggestions made such as speed humps. Rumble strips were also discussed as an
effective way to alert motorists, but was not determined to be a suitable solution as the strips
would not reduce the actual speeds and would also cause noise for the adjacent homes.
There are minimal speed limit and warning signs existing. Additional signs and pavement
makrings can be posted within several areas to alert motorists of the speed limit on those
residential streets, particularly Santaquin Drive, Kiowa Crest Drive and Cliffbranch Drive.
Stop signs, although not a tool that should be used as a speed deterrent, can be used for
intersections in which safety has been compromised with speeding vehicles and visibility
hindrances. The following intersections have been evaluated for multi -way stop signs based on a
safety finding and considering sight visibility issues and potential hindrances:
Santaquin Drive/Oxbow Court
Santaquin Drive/Shadehill Place
Santaquin Drive/Redgate Circle
Santaquin Drive/Silver Hawk Drive
Santaquin Drive/Kiowa Crest Drive
Kiowa Crest Drive/Deerfoot Drive
Of these intersections Santaquin Drive/Redgate Circle and Kiowa Crest Drive /Deerfoot Drive are
candidates for multi -way stop signs.
Santaquin Drive/Redgate Circle has visibility problems due to the curvature of the road and the
permanent fencing of the homes. There is little visibility from westbound Santaquin Drive for
vehicles leaving Redgate Circle. Although there are no accident reports for the last 2 years at this
intersection, the potential hazard due to the sight visibility concern will fulfill the safety finding to
warrant a multi -way stop sign.
Kiowa Crest Drive/Deerfoot Drive also has safety issues. Vehicles progressing downhill on
Kiowa Crest Drive have an 85`h percentile of 35 to 39 mph and the recommended safe speed limit
is 30 mph. Vehicles coming from Deerfoot Drive to southbound Kiowa Crest Drive has a
visibility problem on the northerly side due to the road's curvature. There have been 4 accident
reports for the last 2 years along Kiowa Crest Drive. A multi -way stop sign will require vehicles
to stop at this intersection and allow vehicles from Deerfoot Drive to make turns onto Kiowa
Crest Drive.
The Commission concurred with staff s recommendation to forward to the City Council the
intersections of Santaquin Drive/Redgate Circle and Kiowa Crest Drive /Deerfoot Drive for the
installation of multi -way stop signs.
Also, additional speed limit and warning signs and pavement markings will be installed along
Santaquin Drive, Kiowa Crest Drive and Cliffbranch Drive.
Prepared by: David Liu/Rose Manela
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INSTALLING MULTI -WAY STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF SANTAQUIN
DRIVE/REDGATE CIRCLE AND KIOWA CREST DRIVE AND DEERFOOT DRIVE.
A. RECITALS
(i) The Traffic and Transportation Commission considered this matter at a
public meetings on January 14, 1999 and February 11, 1999.
(ii) At the meeting of February 11, 1999, the Traffic and Transportation
Commission determined that the installation of multi -way stop signs at the intersections of
Santaquin Drive/Redgate Circle and Kiowa Crest Drive/Deerfoot Drive is appropriate.
(iii) The Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends the installation of
installation of multi -way stop signs at the intersections of Santaquin Drive/Redgate Circle and
Kiowa Crest Drive/Deerfoot Drive.
B. RESOLUTION
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Said action is pursuant to Section 10.08. 010 of the Diamond Bar City Code, as
heretofore adopted;
2. The City Council hereby finds that the public health, safety, and welfare will be
best protected by the installation of multi -way stop signs at the intersections of Santaquin
Drive/Redgate Circle and Kiowa Crest Drive/Deerfoot Drive as herein prescribed;
3. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby authorize and direct the City
Engineer to cause said multi -way stop signs to be installed.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
MAYOR
1999
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Diamond Bar held on
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
day of
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
2
ATTEST:
1999 by the following
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
JANUARY 14, 1999
PAGE 4
C/Vir ' c oved, C/Lin seconded, to accept stars recommendation to recomm pproval to
the City Council mporary parking on Wednesdays between 8:30 a.m :30 p.m. and 6:45
p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on sou nd Diamond Bar Boulevard betwee feet south of Crooked
Creek Drive and the northerly n roach of the Ev al Free Church for the duration of
their construction period up to March, d e Evanglical Free Church be responsible
for all costs borne by the installation and ov uch signs. Motion carried by the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: f:@POTMISSIONERS: Lin, Virginkark, VC/Mor � , hair/Leonard-Colby
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: Istik
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Kiowa Crest Drive and Santaquin Drive Traffic Concerns.
AE/Manela presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Traffic and Transportation
Commission receive resident comments and concerns and review/discuss the issues raised and
possible mitigation measures.
Marie Buckland, 21762 Santaquin Drive, said that the speed limit has never been observed on her
street and since Grand Avenue opened it has placed even more stress on the street. Motorists
routinely fail to stop and the stop sign and pass the school buses when they are stopped. She
believes there are too many vehicles passing through her neighborhood from other cities. She
asked for the Commission's help in resolving this situation.
Claudia Yeager, 21726 Santaquin Drive, said she signed the petition and provided a letter to the
Commission. Motorists routinely practice "California stops" at Morning Canyon Road and travel
well in excess of 25 mph in both directions on her street. She backs her car into the driveway in
order to be able to leave her home in a safe manner when she leaves or returns during rush hour.
She realizes that the Sheriffs Department cannot always be present and she is looking to the City
for assistance with this problem.
James Farmer, 21774 Santaquin Drive, stated that a truck turned over in his driveway at 3:00 a.m.
and destroyed the brick and wrought iron fence between his home and his neighbors home. Two
weeks later he was awakened at 5:00 a.m. when a car jumped the curb and spun out in the street
which caused a wheel to break off. He suggested that instead of having deputies present that the
City install speed humps to prevent people from speeding down his winding street. He said he is
concerned that someone will be killed on his street.
JANUARY 14, 1999 PAGE 5
Willis Sanky, 21745 Santaquin Drive, said he has witnessed several accidents on his street. He
recalled that about five years ago a California Highway Patrolman sat on the corner of Morning
Canyon Road and Santaquin Drive and issued 10 tickets in less than one and one-half hours. He
stated that when he attempts to make a left turn into his driveway motorists will pass him on the
left side even when he has his left blinker on and is hand signalling a left turn. He is also
concerned that someone will be killed on the street. There is a blind spot for people coming over
the hill and people speed in that area.
Don Buckland said it is very dangerous for people to back out of their driveways near the top of
the hill. He finds no fault with the Sheriffs Department because he realizes that they cannot be at
the location 24 hours a day. He asked the Commission to provide some relief for their area.
VC/Morris spoke about his concern that cut -through traffic is placing a burden on the City's
streets which prevents residents from using alternative routes to get to their homes. He suggested
that staff be directed to work closely with the Sheriffs Department to find a solution. Speed
humps and steep slopes are incompatible because speed humps can act as a launch ramp when the
slope is too steep. He said he believes that residential areas should be reserved for the enjoyment
of the residents.
C/Lin stated he concurs with VC/Monis. Residents should have the right to live peacefully in
their neighborhoods. However, the traffic problems have prevented them from doing so.
C/Virginkar said he also concurs with VC/Morris. There is a good deal of speeding in his
neighborhood and he sympathizes with the residents living on Santaquin Drive. In looking at the
map it appears the City has done everything possible short of installing traffic lights on the street.
He suggested that a traffic study might be conducted on the street to determine possible solutions.
With respect to speed humps, the Commission has debated this matter at length and determined
that speed humps would serve as a detriment to safety services.
Chair/Leonard-Colby stated that she does not want to lose the residential feel of the City's streets
and she believes that the residential feel is lost as long as Diamond Bar Boulevard continues to
serve as a freeway. She said she believes that without a bypass road Diamond Bar will continue
to have traffic problems. It is very difficult to get from the south end of town to the north end of
town during rush hour. Short of oversigning and installing traffic lights other measures may need
to be pursued. She said she was quite comfortable with the traffic studies that were conducted
within the Heritage Tract and Quail Summit area. She indicated she believes Santaquin Drive
should be studied in a similar manner. She asked if the speed hump policy can be revisited and if
there are funds available to conduct a traffic study in this area.
1Ki RA� '3 Lw -;j,
JANUARY 14, 1999 PAGE 6'
DDPW/Liu responded that the speed hump policy has been discussed many times. As pointed out
by VC/Morris, the ultimate concern is the safety of the motorists and the potential liability on the
part of the City. When speed humps are improperly installed and when limitations are exceeded
more dangerous conditions are created for the motorists. If speed humps are used as traffic
control devices the street grade should not exceed 7 to 8 percent. The street must be properly
signed and the traffic control device must be clearly visible to the motorists. Fire and ambulance
service providers are concerned about the placement of speed humps in residential areas. Staff
recommends that a speed survey be conducted to determine the extent of the speeding problem
before launching a full scale traffic study.
Lt. Stothers responded to Chair/Leonard-Colby that the Sheriffs Department received Mrs.
Buckland's complaint. Deputy Perkins spoke with Mrs. Buckland today and indicated that the
department will do its best to solve the problem. That area will be targeted for enforcement.
VC/Morris moved, CNirginkar seconded, to request staff to add Santaquin Drive to the speed
trailer list and present its recommendation for additional possible mitigation measures such as
signage and striping. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Lin, Virginkar, VC/Morris, Chair/Leonard-Colby
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Istik
DDPW/Liu stated that staff will present its findings with respect to possible mitigation measures
to the Commission at its February meeting.
Mr. Farmer said that Santaquin Drive used to have 25 MPH painted on the street pavement and
that it might be helpful to have the street markings.
VC/Morris thanked the residents for bringing this matter to the attention of the Commission.
VII. STASH, PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS:
DDPW/Liu reported that the multi- . ns on Longview Driv cwood Drive and
Summitridge Drive at Breckenridge Court were in onth. A three way stop was recently
installed at Brea Canyon Road at ' rest Lane. Initially, st iire complaints from
commuters. Ho complaints have subsided and the installations appear to eg vii ththe
c at Diamond Crest Lane, the alternate route for South Pointe Middle School.
AYES: CC
NOES: CC
ABSENT:
Istik, Li r, VC/Morris,
arrived at 7:15 p.m. and assumed the gavel.
4ew4ve--r
V. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Kiowa Crest Drive and Santaquin Drive Traffic Concerns.
AE/Manela presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Traffic and Transportation
Commission review/discuss the issues raised as well as, possible mitigation measures and to
recommend to the City Council that two multi -way stop signs be installed at the intersections of
Santaquin Drive/Redgate Circle and Kiowa Crest Drive/Deerfoot Drive and that additional
signing and pavement markings be installed along Santaquin Drive, Kiowa Crest Drive and
Cliffbranch Drive.
Deputy Perkins reported on the Sheriff Department's spot check study in the Morning Canyon
area. Approximately 100 vehicles were contacted, 70 percent of which were warned and advised
with respect to speeding and approximately 30 citations were written. Four of the vehicles
stopped had a speed of between 48 and 51 miles per hours. The average speed for the remaining
vehicles was about 38 miles per hour. Cut through traffic accounted for 8 vehicles out of 100
contacted.
Eileen Ansari, 1823 S. Cliffbranch Drive, said that the area from Kiowa Crest to Cliffbranch Drive
is a very dangerous area_ The visibility at the corner of Kiowa Crest and Santaquin Drive due to
the fact that there is usually a van parked near the intersection. When vehicles fail to negotiate a
complete stop at the bottom of Santaquin Drive as they enter Kiowa Crest it presents a hazardous
situation. She stated she favors the installation of stop signs at the intersection of Shaded Wood
and Redgate as well as, mitigation measures for Kiowa Crest. Additionally, mitigation measures
are needed for Morning Canyon at Santaquin Drive and Cliffbranch Drive. She also asked the
Commission to consider traffic control measures at Silverhawk Drive in the area of the church
ingress/egress during Wednesday, Saturday evening and Sunday church hours.
DDPW/Liu stated that last year the City conducted a traffic signal warrant study at the
intersection of Silverhawk Drive/St. Denis ingress/egress. At that time, the traffic signal was not
warranted. Staff will follow up to determine the conditions at the time the study was conducted
and bring the matter back to the Commission for further discussion.
Evan Owens, 21794 Santaquin Drive, said he is not opposed to stop signs. He asked if the City
has considered installing a chicane in place of a stop sign. He stated commercial vehicles parked
at the bottom of Santaquin Drive at Kiowa Crest obstruct views.
Claudia Yeager, 21726 Santaquin Drive, said that Fern Hollow and Evergreen do not have posted
speed limit signs and should be included.
FEBRUARY 11, 1999 PAGE 3
Deputy Perkins responded to C/Istik that the Sheriffs Department can issue a citation to motorists
who exceed the residential speed limit of 25 mph even though the street is not posted.
James Farmer, 21774 Santaquin Drive, said that at the January 14, 1999 Commission meeting he
spoke about two accidents that occurred in front of his home. He stated that the deputies cannot
be present at all times and something else needs to be done to mitigate the speeding traffic.
Marie Buckland, 21762 Santaquin Drive, stated that prior to the two accidents discussed by Mr.
Fanner, a girl's car was totalled on ClifjEbranch Drive. She recommended that a speed hump be
placed at Morning Canyon and Santaquin Drive to keep vehicles from rolling through the stop
sign. She is concerned that the safety of small children in the neighborhood is in jeopardy. She
acknowledged that some of her neighbors speed. She thanked the deputies for their efforts.
However, she realizes that they cannot be present 24 hours a day. She asked if a no -right -turn
and no -left -turn signs (similar to the signage at Quail Summit Drive). can be placed at the
intersection for specific times.
DDPW/Liu cautioned the Commission that the neighborhood residents need to be involved in the
consideration of installation of botts dots.
O
C/Istik pointed out that.CKS was very effective in working with neighborhood residents during
the Heritage tract traffic study.
Following discussion regarding the feasibility of a neighborhood traffic study, alternative
mitigation measures such as botts dots on Santaquin Drive, using stop signs as a deterrent to
speeding, and additional education for neighborhood residents, C/Virginkar moved, VC/Morris
seconded, to recommend to the City Council that two multi -way stop signs be installed at the
intersections of Santaquin Drive/Redgate Circle and Kiowa Crest Drive/Deerfoot Drive and that
additional signing and pavement markings be installed along Santaquin Drive, Kiowa Crest Drive
and Cliffbranch Drive.
C/Istik asked if staffs recommendation is based upon slowing the traffic.
DDPW/Liu responded "no". He stated that a finding of safety has been reached at these two
locations with respect to sight visibility. The accident threshold for multi -way stop sign warrants
has been decreased from 5 accidents to 3 accidents.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
FEBRUARY 11, 1999
VI.
PAGE 4
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Istik, Lin, Virginkar, VC/Morris, Chair/Leonard-Colby
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
C/Istik asked that discussion of a Neighborhood Traffic Study be agendized for the March 11,
1999 meeting.
C/Virginkar stated he would like to monitor the effectiveness of the multi -way stop sign
installation prior to recommending a traffic study. He suggested that the matter be agendized for
the June 10, 1999 meeting. The Commission concurred with a request to the Sheriffs
Department for a report on traffic enforcement as a result of the multi -way stop sign installations.
A. Req t for right -turn movement restriction at the intersXthrough
nd Bar Bo vard and
Golden ngs Drive.
DDPW/Liu pres ed staffs report. Staff recommends t=ed
' n a) discuss the results
of the analysis condu d for the intersection of Diamond and Golden Springs
Drive, and recommend to a City Council the installatio-Turn on Red, 7:30 a.m.
to 8:00 a.m./2:00 p.m. to 2:3 m. on school days only gh Friday)" signs on all
quadrants of said intersection.
Following discussion, of subparagraph a), C 's moved, C/Lin seconded, to recommend to
the City Council the installation of "No Right- rn on Red to 8:00 a.m./2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. on
school days only (Monday through Friday ' signs all quadrants of said intersection. Motion
carried by the following Roll Call vote -
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Istik, Lin, Virginkar, V orris, Chair/Leonard-Colby
NOES: COMMISSIONER None
ABSENT: CO IONERS: None
B. Discuss the results he multi -way stop warrant analysis at the intersectio f Mountain Laurel
Way and Pecan ove Drive.
DDPW ' presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Traffic and Transportati
Co ssion recommend to the City Council the installation of multi -way stop signs at this
LAAM,
46A
vl
vo
q
h }k E• x
'71� •�. �!" �F � Icy �, .el d
1
ni � x
p f,
JL
r 1 r
•L.
,r
I
M
«
r.
�IYr. • :+ ��,M i � I Mr' x i* `fir � w �"i k -
M
� +44
t
hit ( lug
I
dx Y ;A
j
p t
i r .
x
t it
}
a
n
� .y. ' .!�'� 4 � �""• x, � � x �'�^�cc `fin f� ,�` �,
• to
e # eIT
dr•
f
ii
, �•V � 6 � ofYR. � � ti. � � e. N me. �.s `i
x i r
�I H
d. f
� a .�;�„:y4.. 1 r � :S ..;, ./' .A�.:4� sSF" � N '�'`,�„{ ���`l Y � �+s.� p � A•4 }k
7 e
6 � ,
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. (�, 1
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999 REPORT DATE: February 23, 1999
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Resolution No. 99 -XX entitled: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar Installing Multi -way Stop Signs at the Intersection of Mountain
Laurel Way and Pecan Grove Drive."
SUMMARY: As a result of the approved city wide school safety study, the intersection of
Mountain Laurel Way and Pecan Grove Drive was requested to be evaluated for a multi -way
stop. O'Rourke Engineering was retained to study this intersection for stop warrant analysis.
The traffic engineers noted that there is a sight distance limitation along Pecan Grove Drive at
Mountain Laurel Way. Motorists have limited visibility while executing turns. Due to this safety
concern, this intersesction of Mountain Laurel Way and Pecan Grove Drive is warranted for a
multi -way stop.
REC0MVIENDATION: That the City Council approve and adopt Resolution No. 99 -XX
entitled: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar Installing Multi -way Stop
signs at the Intersection of Mountain Laurel Way and Pecan Grove Drive_"
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
x Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification
_ Agreement(s) x Other: 2/11/99 T&T Minutes
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed x Yes No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A _ Yes _ No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? x Yes —No
Which Commission? Traffic and Transportation Commission
5. Are other departments affected by the report? N/A _ Yes _ No
10M71MVd/9191:11.1
L. Belanger
City
s DeStefano avid G. Liu
Deputy City Mana er Deputy Director of Public Works
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 99 -XX entitled: "A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar Installing Multi -way Stop Signs at the
Intersection of Mountain Laurel Way and Pecan Grove Drive."
ISSUE STATEMENT
To address the safety concerns for pedestrians and motorists at this residential intersection of
Mountain Laurel Way and Pecan Grove Drive by installing multi -way stop signs.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve and adopt Resolution No. 99 -XX entitled: "A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Diamond Bar Installing Multi -way Stop signs at the Intersection of
Mountain Laurel Way and Pecan Grove Drive."
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
The installation of multi -way stop signs will be funded under the City's signing and striping
maintenance budget allocated for this FY 1998-1999.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
As a result of the approved city wide school safety study, the intersection of Mountain Laurel
Way and Pecan Grove Drive was requested to be evaluated for a multi -way stop. O'Rourke
Engineering was retained to study this intersection for stop warrant analysis.
At the February 11, 1999 Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting, the Commission
reviewed and discussed the results of the stop warrant analysis. The traffic engineers noted that
there is a sight distance limitation along Pecan Grove Drive at Mountain Laurel Way. Motorists
have limited visibility while executing turns. Due to this safety concern, this intersesction of
Mountain Laurel Way and Pecan Grove Drive is warranted for a multi -way stop.
The Commission concurred with staff's recommendation to forward to the City Council the
intersection of Mountain Laurel Way and Pecan Grove Drive for the installation of multi -way stop
signs.
Prepared by: David Liu/Rose Manela
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INSTALLING MULTI -WAY STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF MOUNTAIN
LAUREL WAY AND PECAN GROVE DRIVE.
A. RECITALS
(i) The Traffic and Transportation Commission considered this matter at a
public meeting on February 11, 1999.
(ii) At the meeting of February 11, 1999, the Traffic and Transportation
Commission determined that the installation of multi -way stop signs at the intersection of
Mountain Laurel Way and Pecan Grove Drive is appropriate.
(iii) The Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends the installation of
of multi -way stop signs at the intersection of Mountain Laurel Way and Pecan Grove Drive.
B. RESOLUTION
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Said action is pursuant to Section 10.08. 010 of the Diamond Bar City Code, as
heretofore adopted;
2. The City Council hereby finds that the public health, safety, and welfare will be
best protected by the installation of of multi -way stop signs at the intersection of Mountain Laurel
Way and Pecan Grove Drive as herein prescribed;
3. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby authorizes and directs the
City Engineer to cause said multi -way stop signs to be installed.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
1999
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 a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Diamond Bar held on
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
day of
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
`a
ATTEST:
1999 by the following
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
FEBRUARY 11, 1999
PAGE 4
Ku
YES: COMMISSIONERS: Istik, Lin, Virginkar, VC/Morris, Chair/Leonard-Colby
N S: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABS COMMISSIONERS: None
C/Istik aske that discussion of a Neighborhood Traffic Study be agendized for th arch 11,
1999 meeting.
CNirginkar stated h would like to monitor the effectiveness of the multi ay stop sign
installation prior to reco%tr
g a traffic study. He suggested that 0* matter be agendized for
the June 10, 1999 meetiCommission concurred with a req st to the Sheriffs
Department for a reportc enforcement as a result of the ulti-way stop sign installations.
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Request for right -turn movement restrictiona intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and
Golden Springs Drive.
DDPW/Liu presented stairs report. St recommend at the Commission a) discuss the results
of the analysis conducted for the in ection of Diamond ar Boulevard and Golden Springs
Drive, and recommend to the Ci ouncil the installation o o Right -Turn on Red, 7:30 a.m.
to 8:00 a.m./2:00 p.m. to 2:30 m. on school days only (Mond through Friday)" signs on all
quadrants of said intersects
Following discussion f subparagraph a), VC/Morris moved, C/Lin sec ed, to recommend to
the City Council t installation of "No Right -Turn on Red to 8:00 a.m./2:0 m. to 2:30 p.m. on
/-COMMISSIONERS:
(Monday through Friday)" signs on all quadrants of said inter ion. Motion
lowing Roll Call vote:
Istik, Lin, Virginkar, VC/Morris, Chair/L ard-
Colby
OMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
B. Discuss the results of the multi -way stop warrant analysis at the intersection of Mountain Laurel
Way and Pecan Grove Drive.
DDPW/Liu presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Traffic and Transportation
Commission recommend to the City Council the installation of multi -way stop signs at this
FEBRUARY 11, 1999
C
intersection.
PAGE 5
o�F-T
Dome Gartzke, 1525 Pecan Grove Drive, asked if she is the cause of the visibility problems
previously addressed by a speaker.
DDPW/Liu responded to Mrs. Gartzke that if she resides at the corner of Pecan Grove Drive and
Mountain Laurel Way, she is the cause of the site visibility concern. The landscape materials at
her residence presents an ongoing concern for motorists and there have been many complaints
from neighboring residents.
Dorrie Gartzke stated she will do something about the maintenance of her landscape materials.
She said she would like to see additional mitigation above and beyond the installation of stop
signs such as botts dots or speed humps directly at the stop instead of prior to the stop sign.
Following discussion, C/Virginkar moved, C/Istik seconded, to recommend to the City Council
the installation of multi -way stop signs at the intersection of Mountain Laurel Way and Pecan
Grove Drive. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Istik, Lin, Virginkar, VC/Morris, Chair/Leonard-Colby
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Left*t warrant analysis at eight intersections.
DDPW/Liu prese d staffs report. Staff recommends that the Commiss review and approve
the left -turn warrant an is.
C/Istik moved, C/Virginkaz�secon to approve the le warrant analysis and forward its
recommendation to the Cityncil. n c y the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIC
one
Vir r, VC/Morris, Chair/Leonard-Colby
None
D. Discussion of pi p/dropoff locations at Walnut Elementary School.
AE ela presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Traffic and Transportatio
mmission review, discuss and re-evaluate Walnut Elementary School's request and traffic
situation.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999 REPORT DATE: February 23, 1999
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Award of Contract for Special Legal Services to Richards, Watson & Gershon for Review of
the Cable Television Transfer
SUMMARY: The City received an Application for Franchise Authority Consent to Assignment or Transfer
of Control of Cable Television Franchise - FCC 394, on February 17, 1999. A Cable Transfer request, must
be acted upon, either approved or denied, by the City Council within 120 days of receipt of the Application.
The City approved a Cable Television Franchise Agreement with Jones Intercable on May 6, 1997, and within
the adoption, the City approved the Transfer of the Agreement to Citizens Century Television Venture. Century
Communications and TCI Cable Television has entered into a "Limited Partnership Agreement" with respect
to all cable operations in the state of Califomia. Century Communication will remain in control of all Southern
California cable operations, and TCI will hold a 2511/6 interest. Pursuant to Federal Regulation, FCC mandates
the processing of all transfer requests. The City must review the application, from the aspect of legal, technical
and financial aspects. The City requires a Franchise processing fee of $2,500 from the Applicant
(Century/TCI), to cover all legal and/or technical cost required to review the transfer. Richards, Watson &
Gershon provided the legal review for the 1997 Cable Franchise Agreement and Transfer.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize a contract with Richards, Watson & Gershon for special
legal services pertaining to the Cable Television Transfer Application for an amount not to exceed $2,000.00
and authorize the City Manager to enter into said contract.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification
_ Ordinance(s) _ Other:
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been NIA _ 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?
5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No
ReDort discussed with the followina affected departments:
2:WI41A411=11
Terrence ger Kellee A. Fritzal
City Manage Assistant to City Manager
crrY yr uienivivrrD ZPruz
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999 REPORT DATE: February 25, 1999
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 98-1
SUMMARY:
At the request of the City Council the Planning Commission reviewed and considered an Amendment
to the General Plan Land Use Element, Objective 1.5, Strategy 1.5.3. The proposed amendment
would insert text to require an election for the removal or modification of an open space deed,
easement, map restricum or land use map designation. The Planning Commission took action on
January 26, 1999, recommending City Council Adoption GPA No. 98-1.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the
public hearing and adopt Resolution 99 -XX.
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
Yes
No
by the City Attorney?.
2. Does the report require a majority vote?
X Yes
No
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
X Yes
No
4. Has the report beet reviewed by a Commission?
X Yes
No
Which Commission? Planning Commission
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
Yes
X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REMI WE BY
1 04��
Terrence L. Belanger Ja6s DeStefanc
City Manager Deputy City Manager
City Council Report
Agenda No.
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -XX : A Resolution of
the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
Approving GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 98-1.
INTRODUCTION:
At the request of the City Council the Planning Commission reviewed and considered an
Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element, Objective 1. 5, Strategy 1.5.3. The
proposed amendment would insert text to require an election for the removal or
modification of an open space deed, easement, map restriction or land use map
designation.. The Planning Commission took action on January 26, 1999 recommending
City Council adoption GPA No. 98-1.
BACKGROUND:
The General Plan, adopted in 1995, includes a Vision Statement containing the following
six components:
• Retention of the rural/country living character.
• Preservation of open space resources.
• Reduction of regional traffic impacts upon local streets.
• Promotion of viable commercial activity.
• Provision of well maintained, attractive housing.
• Creation of a nurturing community environment.
The General Plan identifies the definition and preservation of open space resources as a
major land use issue for the City. Several Goals, Objectives and implementation
Strategies contained within the General Plan describe mechanisms for land use
development and open space preservation.
Implementation measures within the Land Use Element and the Resource Management
Element outline the need to:
• Identify and preserve significant visual features and open space land;
• Develop a slope density formula for the preservation of open space;
• Obtain open space through acquisition, entitlement review, density
transfer, clustering and other available techniques.
The General Plan, Land Use Element declares within Goal 1:
"Consistent with the Vision Statement, maintain a mix of land uses which
enhance the quality of life of Diamond Bar residents, providing a balance of
development and preservation of significant open space areas to assure both
economic viability and retention of distinctive features of the community"
Strategy 1. 1.6 of the Land Use Element defines the Open Space land use designation as
follows:
"Areas designated as Open Space (OS) provide recreational opportunities,
preservation of scenic and environmental values, protection of resources
(water reclamation and conservation), protection of public safety and
preservation of animal life. This designation also includes lands which may
have been restricted to open space by map restriction, deed (dedication,
condition, covenant and/ or restriction), by an Open Space Easement
pursuant to California Government Code (CGC), Section 51070 et seq. and
Section 64499 et seq. This designation carries with it a maximum
development potential of one single family unit per existing parcel, unless
construction was previously restricted or prohibited on such properties by
the County of Los Angeles"
Specifically, the General Plan, Land Use Element, Objective 1. 5, Strategy 1. 5.3 states:
"Land designated as Open Space by deed (dedication, condition, covenant,
and/or restriction), by open space easement (CGC Section 51070 et seq.) or
by map restriction (explicit or previous subdivision) must comply with an
established review and decision making process prior to the recision,
termination, abandonment and/or removal of an open space dedication
easement and/or restriction.
Any decision to rescind, terminate, abandon, remove or modify a deed
must be supported by findings that the decision is of significant benefit to
the City.
(a) Vacant land which deed is burdened by an open space dedication,
condition, covenant and or restriction shall be required to be
subject to the abandonment process substantially similar to that
which is set forth in CGC Section 51090 et seq.
(b) vacant land which is burdened by an open space easement pursuant
to CGC Section 51070 et seq. shall be required to be subject to the
abandonment process set forth in CGC Section 51090 et seq.
(c) Vacant land which is burdened by an explicit open space
designation delineated upon a map which was the result of a
previous subdivision approval shall be required to be subjected to at
least one public hearing before the City Council prior to any action
to remove said restriction."
DISCUSSION:
The City Council requested Planning Commission consideration of a proposed text
amendment to the General Plan. The specific request was to consider an amendment to
Objective 1. 5, Strategy 1. 5.3 of the Land Use Element with the insertion of the following
language:
"Any decision to rescind, terminate, abandon, remove or modify a deed
must be supported by findings that the decision is of significant benefit to
the City and the matter must be submitted as a ballot measure to the
registered voters of Diamond Bar at an election; whereas a majority of those
voting must vote in the affirmative on the ballot measure."
The General Plan identifies approximately 578 acres of land as open space and
approximately 158 acres of parkland. The recent approval of the 130 home SunCal /
Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership project will result in an increase in the amount of land
designated as open space and parkland. SunCal will dedicate 350 acres of land to the
City as open space. Thus, the amount of open space in Diamond Bar will increase from
approximately 578 acres to 928 acres. In addition the project approval will result in the
dedication of 10 acres of parkland to the City for a total of 168 acres.
The Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan incorporated an Open Land
Survey that identified known construction restrictions for the major vacant properties in
the City. The survey identified vacant properties with the following types of restrictions
and prohibitions:
• The right to prohibit the construction of more than one residential
building.
• The right to prohibit the construction of residential buildings.
• The right to prohibit the construction of buildings or other structures.
• Construction restrictions as a result of flood or geotechnical hazards.
The General Plan Land Use Element and Map have designated the following properties as
Open Space:
• Approximately 37 acres generally located north of Pathfinder Road
west of Brea Canyon Road, owned by the Pathfinders Homeowners
Association.
• Oakridge Community Homeowners Association properties comprised
of approximately 162 acres located south of Pathfinder Road, west of
the 57 Freeway.
• Approximately 114 acres located within the Gateway Corporate Center
located on the hillside east of Copley Drive.
• The 17 acre hillside portion of the Citrus Valley Health Partners
property located adjacent to Grand Avenue, west of the Montifino
Condominium complex.
• Approximately 68 acres owned by D&L Properties adjacent to Grand
Avenue at Summitridge Drive.
• Approximately 30 acres located adjacent to Pantera Elementary
School.
• The Country Estates park and recreational facilities which contain
approximately 150 acres.
The Planning Commission discussed the proposed General Plan text amendment on
January 12, 1999 and January 26, 1999. The Commission requested information to
respond to issues raised in their discussion. The staff, in response, recommended
consideration of the following revised text:
"A decision to rescind, terminate, abandon, remove or modify an open
space deed, map restriction or OS land use designation must be preceded
by both a finding by the City Council that the decision confers a
significant benefit on the City and a favorable vote of the electorate at a
regular or special election."
Land designated as Open Space (OS) on the General Plan Land Use Map would be
captured by the revised text as well as any open space deed or map restricted property. The
General Plan text description of the Open Space (OS) designation would control the use of
property within that category. The referenced properties have been designated Open Space
by the City of Diamond Bar since July 1995 and are all subject to map and/or deed
restrictions that limit or prohibit development.
4
Several Cities and Counties throughout the State have requirements for elections and
voter approval to conclude the decision-making process for certain land uses or for
development proposals within identified areas. The City of Cypress requires voter
approval for zoning modifications to Public and Semi -Public (PS) zoned property. The
City of Laguna Beach has recently adopted a measure requiring voter approval in order
to redesignate publicly owned open space property. Certain land use decisions in Napa
County require approval by the voters rather than by the Board of Supervisors.
Escondido, Walnut Creek, Riverside, San Luis Obispo and Marin County have similar
requirements for voter approval of certain land use decisions.
CONCLUSION:
The purpose of the text modification is to further protect and preserve open space
properties. The proposed text amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan
would result in a requirement for a citywide election and voter approval to rescind,
terminate, abandon, remove or modify an open space deed, easement, map restriction or
land use map designation. The City Council, elected to represent its citizens, currently
has the decision-making authority in these matters. The submission of such action to the
voters, sometimes referred to as "ballot box planning", will result in additional delay, cost
and uncertainty for the applicant. The submission of a land use proposal to a vote of the
people does, however, provide a unique opportunity for the public to directly participate
in shaping the future of their City.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act the City Staff has
determined that the proposed text amendment to the General Plan is categorically exempt
(Section 15317). No further environmental review is required.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:
In accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the Development Code and Section 65353 of the
Government Code, notification of the proposed amendment was published in the San
Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on February 18, 1999. In
addition, notice of the City Council public hearing was provided to approximately sixteen
owners of open space designated property.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, receive public testimony,
close the public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 99 -XX.
Attachments:
1. General Plan Land Use Map
2. Open Space and Parkland Map
5
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-2
4. Planning Commission meeting minutes of January 12, 1999 and January 26, 1999.
dbm
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 99-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR RSCObMNDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPT AN AMENDWENT TO THE GENERAL
PLAN (GPA NO. 99-1)
A. RECITALS.
1. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized municipal corporation of
the State of California. Thereafter, the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14
(1990), thereby adopting the Los Angles County Code as
the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 of.
the Los Angeles County Code contains the Subdivision Code
of the County of Los Angeles applicable to development
applications within the City of Diamond Bar.
2. On July 25, 1995, the City of Diamond Bar adopted its
General Plan. The General Plan establishes goals,
objectives and strategies to implement the community's
vision for its future.
3. The City of Diamond Bar has determined that the existing
Land Use Element, Objective 1.5, Strategy 1.5.3 relating
to Open Space contained within the City of Diamond Bar
General Plan required modification to meet the City's
goals and objectives in terms of the type of development
envisioned by the General Plan.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar
conducted a duly noticed public hearing with regard to
the General Plan Amendment No. 98-1. The public hearing
was opened on January 12, 1999 and concluded on January
26, 1999.
5. The Planning Commission considered, individually and
collectively, the General Plan Amendment No. 98-1, Land
Use Element, Objective 1.5, Strategy 1.5.3.
6. The Planning Commission, after due consideration of
public testimony, staff analysis and the Commission's
B.
deliberations has determined that the General Plan
Amendment No. 98-1 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated by reference into this Resolution implements
the goals of the City. The Planning Commission has duly
considered these issues so as to meet the City's needs'in
terms of the type of development envisioned by the
General Plan.
7. The 1995 General Plan remains properly integrated and
internally consistent as required by California
Government Code Section 65300.5.
8. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and 65353,
notification of the public hearing for this project was
published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on January 1, 1999 in a
one eighth page legal advertisement.
9. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
resolution have occurred.
RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that
all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of
this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council adopt the General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 for the
City of Diamond Bar attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by reference.
3. The Planning Commission hereby determines that there is
no substantial evidence that the General Plan Amendment
No. 98-1 will have a significant effect on the
environment and therefore is categorically exempt
pursuant to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the
guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section
15317 of Article 19 of Chapter 3 of Division 13 of Title
14 of the California Code of Regulations.
4. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and
determines that, having considered the record as a whole
2
including the findings set forth below, there is no evidence
before this Planning Commission that the General Plan
Amendment No. 98-1 proposed herein will have the potential of
an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon
which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence,
this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of
adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of
the California Code of Regulations.
5. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the General
Plan Amendment No. 98-1 is consistent and compatible with and
implements the goals, objectives and strategies of the City of
Diamond Bar General Plan.
The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall:
(a) Certify as to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1999, BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
BY:
Joe McManus, Chairman
I, James DeStefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 26th day of January, 1999, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye,
C/McManus
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
James DeStefano, Secretary
C:\WP60\LINDAKAY\PLANCOMM\RESO\GPAMEND.126
9
City of Diamond Bar
GPA 98-1
EXHIBIT "A"
The Diamond Bar General Plan, Land Use Element, Objective 1. 5, Strategy 1. 5.3 is
amended to read as follows:
"Land designated as Open Space by deed (dedication, condition, covenant,
and/or restriction), by open space easement (CGC Section 51070 et seq.) or
by map restriction (explicit or previous subdivision) must comply with an
established review and decision making process prior to the recision,
termination, abandonment and/or removal of an open space dedication
easement and/or restriction.
Any decision to rescind, terminate, abandon, remove or modify a deed
must be supported by findings that the decision is of significant benefit to
the City.
(a) Vacant land which deed is burdened by an open space dedication,
condition, covenant and or restriction shall be required to be
subject to the abandonment process substantially similar to that
which is set forth in CGC Section 51090 et seq.
(b) vacant land which is burdened by an open space easement pursuant
to CGC Section 51070 et seq. shall be required to be subject to the
abandonment process set forth in CGC Section 51090 et seq.
(c) Vacant land which is burdened by an explicit open space
designation delineated upon a map which was the result of a
previous subdivision approval shall be required to be subjected to at
least one public hearing before the City Council prior to any action
to remove said restriction.
A decision to rescind, terminate, abandon, remove or modify an open
space deed, map restriction or OS land use designation must be preceded
by both a finding by the City Council that the decision confers a
significant benefit on the City and a favorable vote of the electorate at a
regular or special election."
4
JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 5
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. General Plan Amendment No. 93-1 is a request to amend Objective No. 1.5, Strategy 1.5.3,
page I-15 of the City's General Plan. The requested amendment proposes to insert the
following language into the said Objective Strategy.
"Any decision to rescind, terininate, abandon, remove or modify a deed must be
supported by findings that the decision is of significant benefit
to the City and the matter must be submitted as a ballot
measure to the registered voters of Diamond Bar at an
election; whereat a majority of those voting must vote in the
affirmative on the ballot measure."
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide
APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
DCM/DeStefano presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
open the public hearing, receive testimony and recommend City Council approval of General
Plan Amendment No. 98-1.
C/Ruzicka stated that he believes development is one of the more obvious reasons for
requesting the lifting of map and deed restrictions. What other reasons are there for lifting
map and deed restrictions?
DCM/DeStefano responded that he is not aware of a reason for requesting a restriction to be
modified or removed unless it had something to do with development.
Chair/Ruzicka asked whether the lifting of restrictions would be considered for expansion of
a park or some other recreational use.
DCM/DeSt&w indicated that restrictions would probably not effect a proposal for a passive
park, nature trails, etcand neither would they impact a proposal for an active park.
However, they may effect other types of recreational use.
C/Nelson asked how, if this General Plan Amendment was approved, the City may have
exposure to litigation or some other type of conflict.
DCM/DeStefano stated that the City Attorney has not indicated he is concerned that the
proposed language would provide an opportunity for inverse or some other taking issue.
Whether or not someone wishes to litigate is their choice.
JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 6
CJNelson asked what effect this amendment would have on the proposal to place a civic
center up near Summiuidge Park which he believes falls within designated open space at
Grand Avenue and Summitridge Drive.
DCM/DeStefiasm stated it depends on where a civic center/community center type facility
might be located. Summitridge Park is dedicated Parkland which has a different kind of
"restric tiW placed on it. He said he does not believe that the diffiGrent type of restriction or
issue would be impacted by a proposal to build a facility at that location. It might be an issue
if the City .attempted to build such a Salty on one of the ridges adjacent to Summitridge Park
that would be a part of the SunCal dedication to the City.
C/Nelson stated that a newspaper article referred to the building of a civic center/community
center at the immediate northwest intersection of Grand Avenue and Summitridge Drive
which obviously cannot occur because it is on top of Summitridge Park He said he does not
believe that the community would tolerate giving up part of its parkland. Therefore, it would
have to be some other portion of land which is dedicated open space and he is asking it by
approving this anraadmeirt, the City is painting itself into a corner to prevent a citywide vote
to place the civic center in that location.
DCM/DeStefano said he does not believe that this amendment would jeopardize the ability
to place such a facility within open space deeded/designated property. The physical
characteristics of the SunCal property in that area may not lend themselves to the kind of
facility that is being discussed. Whatever has been written or said about Summitridge Park
as a candidate for such a facility is speculation at this point on the part of the writer. The City
Council appointed a task force to look at amenities, size and location of a proposed facility.
The task force will conclude its investigation and recommendation in June, 1999. The
proposed facility could be situated at any number of locations within the City of Diamond
Bar. There will no doubt be debate on the merits of any location that is ultimately selected.
With respect to Summitridge Park, the area within the park grounds that would appear to be
a candidate is the area north of the ball fields and north of the long driveway into the park off
of Summitridge Drive at the end of the concrete walkway leading up to the peak of the park.
From an engineering perspective, it is feasible to reduce the peak/ridge down and fill a two
acre area just slightly north of that location. Presently, there is a grassy volleyball facft at
that location. It is poaable to cut and fill in order to create about seven (7) Bat acres for
development. Such an undertaking is not without cost and environmental impacts.
VC/Tye asked if it is correct that if a year ago this matter was before the City Council and the
amendment was forwarded to City Council for approval and they approved the amendment,
there still would have been no impact on the SunCal matter because the SunCal project did
not involve open space.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the SunCal property was not restricted as open space. In
addition, it was a Vesting Tentative Map which would not, in his estimation, have been
subjected to this issue.
JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 7
VMye asked if the following scenario would require a vote of the people: If the City is
deeded property from the SunCal project and the City Council, at some point in the future,
determines that it would be a good idea to sell the property for development and use. those
fiords for developing a community center, building a library, etc.
DCM/DeSte fano responded that a sale of the property may not trigger this event. However,
a proposed re -use of the property from open space may trigger this circumstance.
VC/Tye asked why the references within the proposed wording are to "deed" when Strategy
1.5.3 talks about land designated as open space by deed, easement or mag restriction?
DCM/DeStefano indicated that the language suggested adds to the section that describes a
deed only. However, the entire strategy discusses all three elements. He said he is unable to
directly answer VC/Tye's question because there was no discussion of this matter at the City
Coumcl level. ffthe Commission has questions about the wording staff will pursue the matter
and provide an explanation.
C/Rumcka asked if the Commission could assume that the Council intended to include all
three elements.
DCM/DeStefano responded that he believes it would be more appropriate for the Commission
to make a definitive recommendation so that the Commission's action points out that it wishes
all three elements to be addressed. He said he does not believe that the Commission should
assume that the Council intended to include all three items.
VC/Tye said that if he had property that may be effected by this amendment he would be
present to participate in the discussion. He asked if the Commission can imply from the fact
that no audience members are present that this matter is of little concern to the public.
DCM/DeStefano stated that it is difficult for him to surmise the intentions of the interested
parties. He said that staff notified those persons who might be most directly effected.
VC/Tye gave the following example. If "The Country Estates" had 150 acres designated as
park and the association members decided that they wanted to develop 30 acres and leave the
rernauiing 120 acres as open space. If the General Plan is amended, would that circumstance
have to be put to a vote of the general community?
Chair/McManus stated that the development of "The Country Estates" impacts the entire
City.
C/Nelson said that VC/Tye's question raises an issue that concerns him He indicated he can
envision many scenarios, one of which is that there may be a group of individuals that wants
to go into open space to develop active parklands. He said he believes this is a very real
poas<bility and he so stated during the SunCal deliberations. People are not going to buy
natural open space. And yet there may be a voting contingency that wants natural open space
JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 8
and the rust of the citizens who do not care about natural open space do not show up to vote.
Conversely, the opposite can occur. He said that it scares him to put it out to a political
process to where small active special interest groups can get together where the minority out
votes the majority simply because the majority is uninformed or unconcerned.
DCM/DeStefiw reiterated that he does not believe that passive open space issues would
trigger a vote but he was not certain about whether active open spaces would trigger a vote.
He said he is not prepared to answer questions about the implementation of the details at this
point in time. He recalls that the open space area contained within "The Country Estates" is
not designated by map reaction as open space. It is designated prohibiting the construction
of residential buildings. "The Country Estates" would still need to come to the City for
removal of that restriction, but it is not open space restriction and would not be impacted by
Strategy 1.5.3. The removal of that type of restriction is discussed in Strategy 1.5.4.
DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/McManus that the Commission's action will be
forwarded to the City Council. The matter would not come back to the Commission unless
there was fiirther direction from the Council or unless the Council sought to incorporate
issues that were not contained within the Commission's recommendation.
Responding to C/Kuo, DCM/DeStefano stated that cities referred to in staffs report include
the City of Napa and its County where they have designated areas of the community which
require an election for consideration of nearly any type of development. The City of Cypress
contains industrial areas that require an election for modification to that land use. Several
cities in San Diego County and in Central and Northern California have ballot initiatives to
consider insertion of this type of language due to growth control issues in those areas.
C/Kuo asked if there is a trend of other cities and counties to adopt this type of amendment.
DCMMeStefano stated he does not believe there is a trend to adopt such an amendment but
rather a reaction to growth policies that are not deemed to be appropriate for those
communities. He said he believes it is unusual for a local government to initiate such a
provision.
C/Kuo asked if staff is aware of any probkms encountered by communities and counties that
have adopted this type of amendment.
DCM/DeStefano indicated he does not have a good historical record of what has been done
in other communities. Almost every election speaks to issues in this arena.
C/Nelson asked why staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendment.
DCM/DeStefano responded that staff is recommending approval because it is an issue that
the City Council wishes to entertain and it is reflective of concerns expressed by some
residents through the SunCal process that open space land that would be dedicated to the City
would be turned for profit to another developer and they view this amendment as a means to
JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 9
mitigate that concern Furthermore, the proposed amendment is reflective of issues that were
raised in the 19% Initiative General Plan. This matter was discussed throughout all of the
versions of the General Plan from 1991 forward. It seems to be reasonable to bring the
matter forward for the City Council to ultimately conclude. Therefore, staff is recommending
Approval to move the matter forward and allow the elected members to make the ultimate
decision.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing
There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/McManus closed the
public hearing.
DCM/DeStefano indicated to C/Kuo that consideration of this General Plan Amendment
requires a public hearing before the City Council.
C/ mcka summarized that tonight's discussion has indicated that the Commissioners believe
in the elected officials and their good intentions of considering an amendment such as this to
the City's General Plan. However, he hopes that Council Members will take into account
some of the very valid concerns that have been expressed during this discussion.
VC/Tye concurred with C/Ruzicka that he has faith in the reasonable intentions of the present
City Council Members. However, he is concerned about four and eight years from now. He
wants to know if this is impacting few parcels and if so, is this a change for the sake of
change?
C/Ruzicka reiterated each Commissioner's concerns and said he believes that valid concerns
have been expressed during this discussion. He hopes that the elected representatives will
note the concerns expressed during their deliberations.
Chair/McManus stated he believes the Commissioners would like to see open space remain
open space - something between the, c urrent General Plan and Measure D.
DCM/DeStefano stated that Measure D was much more restrictive in that it required voter
approval for specific areas, specific land uses, and subdivisions. This amendment focuses on
open space designated map and easement restricted properties. From that standpoint it is
much less restrictive upon the entire community.
Cftk=cka moved, VC/Tye seconded, to continued the matter to January 26, 1999 and asked
staff to provide answers to issues of concerns including what are the reasons why map and
deed restrictions are asked for except for the obvious reason of home development and why
asement and man restriction is not included with deed restriction. Motion carried by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: CO)VMSSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ru zicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus
NOES: CONOMSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
JANUARY 26, 1999
PAGE 2
A draft wireless teleco 'cation facilities ordinance been prepared for the Planning
Commission's N approved by the City the wireless telecommunication
facilities ordinance ' be incorporated into the ado Development Code, Article III,
Section 42.130. ed
22.from January 12, 1999. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission reopen the public hearing and cone this matter to February 9, 1999.
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide
APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ,
hairmcManus reopened the p lic hearing.
There was no one present w o wished to speak on this matter.
C/Nelson moved, GRuacka seconded, to continue the pu c hearing for the Wireless
T mmimication FAcififies, Ordinance to February 9, Motion carried by the
following Roll Call
AYES:CO SIONERS: Kuo, New 'cka, VC/Tye, Chair/McMamus
NOES: CO 3IONERS: None
ABSENT: ONOMSIONERS: None
2. General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 is a request to amend Objective No. 1.5, Strategy 1.5.3,
page I-15 of the City's General Plan. The requested amendment proposes to insert the
following language into the said Objective Strategy.
"Any decision to rescind, terminate, abandon, remove or modify a deed must be
supported by findings that the decision is of significant benefit to the City and the
matter mast be wed as a ballot measure to the registered voters of Diamond Bar
at an election; whereat a majority of those voting must vote in the affirmative on the
ballot meaaue."
Con inued from January 12, 1999.
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide
APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
DCM/DeStefano presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
reopen the public hearing, receive public testimony, discuss the proposed General Plan
JANUARY 26, 1999 PAGE 3
Amendment, and adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 98-1.
In response to a question mired at the January 12, 1999 meeting, DCMMeStefm►o stated that
staff does not bdwve that there a a reason other than development for which a lifting of map
and deed restriction might be requested. With respect to the kinds of uses that could be
developed within the open space areas, he pointed out that the general definition of open
space as described within the General Plan is included in the Commissioners' packets. This
definition is the guide for what may or may not octan within open space areas. With respect
to why this amendment is being proposed, he stated that this issue was raised by a member
of the City Council with concurrence from the City Council Members to refer the matter to
the Planning Commission for discussion of its merits and to provide a recommendation to the
City Council. The intent of the amendment is to provide more permanence and security to
the public regarding open space properties and whether or not subsequent City Councils may
attempt to modify the will of the people and attempt to approve project through the removal
of map and deed restrictions or easements on open space properties. By taking this type of
land use request to the voters it allows the voting. public to directly participate in these issues.
In addition, it is a measure that would send a message to landowners or potential land
developers that such a request would require a statement of significant benefit in order to gain
public approval. Such a process would place a level of uncertainty to the applicant as well
as, add to his/her burden and length of time and cost involved in transforming an open space
designated property to some other land use. The City Council commented that this
amendment would help to insure that the Council, as stewards of the public trust, would be
able to provide an additional opportunity to secure open spaces for a significant period of
time in the future.
DCM/DeStefano responded to VC/Tye that the response to his question of January 12
regarding "The Country Estates" property being map restricted to open space was correct -
that it is not map restricted to open space. It has map restrictions that prohibit the
construction of residential buildings. On January 12 the subject was subdivision map
restrictions. Tonight we have added the General Plan Land Use Map. The property is
designated through the General Plan's Land Use Map as Open Space.
VC/Tye asked if the following scenario would. be subjected to the vote of the people: Certain
park expansion and/or development of an pasting park such as Summitridge Park to include
a ballSeld or trails element.
DCW36tefano responded that VC/Tye's example would first be subjected to an
examination as to whether or not it is inconsistent with the Open Space designation. If it is
deemed to be inconsistent with the designation and the approved uses within the designation
it would trigger a change which would require a vote of the people.
VC/Tye asked how many parcels are subject to this amendment.
JANUARY 26, 1999
PAGE 4
DCM/DeStefano stated that the items listed on Page 4 of staffs report are the properties that
would be subject to this amendment.
VGTye asked how a future City Council could delete this amendment.
DCMMeStefino responded that if the Plamring Commission may wish to consider language
regarding such a provision to the proposed amendment such as, "the removal of such
language would require a vote of the people", or remain silent on the issue.
C/Runcka said he concurs with VGTye's concern regarding removal of this amendment by
a future City Council. He said he is concerned that because such a small portion of the
registered voters participate in elections, that special interest groups may prevail in these
matters.
C/Nelson said he expressed the same concern regarding special interest groups at the January
12, 1999 meeting. Since considering the matter, it occurs to !rim that the same concern would
apply to any panel or committee of five people. Therefore, he no longer has the concern and
will trust the public to render its decision
C/Ruzicka said he believes it is good that the Commission has discussed the matter and placed
their concerns in the minutes.
Chair/McManus reopened the pubic hearing.
There being no one who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the public
hearing.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to adopt a resolution recommending City Council
approval of General Plan Amendment No. 98-1. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COMIVIISSIONER& Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus
NOES: COhORSSIONER.S: None
ABSENT: CON NUSSIONERS: None
1. DE Ly
NT REVIEW O.98 -1S (pursuant to Section 22.72.020) is a request
to cotwo-story office of approximately 56, square feet on a vacant lot
within Corporate Center.
PROPERTY RESS: 2 1 83P E. Copley Drive
(Lot of Tract No. 39679)
Diamond,8ar. CA 91765
76TS-sly
317-
i�]z1�7:
:iw_1�11
Mal
r
0041',
Ak
City of Pomona
Ik,Osel C tps"o- ?,d
C i ty of Industry
N
RL
RL
•
as �
�l
r RR ® RL RL RL
W4/SP
� a02
05 05
pathf%n
" day R
OS
Q
tl OS 3
RR
V'9�e
City of Chino Hills
1 RR Rural Residential (max. 1 du/ocre)
RL Low Density Residential (max. 3 du/acre)
RLM Low—Medium Residential (max. 5 du/acre)
RM Medium Density Residential (max. 12 du/acre)
IRMH Medium High Density Residential (max. 16 du/acre)
IRH High Density Residential (max. 20 du/acre)
IC General Commercial (max. 1.0 FAR)
CO Commercial/Office (max. 1.0 FAR)
OP Professional Office (max. 1.0 FAR)
II Light industrial (max. 1.0 FAR)
PF Public Facility
W Water
3 F Fire
�:r.1► Ci�l� �►1\I
PR Private Recreation
AG Agriculture (max. I du/5 acres)
$P Specific Pion Overlay
PA Planning Area
^` City Boundary
/ Sphere of Influence
eV Significant Ecological Area
o HiIIs
GENERAL PL/
LAND USE M
ADOPTED - July 25,195
scale
0 1900' 3600' 1
Figu
S School
PK Park
®
GC Golf Course
OS Open Space
PR Private Recreation
AG Agriculture (max. I du/5 acres)
$P Specific Pion Overlay
PA Planning Area
^` City Boundary
/ Sphere of Influence
eV Significant Ecological Area
o HiIIs
GENERAL PL/
LAND USE M
ADOPTED - July 25,195
scale
0 1900' 3600' 1
Figu
CITY OF DIAMOND RAIZ
AGENDA REPORT �
AGENDA NO. _L2'
TO Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999 REPORT DATE: February 25, 1999
FROM: Torrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: ORDINANCE NO. XX (1999): An Ordinance of the City of Diamond Bar Adopting
an Aniandmesit to Title 22 of the Disa and Bar Moaicipal Code to Incorporate
Development Standards for Radio, Television and Wigs Telecommunicatim
Facilities. Case No. ZCA 98-2
SUMMARY:
The City Counal established a Telecommunications Task Force to review issues related to the siting
and design of te>leconi nunications facilities. The Task Force coed its work in October 1998.
In November 1998 the City Camel received a report from the Task Force outlining its findings and
recommendations. The Draft Ordinance estaWnhes new standards and criteria for the placement of
radio, television, and wireless, facilities within comicial, industrial and, under
certain conditions, residential zones. The Planning Canmisaon concluded its review of the
Ordinance on February 9, 1999, and recommends its adoption. On February 16, 1999, the
City Council opened the public hearing, received public testimony and continued its discussion to
March 2, 1999.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from the staff, reopen the public
hearing, close the public hearing, approve and adopt, by urgency, Ordinance No. XX (1999).
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: Task Force Members
SUBMITTAL CHECNIUST:
1.
Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X
Yes
No
by the City Attorney?
2.
Does the report require a majority vote? 4/5th Required
Yes
No
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed? X
Yes
No
4.
Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X
Yes
No
Which Commission? Planning Ces emission
5.
Are other departments affected by the report?
Yes
X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED
^ BY:
4 J�
Terre L. Belang I DeStetagi
City Manager Deputy City
City Council Report
Agenda No. _
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. XX (1999): An Ordinance of the
City of Diamond Bar Adopting an Amendment to Title
22 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code to Incorporate
Development Standards for Radio, Television and
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Case No. ZCA
98-2
BACKGROUND:
The City Council established a Telecommunications Task Force to review issues related to
the siting and design of telecommunications facilities. The Task Force completed its work
in October 1998. In November 1998 the City Council received a report from the Task
Force outlining its findings and recommendations. The Draft Ordinance establishes new
standards and criteria for the placement of radio, television and wireless telecommunication
facilities within commercial, industrial and, under certain conditions, residential zones.
The Planning Commission concluded its review of the Ordinance on February 9, 1999 and
recommends its adoption. On February 16, 1999 the City Council opened the public
hearing, received public testimony and continued its discussion to March 2, 1999.
DISCUSSION:
The City Council enacted a moratorium on the placement of telecommunications facilities
in July 15, 1997 in response to growing concerns regarding the siting and design of
telecommunication facilities within the City. The moratorium is scheduled to expire on
July 17, 1999.
The Draft Ordinance sets forth standards for the placement of radio, television and wireless
telecommunication facilities. The most common radio and television antennas are
permitted accessory uses subject to certain limitations. Amateur radio station antennas
require the approval of a conditional use permit in order to address the unique features of
each proposed installation. Wireless telecommunication devices are permitted within
office, commercial and industrial zoning districts and upon locations identified on the City
Telecommunications Facilities Opportunities Map. Facilities are permitted within
residential zones when placed upon churches, water tanks and public property. The Task
Force and Planning Commission outlined standards for siting, design and review of such
facilities. Generally, the facilities must be designed to architecturally integrate into the
surrounding environment. Concealed antennas are preferred over freestanding facilities.
Devices must be screened from view and incorporate setback distances from residential
land uses. Advance planning for the co -location of facilities is strongly encouraged.
The attached Draft Ordinance represents new text to replace Section 22.42.130 of the
Development Code. In addition, minor revisions to the Development Code Table of
Contents, Tables contained within Article 11(Zoning Districts and Allowable Land Uses),
and Article VI (Development Code Definitions) will be necessary as outlined within the
Ordinance No. XX (1999).
At the February 16, 1999 public hearing, the City Council received a request by a
representative of Air Touch Cellular to utilize existing Southern California Edison lattice
towers as potential cell sites. On February 22, 1999 the staff reviewed a proposal by
Edison representatives to use Edison towers and street light poles for wireless
communication devices. A copy of the Edison presentation is attached for . your
information.
Nextel Communications has requested a lifting of the moratorium in order to begin
processing permit applications for two proposed devices. Staff is aware of interest by other
providers of wireless service to submit applications for facilities. In addition, staff has been
contacted by a resident regarding a request to install an amateur radio station antenna.
Staff has incorporated language to adopt Ordinance No. XX (1999), by urgency, pursuant
to the provisions contained within Government Code Section 36937. The current
moratorium is not scheduled to expire until July 17, 1999 or upon the effective date of a
new telecommunications ordinance, whichever is sooner. Should the City Council approve
first reading of an Ordinance on March 2, 1999, the effective date of such action would be
April 16, 1999. The City is prohibited from receiving applications for such facilities
captured by the moratorium until the new ordinance is effective or the moratorium expires.
In order to adopt the urgency ordinance the City Council must find by, a 4/5th vote that
such action is necessary to protect the public's peace, health or safety.
The Staff has modified the attached Draft Ordinance with minor corrections in response
to comments received from the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act the City prepared
and adopted Negative Declaration No. 97-3 which addressed the environmental impacts
associated with the adoption of the Development Code. As described within Section 15162
of the Guidelines, no finther environmental review is required as the proposed project is
consistent with the analysis and conclusions contained within the previously adopted
environmental document.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:
Notification of the proposed ordinance was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune
and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on January 4, 1999. In addition, notice of the City
Council public hearing, the staff report and Draft Ordinance was provided to the Task
Force Members and other interested parties on record.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive a staff presentation, reopen the public
hearing, close the public hearing, approve and adopt, by urgency, Ordinance No. XX
(1999).
Attachments:
1. Draft Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance, dated February 25, 1999.
2. Letter from Nextel Communications, dated February 16, 1999.
3. Wireless Telecommunication Opportunities Report from Southern California Edison,
dated February 22, 1999.
dbm
SECTION 22.42.130 - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
RADIO AND TELEVISION ANTENNAS AND WIRELESS
TELECOIIAMUNICATIONS ANTENNA FACILITIES
22.42.130 - Purpose and Applicability
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish development standards and land use
controls for the installation and maintenance of radio and television uteruzas, including
amateur radio station aatesnaa, and wireless antenna ficilities within
specified land use sones of the City. These standards and controls are intended to ensure
that the dee w and location of those aeras and related SWSUN are corsista t with
previously adopted pokes of the City, as set forth in the General Plan, to guide the
orderly devel� of the comity, to promote the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience, and general vWfive of the City's residents, to protect property values, and
to enhance the sesthatic appearance of the City by mairdsinh* and and structural
integrity and by protecting views from obtrusive and unsightly accessory uses and
facilities.
The City Council expressly finds and determines that these regulatory requirements
relating to a conditional use pit are necessary, desirable, and in the best interests of
the corruY mty is aider to protect public henelth, welfi n and safety, to promote ae wuc
objectives, and to ssa ftsm property vakm. The City Council further funds and
determines that these regulatory requirements are applicable only to the proposed
installation of satellite earth station araeonnas that are not pwmitted accessory uses and
that do not meat dere asteria Son ee mWbon from local regulation established by the FCC
under the Telecomizzinicatiom Act of 1996.
B. Applicability. The standards of this section apply to all earth ststion antennas, amateur
radio station antennas, and wireless telecarrumunications antenna facilities.
C. Satellite Earth Station Antenna Regulation. The regulatory provisions of this
paragraph are applicable to all satellite earth station antennas within the City that are
installed or modified atter the effective date of this section.
1. Permitted Accessory Uses. Satellite earth station antennas described below in this
subsection may be installed as permitted accessory uses without obtaining either a
conditional use permit or a building permit, provided that they comply with all
applicable development standards set forth in paragraph D ("Development
Standards'), as well as all applicable building codes, electrical codes, and fire codes:
Di.mmd BW Dovetgm" Cade
Febmwy 25,1999
Radio and Television Antennas and Wiroless Telecommunications FacHities
a. An antenna located m any zoning district that is designed to receive direct
broadcast satellite service, including direct -to -home satellite services, that is one
meter (Int) [39"] or less in diameter and that is either building -mounted or if
elevated by a mast, does not extend above the roofline.
b. An antenna that is designed to receive video programming services and that is
located in any zoning district where commercial or industrial uses are generally
permitted, which antenna is two meters (2m) [6.51 or less in diameter and is either
building -mounted or, if elevated by a mast, does not extend above the roofline.
c. An antenna located in any zoning district that is designed to receive video
programming services by mums of multipoint distribution services, including
multichannel multipoint distribution services, which antenna is one meter (lm)
[39"] or loss in diameter or diagonal measurement and which is either building -
mounted or, if elevated by a mast, does not extend above the roofim.
d. An antenna located in any zoning district that is designed solely to receive
television broadcast signals, which antenna, whether building mounted or ground -
mounted, does not extend above the roofime.
D. Satellite Earth Station Antenna Development Standards
1. City-wide Standards. The following development standards apply in all zoning
districts to the siting„ cooaructmi, and operation of all satellite earth station antemmis,
including those that require the issuance of a conditional use permit and the issuance
of a building permit, as provided for in paragraph E.
a. The height of a ground -mounted satellite earth station antenna may not extend
above the roofline.
b. No satellite earth station antenna may be installed in any zoning district if it will
impede normal vehicular or pedestrian cimulation, or ingress to, or egress from
any buildin& structure, or parking f "ity
c. Satellite earth station antennas, whether ground -mounted or building -mounted,
including any guy -wires, masts, and accessory equipment, must be located and
designed so as to mitigate adverse visual impacts from adjacent properties and
from public streets, which mitigation may involve screening by means of
landscaping or the addition of new architectural elements that are compatible with
the design of adjacent buildings. The Director may modify this screening
requirement if the antenna's reception is impaired.
Dimmed Ha Dev bpm et cos.
Fdmwy 25,19" 2
Radio and Television Antennas and Wireless Telecwminications Facilities
d. Satellite earth station antennas must be finished in a non-metallic finish or painted
in a color that is c 4mitible with the surrounding environment.
e. Any mast that will be used to elevate a satellite earth station antenna must be
constructed of noncombustible and corrosive -resistant materials.
f. All satellite earth station antennas must be installed with adequate ground wire to
protect against a direct strike of lightning. The ground wire must be of a type
approved by the electrical code for grounding masts and lightning arrestors.
g. All satellite earth station antennas must be located away from utility lines by a four
meter (4m) [ 131 vatical distance and a two meter (21n) [6.51 horizontal distance.
Any mast that will be used to elevate a satellite earth station antenna must be
secured by a separate safety wire in a direction away from adjacent power lines
or other potential hazards.
h. To the extent feasible, all cables, wires, or similar electrical transmission devices
that connect with a satellite earth station antenna must be placed underground.
i. If footings are required for the installation of a satellite earth station antenna,
engineering calculations for those footings must be signed by a licensed structural
or civil engineer.
j. All connectors on a satellite earth station antenna, and on any mast to be used for
elevation, must be capable of sustaining a wind -load of at least nine kilograms
(9kg) [201b].
k. No satellite earth station antenna, nor any of its component parts or accessory
facilities, may encroach into the public right-of-way unless that encroachment is
authorized by the City Engineer as provided for in this Code.
1. All satellite earth station antennas must be properly maintained.
2. Residential Standards. In addition to the development standards set forth above in
subsection 1, the following d-wdopment standards apply in all residential zones to the
siting, construction, and operation of satellite earth station antennas:
a. No satellite earth station antenna may be mounted on the roof of a building.
ni.umd Bw De"kpuW Code
February 25, 1999
Radio and Television Antennas and Wireless TsleconvTwnications Facilities
b. The height of a ground -mounted satellite earth station antenna may not extend
above the roofline.
c. Satellite earth station may not exceed three meters (3m) [ 10] in diameter.*
d. A satellite earth station antenna that is ground -mounted must be located in the
side yard or rear yard and at least two meters (2m) [6.5'] from any property line.
3. Nonresidential standards. In addition to the development standards set forth above
in subsection 1, the following development standards apply in all nonresidential zones
to the siting, construction, and operation of satellite earth station antennas:
a. All ground -mounted satellite earth station antennas must be located at least one
and one half meters (1.5m) [5'] from any property line.
b. No ground -mounted satellite earth station antenna may be located in the area
between the front property fine and the main building or structure.
c. If roof -mourned, a satellite earth station antenna must not extend more than two
meters (2m) [6.5'] above the roofline, and must either be affixed to a flat portion
of the roof structure having parapets, or it must be integrated with the
architectural design of the building in accordance with a plan that is approved by
the Director.
d. The height of a ground -mounted satellite earth station antenna may not extend
above the roofline.
E. Satellite Earth Station Antenna Conditional Use Permit
if a proposed satellite earth station antenna will exceed the applicable height limitations
referenced above in subparagraphs (a) through (d) of paragraph C(l) (Permitted
Accessory uses'), or if the diameter or diagonal measurement of the proposed satellite
earth station antenna exceeds the one or two meter limitation specified in
subparagraphs (a) through (c) of paragraph C(l) ("Permitted Accessory Uses"), then
an application for a conditional use permit must be submitted in accordance with
Chapter 22.58 and, if the application is approved, a building permit must be obtained.
n;.nma Ba nevokpa c care
F&nwy 2s, t999 4
Radio and Television Antennas and Wireless Teleconwnunications Facilities
2. In addition to the requirements set forth in Chapter 22.58, the application for a
conditional use permit must include the following:
a. Construction drawings that show the proposed method of installation, screening,
and the manufacturer's specifications.
b. A plot plan showing the proposed location of the satellite earth station antenna.
c. Engineering data evidencing that the satellite earth station antenna will be in
compliance with all structural requirements of the Building Code.
F. Amateur Radio Station Antenna Regulation
1. Conditional Use Permit Required. The proposed installation of an amateur radio
station antenna in any zoning district must be preceded by an application for a
conditional use permit in accordance with Chapter 22.58 and, if the application is
approved, a building permit must be obtained.
2. Application Requirements. In addition to the requirements set forth in Chapter
22.58, the application for a conditional use permit must include the items set forth
above in paragraph E(3), and colues of all licenses issued to the applicant by the FCC
to engage in amateur radio service operations and to use the site as an amateur radio
station.
3. Review Factors. In conducting the conditional use permit review process for a
proposed amateur radio station antenna, the reviewing authority must consider the
following factors:
a. The proposed height of the amateur radio station antenna, and the applicant's
representations as to the technological neceWty of that height to engage in
amateur radio service operations of the nature contemplated.
b. Proximity of the proposed amateur radio station antenna to inhabited buildings
and structures.
c. The nature of existing uses on adjacent and nearby properties.
d. Surrounding topography, tree coverage, and foliage, and their effect on the
proposed height of the amateur radio station antenna.
Dimmed iw Damopmat Cade 5
Fabnry 25,1999
Radio and Television Antennas and Winless Teleconvnunications Facilities
e. Design of the proposed amateur radio station antenna, with particular reference
to design Features that provide for retraction of the antenna when not in use and
design feaarres that may reduce or eliminate visual obtrusiveness, particularly in
or adjacent to residential zones.
4. Guidelines. In making any determination during the conditional use permit review
process to deny or to condition the application for an amateur radio station antenna,
the reviewing authority must adhere to the following guidelines:
a. The imposition of conations or restrictions relating to the placement, screening,
or height of a proposed amateur radio station antenna, which conditions or
restrictions are based upon protection of the public health, welfilre, and safety,
aesthetic considerations, or the preservation of property values, must be
considered on a came,*_case basis, taking into account the unique features of the
proposed site, the factors specified above in subsection (3), and the reasonable
accommodation required under subparagraph (b) below.
b. The conditional use permit review process must be conducted so as to (1)
reasonably accommodate the paramount federal interest in promoting amateur
radio communize as voluntary, noncommercial communications services,
particularly with romped to anergericy communications; and (2) impose the
mininulrn practical restrjctions, licuitstions, and conditions in order to achieve the
City's legitimate regulatory objectives.
G. Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Facility Approval Process
1. Applicability. The regulatory provisions of this paragraph G are applicable to all
wireless telecommunications antenna facilities within the City that are installed or
modified afka the effective date of this section, including all facilities for which
previously issued building permits have aspired. All &Clhb= for which applications
were submitted and deemed to be complete prior to the effective date of this section
are exempt from these regulatory provisions.
2. Administrative Review. A wireless telecommunications antenna facility may be
authorized under an administrative review conducted by the Director. The
application for eve review must include the information required by
subparagraphs (a) through (i) of paragraph G(S) as applicable. The Director must
consider the factors set forth in paragraph G(6) and must determine that the facility
complies with the following requirennents:
>i.mma iw ivv*kVWAd code 6
Fdmuwy 23,1999
Radio and Television Antennas and Wireless TdecomnWr ications Facilities
a. Concealed Antennas. Concealed antennas must be architecturally u tegrated with
a building or structure so as not to be recognized as an antenna.
b. Height and Screening. Building or roof -mounted antennas must not exceed four
and one half meters (4.5m) [15'] in height and must be screened from view.
c. Minor Addition/Modification. The Director may approve the following: Up
to two (2) additional ornumbrectional (whip) antennas not to exceed four and one
half meters (4.5m) [151] in height; the reconfiguration or alteration of existing
antennas on a single support structure; or the addition of a single dish under one
meter (1m) [39"] in diameter to an existing freestanding antenna structure (i.e.
monopole). The physical area of the reconfigured or altered antenna shall not
exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the area of the antenna as originally approved.
d. Base Stations. Support equipment and base stations must be located within a
completely enclosed building or otherwise screened from view.
e. Wireless Telecommunications Antitenua Facility Sita. The facility must be
located in any of the following zone districts: OP, OB, CO, C-1, C-2, C-3, I or
as identified on the City Telecommunications Facilities Opportunities Map.
f. Freestanding Antenna Structures. No freestanding antenna support structures
may be authorized under an administrative review.
g. Development Standards. The facility must be located, constructed, and
maintained in accordance with all applicable development standards that are set
forth below in paragraph H ("Developawnt Stale u"').
3. Minor Conditional Use Permit. A wireless telecommunications antenna faelhtY may
be authorized under a minor conditional use permit issued by the Hearing Officer.
The application for a minor conditional use permit must include the information
required by subparagraphs (a) through 6) of paragraph G(5), as applicable. The
Hearing Officer must consider the factors set forth in paragraph G(6) and must
determine that the facility complies with the following requirements:
a. Narrative. The applicant must provide a written narrative describing why the
facility does not meet the criteria for an administrative review.
DWnood Ba rrv4opma t code
7
Fdxuwy 25,1999
Radio and Television Antennes and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
b. Location. The facility trust be located in any of the following zone districts: OP,
OB, CO, C-1, C-2, C-3, I, or as identified on the City Telecommunications
Facilities qW-twdliesMays.
c. Micro Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Facilities. The wireless
telecomawnications antenna facilities must be one half meter (0.5m) [19"] or less
in length and must be integrated with the architectural design and color of the
surrounding buildings or support structures, such as light standards, utility poles,
etc.
d. Freestanding Antenna Support Structure Setback. The setback for a
freestanding antenna support structure will be no less than fifteen meters (15m)
[50'], or the height of the antenna phis twenty percent (200/6), whichever is
greater, from any existing or future residential structure
e. Development Standards. The facility must be located, constricted, and
maintained in accordance with all applicable development standards that are set
forth below in paragraph H ("Development Standards").
4. Conditional Use Permit. All wireless telecommunications antenna facilities other
than those meeting the criteria for an administrative review approval or minor
conditional use permit specified above must be authorized by a coax1itional use permit.
These facilities may be located in any zone, provided that the facility is in compliance
with the following requirements:
a. Narrative. The applicant must provide a written narrative describing why the
facility does not meet the criteria for an administrative review or minor conditional
use permit.
b. Development Standards. The facility will be located, constructed, and
maintained in accordance with all applicable development standards that are set
forth below in paragraph H ("Development Standards").
S. Application. In addition to the information required by Section 22.5 8, the application
for an administrative review, minor conditional use permit, and a conditional use
permit must include the following:
a. Site Plan. A site plan, drawn to scale, showing the proposed location of the
wireless telecommunications antenna facility, the height of any existing or
proposed new support structure, accessory equipment facility, above and below
Di mmil By DrMop wed code
8
Fekuwy 25,1999
Radio and Television Antennas and Wireless Tslocomrnunications Facilities
ground wiring and connection caplet, existing or proposed easements on the
property, the height above ground of any antenna array, and the distance between
the antenna facility and any existing or proposed accessory equipment facility.
b. Narrative. A brief narrative accompanied by written documentation that
describes the applicant's efforts to locate the facility in accordance with the
factors set forth in paragraph 6(f) of this section.
c. Landscape plan. A landscaping plan for freestanding antenna support structures
showing the location and type of plant materials, landscape elements, and
associated irrigation system.
d. Master Plan. A master plan showing existing wireless telecommunications
antenna $uclities sites within the City that are owned or operated by the applicant
ami any proposed sites in the City that may be required for future area coverage.
The master plan shall be overlaid on the City Telecommunications Facilities
Opportunities MCIP. Proposed sites are not restricted to those shown on the
Telecommwticatio ns Facilities Opportunities.
e. Pbotographic Simulation. An exhlk ("photo-sim") showing how the completed
facility will appear when viewed by the public.
f. Engineering Documentation. Detailed engineering calculations for foundation
and wind loads, plus doc uiertation that the electromagnetic fields (EWS) from
the proposed wireless telecommunications antenna facility will be within the limits
approved by the FCC.
g. Environmental Assessment. A preliminary environmental assessment, with
spacial emphasis placed upon the nature and extent of visual impacts.
h. Licenus. Evidence of any required licenses and approvals to provide wireless
telecommunications services in the City.
i. Architectural Elevations. Applicants may be required to provide architectural
elevations showing the f ncility, as it will be viewed by the public.
j. Mock-up. Applicants may be required to erect full-scale "mock-ups" of their
proposed facilities.
n;. aa�newn cCO&
i
FA ury 25,1999
Radio and Television Antennas and Wireless Telecormmnicstions Facilities
6. Factors Considered in Approving Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Facilities.
In determining whether to issue an ads ve review approval, minor conditional use
permit,.or conditional use permit for a wireless Wwonmumations antenna fscility, the
reviewing authority must consider the following factors:
a. Environmental Integration. The extent to which the proposed facility blends
into the surrounding awironmal3t or is architecturally integrated into a concealing
structure, taking into consideration alternate sites that are available.
b. Screening. The extent to which the proposed facility is screened or camouflaged
by existing or proposed topography, vegetation, buildings. or other structures.
c. Size. The total size of the proposed facility, particularly in relation to surrounding
and supporting structures.
d. Residential Proximity. Proximity of the proposed facility to residential structures
and to boundaries of residential districts.
e. Access. Proposed ingress to and egress from the site of the proposed facility.
f. Location. The location of the proposed facility and the extent to which it
conforms to the following in order of preference (item 1 being the most
preferred):
(1) Co -located with an existing facility or located at a pre -approved location.
(2) Attached to an existing structure, such as a building, communication tower,
church steeple, or utility pole or tower.
(3) Located in an industrial/business park zoning district.
(4) Located in a commercial zoning district.
H. Development Standards
1. Architectural Integration. Antenna arrays on wireless telecommunications antenna
facilities that are proposed to be sited on an existing nonresidential building or support
structure must, to the extent feasible, be integrated with the architectural design and
color of that existing building or support structure.
Dimawd Br DevabpmeAt Code 10
February 25,1999
Radio and Television Antennas and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
2. Freesta"ing Antenna Structures. No new freestanding antenna structure will be
permitted unless the reviewing authority makes the additional finding that, based upon
evidence submitted by the applicant, no existing building or support structure can
reasonably aocomrrrodate the proposed wireless telecommunications aritenna facility.
Evidence supportimg this firing will be considered by the reviewing authority and
may consist of any of the following:
a. Location. No existing buildings or support structures are located within the
geographic area proposed to be served by the applicant's facility.
b. Structural Criteria. Existing buildings or support structures are not of sufficient
WSW or structural strength to meet the applicant's operational or engineering
requirements.
c. Interference. The applicant's proposed facility would create electromagnetic
interference with another fixity on an existing structure, or an existing antenna
array on an existing building or support structure would create interference with
the applicant's proposed antenna array.
d. Limiting Factors. There are other limiting factors that render existing buildings
and support structures unsuitable for use by the applicant.
e. Setback A new freestanding antenna structure that is to be located near a
residential use or the boundary of a residential zoning district must be set back
from the nearest residential lot line or boundary a distance that is at least equal to
the height of that structure plus twenty percent (20%).
f. Lattice Towers. The use of a lattice tower as a support structure for a wireless
telecommunications antenna facility is prohibited in all zoning districts.
g. Skyline. Freestanding antenna support structures shall be located downslope from
ridgelines so as not to impact significant public views of skylines.
3. Screening. If a new support structure for a facility will be visible from adjacent
residential properties or from major arterial streets, the reviewing authority may
require that the support structure be screened or camouflaged to mitigate adverse
visual impacts.
ni.ma ar nwaapond cone
Fahnory 25, 1999 11
Radio and Television Antennas and Wireless Talecommunicationa Facilities
4. Base Stations. Protective structures housing accessory equipment must not exceed
four meters (4m) [ 131 in height, must comply with all applicable setback
requiranwits, and must be screened fi un public view or be made compatible with the
color and architectural design of adjacent structures.
5. Undergrounding. All utilities and connection cables for a facility must be placed
underground or within a protective structure for accessory equipment.
6. Security. Where applicable, each facility site shall have a security program that
includes features such as fencing, anti -climbing devices, elevated ladders on towers,
and monitoring to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism.
7. Landscaping. Landscaping, or the use of existing trees or vegetation on a proposed
site, may be required for screening purposes, subject to such conditions as may be
imposed by the reviewing authority. All landscapes shall be maintained in a healthy
condition.
8. Fencing. Fencing shall be wrought iron or similar decorative material. Prohibited
fencing includes razor wire and barbwire. Chain link fencing shall be screened by
landscaping or topography, or both.
9. Finish. The exterior of a new wireless telecommunications antenna facility must have
a noncorrosive, nonmetallic finish that is not conducive to reflection or glare. The
support structure, the antenna array, and the accessory equipment facility must all be
painted or camouflaged to blend with surrounding materials and colors.
10. Lighting. Artificial lighting shall be limited to mandatory safety lighting required by
regulatory agencies possessing jurisdiction over wireless telecommunications antenna
facilities. Security lighting around the base of a tower may be provided if such lighting
does not adversely affect adjacent property owners.
11. Signage. The wireless telecommunications antenna facility shall not bear any signs or
advertising devices other than certification, warning, or other required seals or
required signage. Required signage shall be no higher than two and one half meters
(2.5m) [8']. A concealed wireless teleconlrnunications facility may bear signs or
advertising devices where such signs or devices are an integral part of the design of
the facility.
Dkmmd Ben Da"Iep and code
Fd muary25,1999 12
Radio and Television Antennas and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
12. Co -location Agreement. The applicant and the property owner must consent to the
future co -location of fieilities on the building or support structure to be used by the
applicant, unless technical considerations preclude that co -location.
L Maintenance and Cessation of Use. The following requirements apply to wireless
telecommunications anteauns facilities located on existing buildings or support structures
and on new support structures:
1. Maintenance. The site must be maintained in a condition free of trash, debris, refuse,
and undesirable vegetation. All graffiti must be removed within 72 hours.
2. Abandonment and Removal. If a support structure, or an antenna array affixed to
a building or to a support structure, becomes inoperable or ceases to be used for a
period of 6 consecutive mondo the permu tee must give written notice of such
inoperability or nonuse to the Director. The antenna array and, if applicable, the
support structure, misst be removed within a 94 -day period. If such removal does not
occur, the City may remove the antenna array and, if applicable, the support structure,
at the permittee's expense, provided, however, that if other antenna arrays owned or
operated by other service providers are affixed to the same support structure, then
only the antenna array that has become inoperable or has ceased to be used is required
to be removed, and the support structure may remain in place until all service
providers cease to use it. The permittee shall not be required to remove antenna
structures or support stnwturess that are architecturally concealed in a pre-existing
structure or are concealed as part of a new freestanding structure.
3. Bonding. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction or
modification of a wireless telecommunications facility, the applicant may be required
to provide to the City a bond or other approved security for the removal of the
facility, and any accessory equipment, if that Facility is abandoned or if the reviewing
authority revokes the use of that facility.
L Modifications to Existing Facilities
1. Modifications. Modifications to wireless telecommunications antenna facilities that
(i) were legally constructed prior to the effective date of this section, or (ii) are
constructed after the effective date of this section in accordance with a minor
conditional use permit or a conditional use permit, may be authorized by a minor
conditional use permit or by an amendment to a minor conditional use permit if those
proposed modifications comply with the following requirements:
MOMMIMMOMME
Dimmed Bar DrsvkWad CO&
13
Mruary 25,1999
Radio and Television Antennas and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
a. There will be no increase in the height of the support structure or the antenna
array.
b. Potential adverse visual impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent possible.
c. No required parking spaces will be eliminated as a result of the proposed
modifications.
2. Conditional Use Permit. All modifications to wireless telecommunications antenna
facilities that do not meet the criteria specified above in subsection 1 must be
authorized by a conditional use permit or by an amendment to a conditional use
permit.
K. Nonconforming Facilities. Any wireless telecommunications antenna fiicility that was
constructed in accordance with any ordinance or regulation of the City that preceded the
effective date of this section, and that becomes nonwm&nning due to noncompliance with
the development standards and other requirements set forth in this section, is subject to
the provisions of Chapter 22.68 of the Development Code, which is entitled
"Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Parcels."
L. Enforcement.
1. Inspection. All wireless telecommunications antenna facilities that are authorized by
an administrative review, manor conditional use permit, or a conditional use permit are
subject to periodic inspection by the City to determine whether they are in compliance
with all applicable provisions of this section.
2. Notice. Upon inspection, if any condition is discovered that may result in a danger to
life or property, the City will give written notice to the permittee or to the property
owner, or both, at their last known address, describing the dangerous condition and
demanding that said condition be corrected within a specified period of time, but not
later than ten (10) days after that notice.
3. Abatement and Permit Revocation. Failure to comply with any applicable
provision of this section, or with conditions imposed by a minor conditional use
permit or conditional use permit may constitute a public nuisance subject to immediate
abatement as well as grounds for revocation of that permit.
M. LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION. The applicant will defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless the City, its City Council, boards, commissions, agents, officers, and
employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding, arising out of or attributable to the
Dimond Bar DaNlopmet Coda
F&nwy zs. 1"9 14
Radio and Television Antennas and Wireless Telecorniminications Facilities
ownership or operation of any wireless telecommunications antenna facility that is
authorized under this Section, and any injury to persons or damages to property
proximately caused by any conduct undertaken by the applicant, its agents, employees,
or subcontractors.
DEFINITIONS
Amateur Radio Station Antenna
Any antenna, and its accompanying support structure, that is used solely for the purpose
Of transmitting And receiving radio signals in connection with the operation of an amateur
radio station in accordance with lice roes issued by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC).
Antenna
Any system of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs, or similar devices used for the
transmission or reception of electromagnetic waves.
Antenna Array
A group of antenna elements on the same geometric plane.
Antenna Height
The distance from the grade of the property at the base of the antenna or, in the case of a
roof -mounted antenna, from the grade at the exterior base of the building, to the highest
point of the antenna and its associated support structure when fully extended. The vertical
distance between the highest point of a parabolic antenna when actuated to its most
vertical position and the grade below, for a groundmounted parabolic antenna, and the
roof below for a rooftop parabolic antenna.
Antenna, Omnidirectional
Cylindrical shaped antenna, which transmits and receives in 360 degrees. This antenna
typically does not exceed nine centimeters (9cm) [3'/z"] in diameter and ranges from one
half meter (0.5m) [20"] to four and one half meters (4.5m) [15] in height. Also called
"stick antenna" and "whip antenna."
Antenna, Satellite Earth Station
A parabolic or dish -shaped antenna or any other apparatus or device that is designed for
the purpose of receiving radio waves.
Dim Bw r>wdopmiA coag
Fakuwy 25,1999 15
Radio and Television Antennas and Wireless Teleconw wroications Facilities
Antenna Structure
An antenna array and its associated support structure, such as a mast or tower, but not to
include a suspended wimple wire ate, that is used for the purpose of transmitting or
receiving electromagnetic signals, including but not limited to radio waves.
Antenna Structure, Freestanding
An antawa stnxture or miist that is not attached to a building, fence or similar structure.
Freestanding antenna abuctures inciude towers, wooden utility poles and
standard or decorative concrete and steel monopoles.
Antenna Structure, Lattice
Freestanding or guyed (wire ground connections) steel structure frame.
Base Station (Base Transceiver Station, BTS)
A fixed station at a specified site authorized to conuuunicate with mobile stations. Base
stations are usually housed in metal cell nU or small structures within close proximity to
the antenna structure, housing ancillary equipment and back-up power.
Co -location
1) Siting nailtiple antenna structures within the same local area. Also called "antenna
farms."
2) Multiple antennas attached to an existing or proposed freestanding antenna support
structure. Also called donor sites, and "piggy -backing."
3) Roof -mount amens (RMA) ariadsed to the top of a building or other structure.
4) Facade -mount in which the antenna is attached to (an) exterior wall(s) of a building or
other structure.
5) Enclosed in which the antenna facility is entirely contained within a building primarily
occupied by another permitted use. Types 3, 4, & 5 are tenant improvements (TI).
Concealed Antenna, Architecturally
Also called disguised, camouflaged or "stealth" antennas. These antennas are blended into
the environment so as not to be seen or recognized. They include architecturally screened
roof -mounted antenna as design fe»tures, bell, clock, and water towers; church steeples;
water tanks; windmills; and other types of architecturally concealed structures.
Concealed Antenna, Freestanding Structure
These include `tree" nxinopoles which may appear to be palms or pines ("monopalms"
and "mosopines"); bell, dock, and water towers; City entry signage; commercial signage;
light standards; gag and utility poles, and other types of concealed freestanding structures.
nlmoel Bar nswlop od Cole
Facey 25, IM 16
Radio and Television Antemas arid Winless Telecormmnications Facilities
Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Facilities
Communication towers, antennas arrays, and the necessary appurtenances. A facility that
sends or receives radio ft"psocy suds using antennas, microwave dishes or horns, and
structures or towers to support receiving or devices, accessory development
and structures, and the land on which they all are situated.
Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Facilities, Micro
Communication antenna and mappm equipmsat that is one half meter (0.5m) [19"] or less
in length, such as "micxocak" "micxopands," and "shoebme' installations.
Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Site
The defined area that is subject to review under any land use permit application for
communication beikies.
Dienwd Bw Dewiopseat Case
Fdmmy 25,1999 17
NEXTEL
February 16, 1999
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Nextel Communications
17275 Derian Ave., Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92614
(949) 862-2300 Fax (949) 862-2313
RE: Request for Lifting of Moratorium on Permitting of Wireless Communications
Facilities Located on Commercial Building Rooftops
Dear Mr DeStefano;
Nextel Communications wishes to permit and construct two wireless communications facilities in the City
of Diamond Bar on commercial rooftops and in compliance with the City's proposed requirements for
administrative review. Nextel hereby requests that the City Council lift the moratorium with respect to
such permit applications in the interim period before the final ordinance becomes effective.
All the Best,
r
OK
Marty an
(949) 862- 23
Q Zz
00 0
o 0
V �
z 12
oLIU
:sz
Z a
w
s(� a
W
Rw z
0
i". w
.
N
v
�
�
�
O
mom
�
P014
N
0
V
ti
E
• �1
0
V1
Poo
so
•PON
W
4
A
u
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
W
4
rA
t
M
U
CJ
C!�
V�IJ
o
�T.rnU�
A
A
A
A
M
az •
z a
V! Z
E.
i`
u
e
�
V
U
zo
y
U
O
0
°�
x
W
i`
u
C N
O
Oa i
N — V
d A E
o U O Ch
C C �
OC •� 3 c M Z7
T CO MN
co L N N C N E CL V
°'E'D�-L-oE�fl
m .0L o p 0 V` N
N O (D
cn C O
ccrnoEo75Eo>
o' -o' -o Doo c
OE -0000r-
0 Eo -OU-)06(D
7- d Ln
T N
Lo T T T Lo W
a
O C
C O
CLG
L'•
W c�
A
J
+
t
+
�
� *
t
+
4
y
+
+
N +
t t +
t
a �
+ 4 *
t i
++
t
t
+
a
+
+
A +
+ +
#
*
*r
at �++ ++
+j*+++
C tt O ++
+
m
t+
d
R D
El
�I
U
ct
O p
U �
U �
c U
•POO
C/1 ct
u
�O
�U
O�
O
�
140.
A
A
A
A
O
9.1W
E.
•Ti
C
;t
CA
a)
CA
CA
W
U
O
irm—
Lot
0
2i:
a�
Cld
1-1
Qn
.r
F,
F,
0
U
A
Rl
U
CA
N
U
O
U
Es:
A
0
LEGEND DETAIL
EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATION SITES
1 3333 BREA CANYON RD- PACBELL, STEALTHED
2 24401 DARRW DR- COX, PACBELL, POLES
3 1200 S DIAMOND BAR BL- AIRTOUCH, STEALTHED
4 21725 GATEWAY CENTER ® HOTEL- LACELLULAR
NEXTEL, PAGENET, CO -LOCATION WHEN
ANTENNAS
5 259 GENTLE SPRINGS- PACBELL, WHIP/ANTENNAS
6 21144 GOLDEN SPRINGS ® ARMSTRONG NURSERY
PACBELL,
7 21450 GOLDEN SPRINGS DR ® WALNUT POOLS-
AIRTOUCH, COX, CO -LOCATION MONOPOLE/
ANTENNA
8 23SSS GOLDEN SPRINGS DR ® TORITO-AIRTOUCH,
ANTENNAS
9 21308 PATHFINDER RD-PACBELL, ANTENNAS
10 21400 E PATHFINDER RD ® DB HIGH-AIRTOUCH,
COX, LA CELLULAR, SMR, CO -LOCATION WHIP/
MONOPOLE/ANTENNAS
11 PETERSON PARK- LA CELLULAR, ANTENNA ON
LIGHT
12 27S PROSPECTORS ® STORAGE COX, LA CELLULAR,
CO -LOCATION MONOPOLE
PUBLIC PARMP
1 PAUL C. GROW - FOREST CANYON DR
2 HERITAGE - BREA CANYON RD
3 MAPLE HILL - MAPLE HILL RD
4 PANTERA - PANTERA DR
5 PETERSON - SYLVAN GLEN RD
6 RONALD REAGAN - PEACEFUL HILLS RD
7 STARSHINE - STARSHINE RD
8 SUMMTTRIDGE - SUMMITRIDGE DR
9 SYCAMORE CANYON - GOLDEN SPRINGS DR
1 ARMSTRONG SCHOOL
22750 BEAVERHEAD DR
2 CASTLE ROCK ELEMENTARY
2975 S CASTLE ROCK DR
3 CHAPARRAL MIDDLE SCHOOL
1405 S SPRUCE TREE DR
4 DIAMOND BAR HIGH SCHOOL
21400 PATHFINDER RD
5 DIAMOND POINT ELEMENTARY
24150 SUNSET CROSSING RD
6 DIAMOND RANCH HIGH SCHOOL
7 EVERGREEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2450 EVERGREEN SPRINGS DR
8 GOLDEN SPRINGS ELEMENTARY
245 S BALLENA DR
9 LORBEER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
501 S DIAMOND BAR BLVD
10 MAPLE HILL ELEMENTARY
1350 S MAPLE HELL RD
11 PANTERA ELEMENTARY
795 PANTERA DR
12 QUAIL SUMMIT ELEMENTARY
23330 E QUAIL SUMMIT DR
13 SOUTH POINTE MIDDLE SCHOOL
20671 E LARKSTONE DR
14 WALNUT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
841 GLENWICK AVENUE
�IJM'I:�' c 1 , ,k 6 1 �` T I I I go li I" .�
1 CALTRANS MAINTENANCE YARD
2 DIAMOND BAR GOLF COURSE
3 DIAMOND BAR LIBRARY
4 DIAMOND BAR POST OFFICE
5 FIRE STATION 1119 20480 PATHFINDER
6 FIRE STATION 1120 1051 S GRAND
7 FIRE STATION 1121 345 ARMITOS
8 CALTRANS PARK -N -RIDE LOT
9 CALTRANS PARK -N -RIDE LOT
WATM RESE"(WIRS R11W STATIONS f
1 AMBUSHERS
2 ARMTTOS
3 BREA CANYON CUTOFF
4 COLIMA (BREA CANYON)
S DIAMOND BAR (DB/GOLDEN SPRINGS)
6 EASTOATE (LONGVIEW/PANTERA AREA)
7 ELDERTREE
8 FERNHOLLOW
9 HILIMSE
10 PATHFINDER
11 POMONA INTERTIE (AVENIDA RANCHEROS)
12 PM 10 (FERNHOLLOW)
13 PM 12 (BREA CANYON/GOLDEN SPRINGS)
14 RAPIDVIEW
15 RIDGE LINE (COUNTRY)
16 SYLVAN GLEN (FEATHERWOOD)
CwipmovaTERTv
1 ABC PROBE - 400 RANCHERIA RD
2 CALVARY CHAPEL - GOLDEN SPRINGS DR
3 CHINESE EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH -
777 PENARTH
4 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
1101 S DIAMOND BAR BL
5 DIAMOND BAR CONGREGATIONAL -
2335 S DIAMOND BAR
6 DIAMOND BAR FRIENDS - 1220 BREA CANYON
7 EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH OF DIAMOND BAR -
3255 S DIAMOND BAR BL
8 GRACE CHINESE LUTHERAN & MT. CALVARY
LUTHERAN - 23300 GOLDEN SPRINGS
9 RIVER OF LIFE — 20430 YELLOW BRICK RD
10 ST. DENIS CHURCH - 2151 DIAMOND BAR BL
C:1WP60%UNDAKAYITASKFORCXTELECOMMXMAPLEGEND.91 8
REVISION 10-7-98
C7
PLANNING CCHKISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 99-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECCHMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPT AND ORDINANCE
ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RADIO
AND TELEVISION ANTENNAS AND WIRELESS
TELECOMlrUNICATIONS ANTENNA FACILITIES. CASE No.
ZCA 98-2
A. RECITALS.
1. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized municipal corporation of
the State of California. Thereafter, the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14
(1990), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as
the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 22 of
the Los Angeles County that was applicable to radio and
television antenna and wireless telecommunications
antenna facilities within the City of Diamond Bar.
2. On July 25, 1995, the City of Diamond Bar adopted its
General Plan. The General'Plan establishes goals,
objectives and strategies to implement the community's
vision for its future.
3. The City of Diamond Bar has determined that the existing
radio and television antenna and wireless
telecommunications antenna facilities regulations
contained within the Los Angeles County Planning and
Zoning Code are outdated and ill-suited to meet the
City's needs in terms of the type and quality of
development envisioned by the General Plan.
4. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4 (1997) on July
15, 1997 establishing a moratorium on land use
entitlements for wireless communication facilities. The
City Council directed its staff to research and develop
new regulations regarding the placement of wireless
telecommunication facilities. The City Council
subsequently extended the moratorium with the adoption of
Ordinance No. 4-A(1997) on August 1997 and Ordinance 4-
B(1997) on July 6, 1998. The moratorium is scheduled to
end on July 17, 1999 or upon the effective date of a new
wireless telecommunication ordinance.
1
5. In August 1998, the Mayor appointed a 13 member
Telecommunication Task Force to establish siting and
design criteria for the placement of wireless
telecommunication facilities within the City. The Task
Force conducted meetings on September 2, 16 and 30,
October 7, 21, and 28, 1998.
6. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar on
December 8, 1998, January 12, 1999, January 26, 1999 and
February 9, 1999 conducted duly noticed public hearings
on the Draft Radio and Television Antenna and Wireless
Telecommunications Antenna Ordinance.
7. Notification of the public hearing for the Draft Radio
and Television Antenna and Wireless Telecommunications
Antenna Ordinance was provided within the San Gabriel
Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
newspapers on November 16, 1998 in a one eighth page
legal advertisement. Additional notice was provided to
members of the Telecommunication Task Force and other
interested parties on record.
8. The Planning Commission, after due consideration of
public testimony, staff analysis and the Commission's
deliberations, has determined that the Draft Radio and
Television Antenna and Wireless Telecommunications
Antenna Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated by reference into this Resolution implements
the goals, objectives and strategies of the General Plan.
The Planning Commission has duly considered these issues
so as to meet the City's needs in terms of the type of
development envisioned by the General Plan.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that
all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of
this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that there is
substantial evidence that the Draft Radio and Television
Antenna and Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Ordinance
will not a significant effect on the environment and
therefore Negative Declaration No. 97-3 has been
prepared, pursuant to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and
guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section
15070 of Article 19 of Chapter 3, Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations.
2
3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and
determines that, having considered the record as a whole
including the findings set forth below, and changes and
alterations which have been incorporated into and
conditioned upon,the proposed project set forth in the
application, there is no evidence before this Planning
Commission that the project proposed herein will have the
potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or
the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon
substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby
rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in
Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations.
4. That Section 22.42.130 "Telecommunications Facilities of
Chapter 22.42 "Standards for Specific Land Uses" of the
Diamond Bar Development Code is hereby repealed on its
entirety.
9. That all references to Section 22.42.130
"Telecommunications Facilities" within the Diamond Bar
Development Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
"Section 22.42.130 - Radio and Television antennas and
Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Facilities".
6. That Table 2-3 "Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for
Residential Zoning Districts" of Section 22.08.030
Residential Zoning District Land Uses and Permit
Requirements be amended to add "Radio and Television
Antennas and Wireless Telecommunication Facilities" as a
permitted transportation and communication use subject to
the standards within Section 22.42.130.
7. That Table 2-5, Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for
Office Zoning Districts be amended to add Radio and
Television Antennas and Wireless Telecommunication
Facilities" as a permitted Transportation and
Communication Use subject to the standards within Section
22.42.130.
8. That Table 2-6, Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for
Commercial/Industrial Zoning Districts be amended to add
Radio snd'Television Antennas and Wireless
Telecommunication Facilities" as a permitted
Transportation and Communication Use subject to the
standards within Section 22.42.130.
9. That Chapter 22.80 -Definitions is hereby amended to
incorporate, in alphabetical order, the definitions
contained within Exhibit "A" - Draft Radio and Television
Antennas and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
3
10. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council approve ZCA 98-2.
11. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
consider adoption of an urgency ordinance to repeal the
moratorium and permit applications for radio, television
and wireless telecommunication facilities to be
processed, consistent with the Exhibit "A".
The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall:
a. Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
b. Transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the City
Council forthwith.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF February 1999, BY
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
BY: /j tl 0 t LU -
Joe McManus,
Chairman
I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted
by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of February
1999, by the following vote:
AYES: McManus, Tye, Ruzicka, Nelson, Kuo
NOES: None
ABSENT • None STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 96
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ABSTAIN: None 1, LYNDA BURGESS, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR, DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER
PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE FORGOING TO BE A
FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL AS SAME APPEARS ON FILE IN MX
ATTEST: OFFICE.
I HAVE HEREUNTO SET
James De tefano, :W -Ri(D AFFIXED THE SFA.L OF THE CITY
OF t�1 ND BA , THIS DAT
19
LYNDA BURGESS, CITY CLERK
4
Wen Chang
Mayor
Deborah H. O'Connor
Mayor Pro Tem
Eileen R. Ansari
Council Member
Carol Herrera
Council Member
Robert S. Huff
Council Member
Recycled 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
NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the following Public
Hearing was continued from the February 16, 1999 City Council
meeting to the March 2, 1999 City Council meeting beginning at 7:00
P.M.:
INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENT TO TITLE 22 OF THE
DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCORPORATE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RADIO, TELEVISION AND
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the City Council
meeting of March 2, 1999 will take place at 6:30 p.m. in the
Auditorium of the South Coast Air Quality Management District,
21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar. All interested persons are
invited to attend said Public Hearing and to be heard in favor or in
opposition to the item, either orally or by written communication to the
City Council.
DATED this 17th day of February, 1999.
/s/ Lynda Burgess
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. f _
TO Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999 REPORT DATE: February 25, 1999
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: RESOLUTION NO. 99 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 51253, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-12, AND OAK TREE PERMIT
NO. 92-9 FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED FAST OF MORNING SUN AVENUE AND
NORTH OF PATHFINDER ROAD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY: Amrut Patel of Sank Corporation is requesting approval of a one-year wdension of time
for Tentative Tract Map No. 51253, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12, and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9 in
order to subdivide appro y 6.7 acres into 21 single-family lots. The project site is bcated on the east
side of Morning Sun Avarua rad generally north of Pathfinder Road. On January 12, 1999, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the requested extension of time. On February 16, 1999, the
City Council concluded its public hearing and directed the preparation of a resolution of denial.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution 99 -XX.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
Resolutions _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
_ Ordinances
_ Agreements
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMTITAL CHECKLIST:
1.
Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
X
Yes
No
by the City Attorney?
2.
Does the report require a majority vote?
X
Yes
No
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed?
X
Yes
No
4.
Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
X
Yes
No
Which Commission? Planning Commission
5.
Are other departments acted by the report?
X
Yes
No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: Public Works Division
RE VIE Y:
,, 4,v,,
Terrence L Belanger J DeStefan
City Manager Deputy City Manager
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING AN EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-12, AND OAK TREE
PERMIT NO. 92-9 FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF
MORNING SUN AVENUE AND NORTH OF PATHFINDER
ROAD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA.
A. RECITALS.
The property owner/applicant, Armut Patel of Sasak Corporation, has filed an
application for a one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map No. 51253,
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9. The project
site is located east of Morning Sun Avenue and north of Pathfinder Road,
Los Angeles County, Diamond Bar, California, as described above in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Extension of Time
shall be referred to as the "Application".
2. On May 17, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 95-21 and 95-22
approving the applicant's project. On May 17, 1995 the map was conditioned to
respond to evidence of unresolved geotechnical concerns upon the property
On May 19, 1995 a landslide occurred upon the applicants property.
4. The City Council approval was based on the applicant obtaining a permanent
transfer of property from the Walnut Valley Unified School District to the
applicant. The permanent transfer of property (approximately 3 acres) would
allow the applicant access to the project site from Morning Sun Avenue and allow
the applicant to expand the lot and pad size of lots 5, 6, 7, and 8, in order to
comply with the required lot size and pad size.
The approved project would subdivide approximately 6.7 acres (owned by the
applicant) and approximately 3 acres (owned by the Walnut Valley Unified
School District) into a 21 unit, single-family, residential development, along with
the removal and replacement of oak and walnut trees and native vegetation
according to the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program.
6. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density
Residential (RL Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per Acre). It is zoned Residential
Planned Development -Minimum Lot Size, 10,000 Square Feet -6 Units Per Acre
(RPD -10,000-6U).
7. Generally, the following zones and uses surround the project site: to the north is
the Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size 15,000 Square Feet (R-1-15,000)
Zone; and to the east is the Residential Planned Development -Minimum Lot Size
10,000 Square feet -6 Units Per Acre (RPD -100,000-6U) and the Walnut Valley
Unified School District property; to the south is the RPD -100,000-6U Zone; and
to the west is the Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size -8,500 Square Feet
(R-1-8,000) Zone.
8. The City Council project approval expired August 6, 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 Subdivision Ordinance).
9. On November 24, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing on the Application. At that time and pursuant to the applicant's
request, the public hearing was continued to December 8, 1998. On December 8,
1998, pursuant to the applicant's request, the public hearing was continued to
January 12, 1999.
10. On January 12, 1999, the Planning Commission concluded its public hearing and
adopted Resolution No. 99-01 recommending City Council approval of the
Application.
11. On February 16, 1999, 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.
12. Notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel
Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on January 27, 1999.
Notice of the public hearing was mailed to 137 property owners within a 500 -foot
radius of the project site on January 20, 1999.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar as follows:
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
2. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this City Council hereby
finds as follows:
(a) Due to the Tract Map's design, 3 acres of property owned by the Walnut
Valley Unified School District is required for the Map's development as
presented. Access to the project site through the Walnut Valley Unified
School District property is essential. Without a permanent transfer of
property from the School District to the applicant, the project site has no
means of access. Additionally, in order to comply with the required lot
and pad size, the permanent transfer of land, adjacent to the rear of Lots 5,
6, 7, and 8, from the School District to the applicant is also essential.
Without the transfer of property, the Map cannot record.
(b) The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the conditions of
approval. The following conditions of approval are required for final map
approval/or map recordation:
Resolution No. 95-21: B. 2. through 5.; C. 2. and 10; E. 4., 11. through
13., and 18.; E. 1. through 3., 6. through 8., 11., 12., 16., 17., 20., 21., 28.,
30., 32., 37., 39., 46., 48., 49., 51. through 54. and 57.
Resolution No. 95-22: B. 2. through 5.; C. 2. and 10; E. 4., 11 through
13., and 18.; E. 1. through 3., 6. through 8., 11., 12., 16., 17., 20., 21., 28.,
30.; 32., 37., 39., 46., 48., 49., 51. through 54. and 57.
(c) As a result of the landslide and subsequent grading activity the physical
environment has changed. Evidence has not been presented to the City
Council to support a finding that the earth movement has stabilized.
(d)
The applicant has not demonstrated through the completion of project
conditions that the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the
proposed 21 unit residential development proposed. As a result, the
design of the subdivision or improvements are likely to cause serious
public health problems.
(e) Further extension of the subject map is not warranted. The applicant
should prepare and file a new map that addresses the foregoing unresolved
concerns.
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 Tract
Map No. 51253, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9
expire and all privileges granted and related to these entitlements expire.
The City Clerk shall:
3
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of the Resolution, by certified mail, to:
Amrut Patel, Sasak Corporation, 858 W. 9th Street, Upland, California
91785
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2nd DAY OF MARCH, 1999, BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
M
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 2nd day of March, 1999, by
the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
4
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR c
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERRENCE L. BELANGER, CITY MANAGER
RE: FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 MID -YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT
DATE: MARCH 2, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the mid -year amendment of the Fiscal Year
1998-99 Municipal Budget.
DISCUSSION:
GENERAL FUND:
Resources:
The adjusted Municipal Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 (FY98-99) projected General Fund
resources in the amount of $11,235,870. The mid -year amendment projects FY98-99 General
Fund Resources to be $11,787,428.
The projected increase in General Fund resources of $551,558, is due mainly to an increase of
$230,000 in Building and Safety fees as a result of increased building activities. An increase of
$100,000 is being recommended in Vehicle Code Fines due to the change in the method of
revenue allocation. Transfers -in from the Gas Tax fund has been increased to cover increased
street related expenditures.
Expenditures:
The FY98-99 Municipal Budget estimates General Fund expenditures in the amount of
$10,685,021. The mid -year amendment estimates FY98-99 expenditures to be $11,075,498
reflecting an increase of $390,477.
The projected increase in General Fund expenditures is also mainly due an increase of $138,000 in
building and safety expenditures. There are also increases in several expenditure accounts due to
purchase order carryovers for commitments which were outstanding at the end of the prior fiscal
year.
PAGE TWO
FY98-99 MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT
General Fund Balance:
The projected year-end increase in General Fund balance, per the current FY98-99 budget was
$550,849. With the proposed changes in the General Fund Budget, the projected year-end fund
balance is $711,930. This is a projected increase of $161,081.
OTHER FUNDS:
Capital Improvement Fund:
There are increases to the Capital Improvement Fund FY98-99 Budget. These increases are due
to the carry over of purchase orders which were outstanding at the end of last fiscal year. The
total increase is $713,215.54. The funding sources for these increases are as follows:
CDBG Fund
$23,551.13
Prop A—Transit Fund
$12,600.00
Quimby (Park Fees) Fund
$23,372.87
Gas Tax Fund
$31,040.24
Prop C -Transit Fund
$622,651.30
Necessary adjustments to the aforementioned funds will be made to the Transfer Out-CIP Fund
accounts located within each of their respective budgets.
FY 1998-99
BUDGET AMENDMENT
GENERAL FUND RESOURCES
Current Adjusted
Description
Account #
Budget
Amenamem
ouumut-
Property Taxes
Secured Property Tax
001-30010
1,800,000.00
30,000-00
1,800,000.00
Unsecured Property Tax
001-30020
150,000.00
1,700.00
150,000.00
Supplemental Prp Tax
001-30050
110,000.00
30,000.00
110,000.00
Misc Property Tax
001-30200
1,000.00
18, 000.00
1,000.00
001-31900
0.00
2,061,000-00
0.00
2,061,000-00
Other Taxes
Sales Tax
001-31010
2,200,000.00
1,956,200.00
2,200,000.00
Transient Occupancy Tx
001-31200
250,000.00
50,000.00
300,000.00 Budget Refinement
Franchise Tax
001-31210
650,000.00
9,000.00
650,000.00
Property Transfer Tax
001-31250
120 000.00
60,000.00
120,000.00
001-32250
12,000.00
3,220,000.00
50,000.00
3,270,000.00
Intergovernmental Revenue
Motor Vehicle in Lieu
Homeowners Exemption
Off -Hwy Users
FEMA Revenue
Envir Enhancement Pgm
Intergovt Rev-Misc
Fines & Forfeitures
Vehicle Code Fines
General Fines
Parking Fines
Impound Fees
False Alarm Fees
Graffiti Restitution
Building Fees
Building Permit Fees
Plumbing Permit Fees
Electrical Permit Fees
Mechanical Permit Fees
Permit Issuance Fees
Inspection Fees-B/S
Plan Check-B/S
001-31350
1,850,000.00
10,000.00
1,850,000-00
50,000.00
001-31450
30,000-00
500.00
30,000-00
001-31800
1,700.00
1,700.00
001-31820
30,000.00
30,000.00
001-31890
18,000.00
18, 000.00
001-31900
0.00
26 500.00
26,500.00
Fire Break Grant
1,929,700.00
26,500.00
1,956,200.00
001-32150
85,000.00
100,000.00
185,000.00
Budget Refinement-Chg in Alloc
001-32200
9,000.00
9,000.00
001-32230
60,000.00
60,000.00
001-32250
12,000.00
12,000.00
001-32270
40,000.00
40,000.00
001-32350
500.00
500.00
206,500.00
100,000.00
306,500.00
001-34110
389,200.00
170,000.00
559,200.00
Addnl Building Activity
001-34120
37,200.00
5,000.00
42,200.00
Addni Building Activity
001-34130
56,000.00
8,000.00
64,000.00
Addnl Building Activity
001-34140
22,800.00
3,000.00
25,800.00
Addnl Building Activity
001-34200
47,000.00
1,000.00
48,000.00
Addnl Building Activity
001-34250
11,050.00
11,050.00
001-34300
347,200.00
43,000.00
390,200.00
Addni Building Activity
910,450.00
230,000.00
1,140,450.00
Planning Fees
Environmental Fees 001-34410
10,000.00
10,000.00
Current Planning Fees 001-34430
50,000.00
50,000.00
Misc Pining Permit Fees 001-34500
500.00
500.00
60,500.00
0.00 60,500.00
Engineering Fees
Plan Check-Engr 001-34610
Engineering Permit Fees 001-34620
Encroachment Permits 001-34630
135,000.00 135, 000.00
4,000.00 4,000.00
2,000.00 2,000.00
Page 1
FY 1998-99
BUDGET AMENDMENT
GENERAL FUND RESOURCES
Transfers In
Transfer in -Gas Tax 001-39111
708,600.00
Current
Transfer in -Prop C Fund 001-39113
Adjusted
Description
Account g
Budget
Amendment
Budget Explanation
Inspections -Engineering
001-34640
185,000.00
517,100.00
185,000.00
Soils Review -Engineering
001-34650
0.00
17,000.00
17,000.00 Budget Refinement
Industrial Waste
001-34665
10,000.00
10,000.00
336,000.00
17,000.00
353,000.00
Recreation . Fees
Community Activities
001-34720
26,000.00
26,000.00
Senior Activities
001-34730
10,000.00
10,000.00
Athletic Programs
001-34740
75,000.00
75,000.00
Fee Programs
001-34760
100,000.00
100,000.00
Contract Classes
001-34780
150,500.00
150,500.00
361,500.00
0.00
361, 500.00
Special Event Fees
Special Event Fees
001-34800
70,000.00
70,000.00
70, 000.00
0.00
70, 000.00
Other Revenues
Investment Earnings
001-36100
650,000.00
650,000.00
Returned Check Charges
001-36600
500.00
500.00
Rents & Concessions
001-36610
25,000.00
25,000.00
Sale of Fixed Assets
001-36630
10,000.00
10,000.00
Sale of Promotional Items
001-36640
200.00
200.00
Sale of Printed Material
001-36650
6,500.00
6,500.00
Donations
001-36651
1,020.00
2,000.00
3,020.00 Rotary Donation
Misc Revenue
001-36900
5,000.00
5,000.00
698,220.00
2,000.00
700,220.00
Transfers In
Transfer in -Gas Tax 001-39111
708,600.00
51,058.00 759,658.00 Addnl Street Related Exp
Transfer in -Prop C Fund 001-39113
5,000.00
5,000.00
Transfer in -COPS Fund 001-39126
151 300.00
151,300.00
864, 900.00
51, 058.00 915, 958.00
Reserved Fund Balance 001-25500
517,100.00
75,000.00 592,100.00 PO CarryOver
Grand Totals 11,235,870.00 551,558.00 11,787,428.00
Increase In Resources $551,558.00
Increase In Expenditures 390,476.64
Net Change to General Fund Budget $161,081.36
Page 2
FY 1990-88
BUDGET AMENDMENT
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Description
Account g
Current
Budget
AneridnNnt
Adjusted
Budget Explanation
City Council
Meetings
001-4030-42325
2,000.00
1,000.00
Telephone
001-4010.42125
0.00
1,000.00
1,000.00 Modems, Cell Phones
Meetings
001-4010-42325
4,000.00
(1,000.00)
3,000.00 Budget Refinernent
Travel-Meetings/Conferences
001-4010-42330
15,000.00
4,000.00
19,000.00 Budget Refinernent
Travel-Mileage/Auto Allow
001-4010-42335
0.00
750.00
750.00 Meeting Attendance
City Clerk
4,750.00
City Attorney
General Legal Services 001-4020-44020 75,000.00 15,000.00 90,000.00 Budget Refinement
Special Legal Services 001-4020-44021 90,000.00 3,572.05 93,572.05 PO Carry Over
18,572.05
City Manager
Equipment Maint
001-4030-42200
500.00
500.00
1,000.00
Budget Refinernent
Meetings
001-4030-42325
2,000.00
1,000.00
3,000.00
Budget Refinement
Travel-Meetings/Conferences
001-4030-42330
12,500.00
2,000.00
14,500.00
Budget Refinement
Allocated Costs
001-4030-48500
(40,000.00)
(10,000.00)
(50,000.00)
RDA Allocation
(6,500.00)
City Clerk
Membership & Dues
001-4040-42315
475.00
200.00
675.00
Budget Refinement
Meetings
001-4040-42325
100.00
50.00
150.00
Budget Refinement
Prof Svcs - Data Processing
001-4040-44010
0.00
4,000.00
4,000.00
PO Carry Over
4,250.00
Finance Department
Prof Svcs - Data Processing
001-4050-44010
12,000.00
3,000.00
15,000.00
Informbc Maint
Capital Equipment
001-4050-46200
500.00
500.00
1,000.00
Data Storage Cabinet
3,500.00
General Government
City Paid Benefits
001-4090-40070
0.00
200.00
200.00
Retirement Admin
Benefits Admin/Unempimnt
001-4090-40093
1,200.00
6,000.00
7,200.00
Unemployrnent Costs
Advertising
001-4090-42115
2,500.00
5,000.00
7,500.00
DBIA Ads, Budget Refinement
Banking Charges
001-4090-42128
5,000.00
1,000.00
6,000.00
Budget Refinement
Rental/Lease of Equipment
001-4090-42130
12,000.00
2,000.00
14,000.00
Pager Rental Incr, PO C/O
Rental/Lease of Real Prop
001-4090-42140
212,500.00
1,000.00
213,500.00
Addnl Storage units
Equipment Maint
001-4090-42200
8,000.00
3,000.00
11,000.00
Budget Refinement
Publications
001-409D-42320
2,000.00
500.00
2,500.00
Budget Refinement
Meetings
001-4090-42325
9,000.00
9,000.00
18,000.00
Tak Forces, Stdy Sesens, 4-Cmrs
Education & Training
001-4090.42340
10,000.00
7,653.17
17,653.17
PO Carry Over
Misc Expenditures
001-4090-42395
250.00
1,250.00
1,500.00
Flower's (funerals etc)
Office Equipment
001-4090-46200
0.00
870.00
870.00
Cassette Dupl/Telephone Eq
Communications Equip
001-4080-46240
0.00
1,200.00
1,200.00
Phones -New Vehicles, Cell Phones
38,673.17
Communications & Marketing
Supplies
001-40955-41200
4,500.00
2,500.00
7,000.00
Boulevard Flags, Budget Refinemnt
Promotional Items
001-4095-41400
3,500.00
6,500.00
10,000.00
Ltle Lge Banners, Budget Refinemnt
Printing
001-4095-42110
32,500.00
2,500.00
35,000.00
CC Notepds, Ubr Bkmks, LL Tkts
Publications
001-4085-42320
350.00
1,000.00
1,350.00
Budget Refinement
Meetings
001-4095-42325
5,000.00
(3,000.00)
2,000.00
Budget Refinement
Travel Conf/Mtgs
001-4095-42330
8,500.00
4,000.00
12,500.00
Budget Refinement
Contributions Com Groups
001-4095-42355
3,000.00
(2,500.00)
500.00
Moved to Can Org Support Fd
Professional Svcs
001-4095-44000
2,500.00
2,600.00
5,100.00
Painters Video, Cmptr Sys Eval
Contract Services
001-4095-45000
0.00
280.00
280.00
Banner Installation
Computer Equip -Software
001-4095-46235
19,550.00
6,500.00
26,050.00
Reflections Software -New system
Misc Equipment
001-4095-46250
0.00
7,500.00
7,500.00
Permanent Banners & Brackets
Allocated Costs
0014095-48500
(20,000.00)
(30,000.00)
(50,000.00) Allocation to RDA
(2,140.00)
Page 3
FY 1998-99
BUDGET AMENDMENT
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
_Description
Account fl
Currant
Budget
Amendment
Adjusted
Budget
Explanation
Law Enforcement
110,000.00
1,815.95
111,815.95
PO Carry Over
Equipment Maintenance
001-4411-42200
3,000.00
500.00
3,500.00
CCAP, Radar Units
500.00
Printing
Volunteer Patrol
400.00
4,000.00
4,400.00
Parking Permits
Professional Svcs
Fuel
001-4415-42310
0.00
8,215.00
0.00
Budget Refinement
Meetings
001-4415-42325
1,500.00
1,500.00
3,000.00 Vol Recognition
1,500.00
Community Development
Travel Conf/Mtge
001-5210-42330
4,000.00
4,000.00
8,000.00
CPRS, Commissioner Conf
Prof Svcs - Special Projects
001-5210-44250
25,000.00
10,483.00
35,483.00
PO Carry Over, Telecom Tsk Free
Capital Equip -Furniture
001-5210-46220
0.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
Chairs, Storage Shelves
Allocated Costs
001-5210-48500
(20,000.00)
(20,000.00)
(40,000.00) Allocation to RDA
17,483.00
Building 3 Safety
Contract Services
001-5220-45201
546,500.00
138,000.00
684,500.00
Increased Building Activity
138,000.00
Pantera Park
Utilities
001-5318-42126
31,500.00
25,000.00
56,500.00
Budget Refinement, Start -Up Costs
Capital Equipment
001-5318-46250
19,000.00
4,000.00
23,000.00
Concession Stand Equip
29,000.00
Peterson Park
Maint-Grounds/Bldgs
001-5319-42210
5,200.00
561.00
5,761.00
PO Carry Over
561.00
Sycamore Cyn Park
Maint-Grounds/Bkigs
001-5331-42210
18,000.00
26,500.00
44,500.00
State Firebreak Grant
28,500.00
Recreation Services
Over -time Wages
001-5350-40020
0.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
Tsk Force, Commission Sectry
Rental/Lease Real Property
001-5350-42140
70,000.00
21,371.58
91,371.58
PO Carry Over
Concerts in the Park
001-5350-45305
17,000.00
2,000.00
19,000.00
Sink Rental, Addnl Concert
26,371.58
Public Wks Admin
Travel Conf/Mtgs
001-5510-42330
0.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
CPRS, PWks Conf
CS -Engineering
001-5510-45221
5,000.00
5,000.00
10,000.00
Possible Landslide Investigations
CS -Inspection
001-5510-45227
135,000.00
21,347.00
156,347.00
PO Carry Over
CS -Traffic Signal Maint
001-5510-45507
125,000.00
24,752.00
149,752.00
PO Cary Over/LAC Pub Wks
Office Equipment
001-5510-46200
1,000.00
2,251.82
3,251.82
PO Carry Over, Storage Cabinets
Office Furniture
001-5510-46200
3,500.00
2,500.00
6,000.00
Fumiture-Dep Public Wks Director
57,350.82
Public Wks Engineering
CS -Engineering
001-5551-45221
10,000.00
5,200.00
15,200.00 Traffic Counts
CS -Plan Checking
001-5551-45223
110,000.00
1,815.95
111,815.95
PO Carry Over
7,015.95
Public Wks -Traffic 3 Transportation
Printing
001-5553-42110
400.00
4,000.00
4,400.00
Parking Permits
Professional Svcs
001-5553-44000
5,000.00
3,215.00
8,215.00
PO Carry Over
CS -Traffic
001-5553-45222
10,000.00
26,306.00
36,306.00
Shrt Trm Pkg, Speed Srvy,PO CO
33,521.00
Transfers -Out
Transfer Out CIP Fund 001-9915-49250 180,000.00 1,568.07 181,568.07 PO Carry Over
1,568.07
Total Change In General Fund Expenditures $390,476,64
Page 4
FY 1998-99
BUDGET AMENDMENT
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
PURCHASE ORDER CARRY OVER
Misc Capital Improvements
Handicap Access Ramps
250-5215-46420
06798
3,259.50
CDBG
Side Walk Improvements
250-5215-46420
13798
6,693.50
CDBG
Park and Ride Lot
250-5215-46420
09698
12,600.00
Prop A - Transit
22,553.00
Park Improvements
Pantera Park
250-5310-46415
06598
23,372.87
Quimby
ADA Park Retrofit
250-5310-46415
11798
13,598.13
CDBG
36,971.00
Street Improvements
Slurry Seal-Pthfndr, Area 1
250-5510-46411
01498
24,439.02
Gas Tax
Undergrounding Project
250-5510-46411
08998
4,639.21
Gas Tax
Meadowglen Seepage
250-5510-46411
12098
853.50
Gas Tax
Ambusher Seepage
250-5510-46411
12198
800.00
Gas Tax
Chinook/S Leandro Seepage
250-5510-46411
12298
308.51
Gas Tax
DB Blvd Rehab
250-5510-46411
12498
443,267.20
Prop C -Transit
474,307.44
Street Signal Improvements
Traffic Sgni-GS/Calboume
250-5510-46412
10598
2,294.96
Prop C -Transit
Traffic Sgnl-DB/Gntl Spgs
250-5510-46412
10798
2,127.14
Prop C -Transit
Traffic Sgnl-DB/Montefino
250-5510-46412
12598
174,962.00
Prop C -Transit
179,384.10
Grand Total - PO Carry Over
713,215.54
Transfer from Other Funds
Transfer In - CDBG
250-39125
06798
3,259.50
Transfer In - CDBG
250-39125
13798
6,693.50
Transfer In - CDBG
250-39125
11798
13,598.13
Transfer In - Prop A
250-39112
09698
12,600.00
Transfer In - Quimby
250-39121
06598
23,372.87
Transfer In - Gas Tax
250-39111
01498
24,439.02
Transfer In - Gas Tax
250-39111
08998
4,639.21
Transfer In - Gas Tax
250-39111
12098
853.50
Transfer In - Gas Tax
250-39111
12198
800.00
Transfer In - Gas Tax
250-39111
12298
308.51
Transfer In - Prop C
250-39113
12498
443,267.20
Transfer In - Prop C
250-39113
10598
2,294.96
Transfer In - Prop C
250-39113
10798
2,127.14
Transfer In - Prop C
250-39113
12598
174,962.00
Grand Total - Transfer In 713,215.54
Page 5
AGENDA NO. 8.2
DOCUMENTATION UNAVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. �3
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999 REPORT DATE: February 25, 1999
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Park Improvements and ADA Upgrades for Ronald Reagan Park and Heritage Park
SUMMARY: For Fiscal Year 1998-99, Ronald Reagan & Heritage Parks have been scheduled
for ADA retrofit/upgrades. On December 15, 1998 the City Council authorized staff to advertise
for bids for the Park Improvements and ADA Upgrades for Ronald Reagan Park and Heritage
Park. At this time, the City proposes to award a construction contract to the lowest responsible
bidder.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council (a) approve a budget adjustment, which includes
an allocation of additional C.D.B.G. funds in the amount of $109,000, to increase the total budget
amount for this project to $439,000, from the current $311,700, (b) award a construction
contract to 4 -Con Engineering, Inc. in the amount not -to -exceed $366,650.75, and provide a
contingency amount of $15,000 for project change orders to be approved by the City Manager,
for a total authorization of $381,650.75.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification
_ Ordinances(s) _ Other:
X Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes —No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
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? _Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
Terrence L. Bel e J s DeStefano vid G. Liu
City Manager Deputy City Manager Deputy Director of Public Works
MEETING DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ISSUE STATEMENT:
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
REVISED 2-26-99
AGENDA NO.
March 2, 1999
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
Park Improvements and ADA Upgrades for Ronald Reagan Park
And Heritage Park
The City proposes to award a contract for the Park Improvements and ADA Upgrades for Ronald
Reagan Park and Heritage Park to 4 -Con Engineering, Inc., the lowest responsible and most qualified
bidder.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council (a) approve a budget adjustment, which includes an allocation of additional
C.D.B.G. funds in the amount of $109,000, to increase the total budget amount for this project to
$439,000, from the current $311,700, (b) award a construction contract to 4 -Con Engineering, Inc. in
the amount not -to -exceed $366,650.75, and provide a contingency amount of $15,000 for project
change orders to be approved by the City Manager, for a total authorization amount of $381,650.75.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
Currently, the total allocated project budget is as follows:
Park Fees (Quimby) $ 64,000
Park Development Fund $ 52,700
C.D.B.G. Funds $195.000
TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS $311,700
The amended total project budget is recommended as follows:
Park Fees (Quimby) $ 64,000
Park Development Fund $ 52,700
General Fund $ 18,300
C.D.B.G. Funds $304.000
AMENDED TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS $439,000
PARK IMPROVEMENTS FOR RONALD REAGAN PARK
AND HERITAGE PARK
MARCH 2, 1999
PAGE 2
To accomplish this budget adjustment, the following changes in the CIP program are proposed:
Original Revised Funding Budget
Budget Budget Source Amount
Amount Amount Chanties
1. Allocation of Additional C.D.B.G. Funds $195,000 $304,000 C.D.B.G. $109,000
♦ $17,000 from unallocated C.D.B.G. Funds
♦ $13,000 unspent from FY 97/98 Sidewalk Project
♦ $79,000 Heritage/Ronald Reagan Allocation
not reflected in FY 98/99 Budget
2. Allocation of General Fund Reserves $ 0 $ 18,300 General $ 18,300
Fund
TOTAL AVAILABLE FOR RONALD REAGAN/HERITAGE PARKS ADA PROJECT $127,300
Total cost of the Ronald Reagan Park and Heritage Park ADA project will be as follows:
Contractor Costs $366,650.75
Construction Contingency $ 15,000.00
Inspection Costs: $ 14,875.00
Design Costs $ 40,770.00
Plans & Specification Printing Costs $ 1.704.25
TOTAL COST $439,000.00
BACKGROUND:
At the February 16, 1999 City Council Meeting, the City Council directed staff to identify other
funding sources for the Park Improvements and ADA Upgrades at Ronald Reagan and Heritage
Parks. Staff has identified additional C.D.B.G. Funds and proposed a budget adjustment as outlined
in the Financial Summary. This report was reviewed by the City Council Finance Sub -Committee
and they recommend its approval.
DISCUSSION:
On December 15, 1998, the City Council authorized staff to advertise and receive bids for the Park
Improvements money and ADA Upgrades for Ronald Reagan Park and Heritage Park. In response to
PARK IMPROVEMENTS FOR RONALD REAGAN PARK
AND HERITAGE PARK
MARCH 2,1999
PAGE 3
the advertisements, a total of seventeen (17) contractors obtained plans and specifications for the
project.
Since this is a federally assisted construction contract and Federal labor standards will be enforced, a
mandatory pre-bid meeting was held on January 12, 1999. At this meeting, the Section 3 (Housing
and Urban Development Act of 1968) employment and contracting goals were discussed with all
attendees.
The purpose of Section 3 is to ensure that employment and other economic opportunities generated
by HUD assistance or HUD -assisted projects, shall, to the greatest extent feasible, be directed to low -
and very low-income persons, particularly persons who are recipients of HUD assistance for housing.
Formal bids were received and opened on January 19, 1999 from six (6) firms. This project includes
the walkway improvements, playground equipments, ADA accessible amenities, parking lots slurry
seal/striping, architectural ADA upgrades for restrooms and the Community Center building at
Heritage park.
The bids received were as follows:
Company
Base Bid Amount
1.
4 -Con Engineering
$366,650.75
2.
Hondo Co.
$366,659.00
3.
Malibu Pacific Tennis Courts
$398,636.75
4.
Gledson/Cashman Construction
$400,030.11
5.
MD Construction
$409,259.67
6.
S. Parker Engineer
$510,217.65
The bid of $366,650.75, submitted by 4 -Con Engineering, Inc., has been determined by staff to be the
lowest responsible bid. 4 -Con Engineering, Inc.'s references have been contacted and staff has
received favorable responses. Furthermore, based on the evaluation of the Section 3 reponsive bids,
4 -Con Engineering, Inc. has certified that it is a Section 3 business on the basis of its current
employment profile.
Prepared By:
David G. Liu/Bob Rose
Word/Council Reports/R.Reagan & Heritage Park Improv.
AGREEMENT
The following agreement is made and entered into, in duplicate, as of the date executed by
the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk, by and between 4 -CON ENGINEERING. INC.
hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR" and the City of Diamond Bar, California,
hereinafter referred to as "CITY."
WHEREAS, pursuant to Notice Inviting Sealed Bids or Proposals, bids were received,
publicly opened, and declared on the date specified in the notice; and
WHEREAS, City did accept the bid of CONTRACTOR
4 -CON ENGINEERING. INC. and;
WHEREAS, City has authorized the Mayor to execute
written contract with
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, it is
agreed:
1.
labor,
CONTRACTOR shall furnish all
it for and do the work for the
HERITAG in the City of Diamond Bar. The work to be performed in accordance with
the plans and specifications, datedK�9 T
he Plans and Specifications) on file
in the office of the City Cleric in accordance with bhereinafter mentioned and in
accordance with the instructions of the City Engineer.
2. INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED
COMPLEMENTARY: The Plans and Specifications are incorporated herein by reference and
made a part hereof with like force and effect as if set forth in full herein. The Plans and
Specifications, CONJJJ&=WS Proposal dated JANUARY 19 1999, together with this
written agreement, shall conatttute the contract between the parties. This contract is intended to
require a complete and finished piece of work and anything necessary to complete the work
properly and in accordance with the law and lawful governmental regulations shall be performed
by the CONTRACTOR whether set out specifically in the contract or riot. Should it be
ascertained that any inconsistency exists between the aforesaid documents and this written
agreement, the provisions of this written agreement shall control.
TERMS OF CONTRACT
Since this is a Federally assisted construction project, Davis -Bacon will be
enforced. If Federal and State wage rates are applicable, the higher of the two will prevail. The
Federal Labor Standards Provisions (Form HUD4010) and the Federal Wage Determination are
attached and made part of this agreement, and compliance will be enforced. "This is a Section 3
contract and the prime contractor must address the Section 3 employment and contracting goals
to be considered a Section 3 responsive bidder. The contract will be awarded to a Section 3
responsive bidder provided that the bid amount is reasonable. Any prime contractor or
subcontractor working on a Federally assisted project must be eligible to participate. Any
agreement resulting from this original agreement must contain the same Federal language."
The CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work within NINETY (90) calendar
days from the date of the notice to proceed.
The CONTRACTOR agrees further to the assessment of liquidated damages in the
amount of five hundred ($500.00) dollars for each calendar day the work remains incomplete
beyond the expiration of the completion date. City may deduct the amount thereof from any
monies due or that may become due the CONTRACTOR under this agreement. Progress
payments made after the scheduled date of completion shall not constitute a waiver of liquidated
damages.
4. INSURANCE: The CONTRACTOR shall not commence work under this
contract until he has obtained all insurance required hereunder in a company or companies
acceptable to City nor shall the CONTRACTOR allow any subcontractor to commence work on
his subcontract until all insurance required of the subcontractor has been obtained. The
CONTRACTOR shall take out and maintain at all times during the life of this contract the
following policies of insurance:
a. Workers' Compensation Insurance: Before beginning work, the
CONTRACTOR shall furnish to the City a certificate of insurance as proof
that he has taken out full workers' compensation insurance for all persons
whom he may employ directly or through subcontractors in carrying out
the work specified herein, in accordance with the laws of the State of
California. Such insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect
during the period covered by this contract.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor
Code, every CONTRACTOR shall secure the payment of compensation to
his employees. The CONTRACTOR, prior to commencing work, shall
sign and file with the City a certification as follows:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which
requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers'
compensation or to undertake self insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and I will comply with
such provisions before commencing the performance of work of this
contract."
b. For all operations of the CONTRACTOR or any sub -contractor in
performing the work provided for herein, insurance with the following
minimum limits and coverage:
1) Public Liability - Bodily Injury (not auto) $500,000 each person;
$1,000,000 each accident.
2) Public Liability - Property Damage (not auto) $250,000 each
person; $500,000 aggregate.
3) CONTRACTOR'S Protective - Bodily Injury $500,000 each
person; $1,000,000 each accident.
4) CONTRACTOR'S Protective - Property Damage $250,000 each
accident; $500,000 aggregate.
5) Automobile - Bodily Injury $500,000 each person; $1,000,000 each
accident.
6) Automobile - Property Damage $250,000 each accident.
C. Each such policy of insurance provided for in paragraph b. shall:
1) Be issued by an insurance company approved in writing by City,
which is admitted to do business in the State of California.
2) Name as additional insured the City of Diamond Bar, its officers,
agents and employees, and any other parties specified in the bid
documents to be so included;
3) Specify it acts as primary insurance and that no insurance held or
owned by the designated additional insured shall be called upon to
cover a loss under the policy;
4) Contain a clause substantially in the following words:
"It is hereby understood and agreed that this policy may not be
canceled nor the amount of the coverage thereof reduced until
thirty (30) days after receipt by City of a written notice of such
cancellation or reduction of coverage as evidenced by receipt of a
registered letter."
5) Otherwise be in form satisfactory to the City.
d. The policy of insurance provided for in subparagraph a. shall contain an
endorsement which:
1) Waives all right of subrogation against all persons and entities
specified in subparagraph 4.c.(2) hereof to be listed as additional
insureds in the policy of insurance provided for in paragraph b. by
reason of any claim arising out of or connected with the operations
of CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor in performing the work
provided for herein;
2) Provides it shall not be canceled or altered without thirty (30) days'
written notice thereof given to City by registered mail.
e. The CONTRACTOR shall, within ten (10) days from the date of the notice
of award of the Contract, deliver to the City Manager or his designee the
original policies of insurance required in paragraphs a. and b. hereof, or
deliver to the City Manager or his designee a certificate of the insurance
company, showing the issuance of such insurance, and the additional
insured and other provisions required herein.
5. PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the
provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the
CONTRACTOR is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for
work of a similar character in the locality in which the public works is performed, and not less
than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard,
the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and
has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates
of per diem wages are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, Suite
100, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, and are available to any interested party
on request. City also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the fob site.
The CONTRACTOR shall forfeit, as penalty to City, not more than twenty-five
dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman or mechanic employed for each calendar day or
portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate
of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under this Agreement, by him or by any
subcontractor under him.
6. APPRENTICESHIP EMPLOYMENT: In accordance with the provisions of
Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code, and in accordance with the regulations of the California
Apprenticeship Council, properly indentured apprentices may be employed in the performance of
the work.
The CONTRACTOR is required to make contribution to funds established for the
administrative of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in
any apprenticeable trade on such contracts and if other CONTRACTOR'S on the public works
site are making such contributions.
The CONTRACTOR and subcontractor under him shall comply with the
requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices.
Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules and other
requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex-officio the
Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of
Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices.
7. LEGAL HOURS OF WORK: Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal
day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract, and the CONTRACTOR
and any sub-contractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of
California having to do with working hours set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of
the Labor Code of the State of California as amended.
The CONTRACTOR shall forfeit, as a penalty to City, twenty-five dollars
($25.00) for each laborer, workman or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by
him or any sub- CONTRACTOR under him, upon any of the work hereinbefore mentioned, for
each calendar day during which the laborer, workman or mechanic is required or permitted to
labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of the Labor Code.
8. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE PAY: CONTRACTOR agrees to pay
travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract
as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining
agreements filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 1773.8.
9. CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY: The City of Diamond Bar and its officers,
agents and employees ("Idemnitees") shall not be answerable or accountable in any manner for
any loss or damage that may happen to the work or any part thereof, or for any of the materials or
other things used or employed in performing the work; or for injury or damage to any person or
persons, either workmen or employees of the CONTRACTOR, of his subcontractor's or the
public, or for damage to adjoining or other property from any cause whatsoever arising out of or
in connection with the performance of the work. The CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for
any damage or injury to any person or property resulting from defects or obstructions or from any
cause whatsoever.
The CONTRACTOR will indemnify Indemnitees against and will hold and save
Indemnitees harmless from any and all actions, claims, damages to persons or property, penalties,
obligations or liabilities that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm, entity, corporation,
political subdivision, or other organization arising out of or in connection with the work,
operation, or activities of the CONTRACTOR, his agents, employees, subcontractors or invitees
provided for herein, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part of
City. In connection therewith:
a. The CONTRACTOR will defend any action or actions filed in connection
with any such claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities and will
pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees incurred in connection
therewith.
b. The CONTRACTOR will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the
CONTRACTOR or Indemnitees covering such claims, damages, penalties,
obligations and liabilities arising out of or in connection with such work,
operations or activities of the CONTRACTOR hereunder, and the
CONTRACTOR agrees to save and hold the Indemnitees harmless
therefrom.
C. In the event Indemnitees are made a party to any action or proceeding filed
or prosecuted against the CONTRACTOR for damages or other claims
arising out of or in connection with the work, operation or activities
hereunder, the CONTRACTOR agrees to pay to Indemnitees and any all
costs and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in such action or proceeding
together with reasonable attorneys' fees.
So much of the money due to the CONTRACTOR under and by virtue of the
contract as shall be considered necessary by City may be retained by City until disposition has
been made of such actions or claims for damages as aforesaid.
This indemnity provision shall survive the termination of the Agreement and is in
addition to any other rights or remedies which Indemnitees may have under the law.
This indemnity is effective without reference to the existence or applicability of any
insurance coverages which may have been required under this Agreement or any additional
insured endorsements which may extend to Indemnitees.
CONTRACTOR, on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it
hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Indemnitees, while acting
within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising our of or incident to
activities or operations performed by or on behalf of the Indemnitor regardless of any prior,
concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Indemnitees.
10. NON-DISCRIlyIlNATION• Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1735, no
discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons in the work contemplated by this
Agreement because of the race, color or religion of such person. A violation of this section
exposes the CONTRACTOR to the penalties provided for in Labor Code Section 1735.
11. CONTRACT PRICE AND PAYMENT: City shall pay to the CONTRACTOR
for furnishing all material and doing the prescribed work the unit prices set forth in the Price
Schedule in accordance with CONTRACTOR'S Proposal dated JANUARY 19, 1999.
12. ATTORNEY'S FEES: In the event that any action or proceeding is brought by
either party to enforce any term of provision of the this agreement, the prevailing party shall
recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred with respect thereto.
13. TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by the City, without cause,
upon the giving of a written "Notice of Termination" to CONTRACTOR at least thirty (30) days
prior to the date of termination specified in the notice. In the event of such
termination, CONTRACTOR shall only be paid for services rendered and expenses necessarily
incurred prior to the effective date of termination.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement with all the
formalities required by law on the respective dates set forth opposite their signatures.
State of California
"CONTRACTOR'S" License No. A-748284
4 -CON ENGINEERING, INC.
896 W. TENTH STREET
AZUSA, CA 91702
Date
La
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
By:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
By:
CITY CLERK
Date
CONTRACTOR'S Business Phone (626) 633-9232. FAX (6261633-9212
Emergency Phone at which CONTRACTOR can be reached at any time
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
Date
c:\ww\LnmAxAY\A(in&ms..w..a\REVISION 1995-96
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. ;�,3
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999 REPORT DATE: February 25, 1999
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Park Improvements and ADA Upgrades for Ronald Reagan Park and Heritage Park
SUMMARY: The City Council will be awarding a construction contract to 4 -Con Engineering,
Inc. for the Park Improvements and ADA Upgrades for Ronald Reagan & Heritage Parks. At this
time, the City proposes to award a construction inspection services contract to D & J
Engineering. As the City's Building & Safety Consultant/Building Official, D & J Engineering is
thoroughly familiar with the ADA standards and code compliance requirements.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to approve a
purchase order to D & J Engineering for construction inspection services in an amount not -to -
exceed $14,875.00.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report — Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s) — Bid Specification
— Ordinances(s) X Other: D & J Proposal, dated 12/30/98
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed N/A _ Yes — No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? 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? _Yes X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
Terrence L. Bela JW DeStefan avid G. Lru
City Manager Deputy City M er Deputy Director of Public Works
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Park Improvements and ADA Upgrades for Ronald Reagan Park
And Heritage Park
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The City desires to utilize D & J Engineering for the construction inspection services.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council authorize the City Manager to approve a purchase order to D & J Engineering
for construction inspection services in an amount not -to -exceed $14,875.00.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
There are sufficient funds allocated in the 1998/99 FY budget to provide for this contract.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City Council will be awarding a construction contract to 4 -Con Engineering, Inc. for the Park
Improvements and ADA Upgrades for Ronald Reagan Park and Heritage Park. To ensure this project
will be constructed in compliance with the approved plans and specifications, staff requested
proposal for D & J Engineering for the construction inspection services. The construction inspection
services include: inspection, review and recommendation of progress payments, review of ADA
compliance, monitoring and adherence to construction schedule, meeting attendance, etc.
As the City's Building and Safety Consultant/Building Official, D & J Engineering has been assisting
the City during the design phase and is thoroughly familiar with the ADA standards and code
compliance requirements. Under the current contract provisions, the City has the ability to
utilize/retain the services of & J Engineering for the proposed inspection work.
Prepared By:
David G. Liu
Word/Couacil Repoda/R.Reagm & Heritage Park Improv.
D&JtNfauwa
9 PIAN REV[EW • RWECr10N • ADA41 Gn?AnON
556 N. Dknmd B.r Div& 0301, Domood Boc C4 91765
Phone (909) 396-6994 • Fa (909) 396-7634
December 30,1998
Mr. David Liu
Deputy Director of Public Works
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Re: Inspection Services for Ronald Reagan Park and Heritage park A.D.A. Upgrade
Dear Mr. Liu:
Per your requests, D&J Engineering is pleased to submit this letter of proposal for inspection
services for the construction/installation of Ronald Reagan and Heritage Park A.D.A.
Upgrades.
D&J Engineering proposes the following scope of services:
1. Provide field inspection of construction to verify work is in conformance with the
approved plans and specifications.
2. Interpret the approved plans and to assure the field changes ( due to soils conditions,
and topography) meet approved standard construction methods. Changes requiring
extra work and change orders will be brought to the attention of the City Project
Manager for review and approval.
3. Review the progress pay requests prior to approval by the City.
4. Prepare project punch list for items needed to be completed by the contractor prior to
acceptance of the work.
5. Provide the Project Manager Daily Inspection Update. Also keep Project Manager
apprised of any site construction concerns.
6. Review submitted plans and specifications for code (A.D.A.) compliance.
r _
.emo Inspection Services to Ronald Reagan & Heritage Park A.D.A. Upgrade
age 2
Attend meetings with designer and contractor.
Ir
The scope of services does not include project administration.
FEE SCHEDULE
The total not to exceed estimated fee is based on the estimated time required to complete
each task as shown. Should additional time be required, the City will be notified and
additional compensation will be requested at the time and material rates shown on the
attached schedule of hourly billing rates.
Field inspection:
Inspector - 4 hours/day x 60 days
Construction meeting (pre -construction, etc.)
* On-site meeting - 10.00 hours
Plan Check:
Total hours - 15 hours (Total 3 P/C Reviews)
240.0 hours @ $55.00/hr. _ $13,200.00
10 hours @ $55.00/hr.
15 hours 0 $75.00/hr.
TOTAL ESTIMATED NOT TO EXCEED FEE:
_ $ 550.00
_ $ 1,125.00
$14,875.00
Should you any questions regarding this proposal, please call me at (909) 396-6984.
Very trul
v
Dennis A. Tarango, C.B.O.
D&J Engineering
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.'R'��_
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999 REPORT DATE: February 25, 1999
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Resolution No. 99 -XX entitled: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar approving the installation of a 50 -feet red curb north of and a 25 -feet red curb south
of Pasco Court on Fallow Field Drive".
SUMMARY: To improve the sight visibility distance of motorists at the intersection of Fallow
Field Drive and Pasco Court, the Traffic and Transportation Commission recommended to the
City Council the installation of a 50 -feet red curb north of and a 25 -feet red curb south of Pasco
Court on Fallow Field Drive. The vicinity of this intersection is utilized mainly by the visitors and
employees of First Mortgage Company during the week for two (2) hours between 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 99 -XX entitled: "A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar approving the installation of a 50 -feet
red curb north of and a 25 -feet red curb south of Pasco Court on Fallow Field Drive".
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report
X Resolution(s)
_ Ordinance(s)
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
Bid Specification (on file in City
Clerk's office)
X Other: Exhibit "Al 2/11/99 T/T Minutes
Aerial mans
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been
X Yes
—No
reviewed by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority vote? Majority
X Yes
_ No
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A
_ Yes
_ No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
X Yes
_ No
Which Commission? TratTe & Transoortation
5. Are other departments affected by the report? N/A
_ Yes
_ No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
l
Terrence L. Belange 4Jes ADeStef no46G. Liu
City Manager Deputy City ManLr Deputy Director of Public Works
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999 AGENDA NO.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 99 -XX entitled: "A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar approving the installation of a 50 -feet red curb north
of and a 25 -feet red curb south of Pasco Court on Fallow Field Drive".
ISSUE STATEMENT:
To improve the sight visibility distance of motorists at the intersection of Fallow Field Drive and
Pasco Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 99 -XX entitled: "A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar approving the installation of a 50 -feet red curb north of and a 25 -feet red
curb south of Pasco Court on Fallow Field Drive".
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The installation of the red curbs will be funded through the City's Signing and Striping
maintenance account.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On February 11, 1999, the Traffic and Transportation Commission discussed the recommendation
to install a 50 -feet red curb north of and a 25 -feet red curb south of Pasco Court on Fallow Field
Drive. This recommendation was intended to improve the sight visibility distance of motorists
who wish to turn on to Fallow Field Drive from Pasco Court. The request was originated during
the creation of Preferential Parking District #2 (see Exhibit "N').
Fallow Field Drive is a residential street, which occupies a business in addition to residences.
During the week, for two (2) hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Fallow Field Drive between
Brea Canyon Cut -Off Road and Malad Court is utilized mainly by the visitors and employees of
said business. The parking of vehicles near the intersection of Fallow Field Drive/Pasco Court
does restrict the visibility distance. To facilitate safe ingress and egress for those coming out of
Pasco Court, it is recommended that the City Council concur with the Traffic and Transportation
Commission's recommendation to install a 50 -feet red curb north of and a 25 -feet red curb south
of Pasco Court on Fallow Field Drive".
Prepared By: David G. Liu/Taeday Aberra
M • = s " �•� r Z. .6 • '� A
CITY of DIAMC
INDUSTRY
BAF
a.
i • ra. rsLe
• r.
4 �r d
� • � � a ' .� L � rrr "' r 4 A� " a�
to
H,.
i
.ta � i � i W►tr t i � dj s s= w,
t � 4♦ M s •
4 �• '`' ' 4p � i O - � 4' ii�l y`d �b
'{;::: =`' - ..... 6r a 'tu•' 1 b. i b * " 'b
P64 Q.
'¢.. OSS' _ •o � A • :.J � l
... d -ES' f..a e s ♦ � ♦ gra, + t:.-���
46
mom
Y � E. SY V �D NiMt•�F �G � a' �M !� ' . ^�.,� j ��
f o i � -yam � •� + y j � • � �� '� � �. M �
a.
B • q+, f e+ _
� 'fir ssl�
Y
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
'�•• PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT
NUMBERS 1 AND 2
JANUARY, 1999
a
RESOLUTION NO. 99-,.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF A 50 -FEET RED CURB
NORTH OF AND A 25 -FEET RED CURB SOUTH OF PASCO COURT ON
FALLOW FIELD DRIVE.
A. RECITALS.
(i) The Traffic and Transportation Commission considered this matter at
a public meeting on February 11, 1999.
(ii) At the meeting of February 11, 1999, the Traffic and Transportation
Commission determined that the installation of a 50 -feet red curb north
of and a 25 -feet red curb south of Pasco Court on Fallow Field Drive is
appropriate.
(iii) The Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends the installation
of a 50 -feet red curb north of and a 25 -feet red curb south of Pasco
Court on Fallow Field Drive.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Said action is pursuant to Sections 10.16.490 and 10.08.010 of the
Diamond Bar City Code, as heretofore adopted;
-1-
2. The City Council hereby finds that the public health, safety, and welfare
will be best protected by the approval of the installation of a 50 -feet red
curb north of and a 25 -feet red curb south of Pasco Court on Fallow
Field Drive; and
3. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby authorizes and
directs the City Engineer to cause said red curbing to be installed.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of
MAYOR
1999.
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on day of , 1999 by the
following vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
-2-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 11, 1999
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chairman Morris called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Hearing Board, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Vice Chairman Morris.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners: Vice Chair Morris, and Commissioner Istik, Lin and Virginkar.
Chair/Leonard-Colby arrived at 7:15 p.m.
Also Present were: David Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works; Rose Manela, Assistant
Engineer; Tseday Aberra, Administrative Assistant; Sharon Gomez,
Administrative Secretary; Deputy Perkins and Sergeant Flannery.
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None Offered.
H. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None Offered.
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Installation of red curbs on the westerly side of Fallowfield Drive north and south of Pasco Court.
DDPW/Liu presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Traffic and Transportation
Commission recommend to the City Council the installation of a 50 foot red curb north of Pasco
Court and a 25 foot red curb south of Pasco Court on Fallowfield Drive.
C/Virginkar moved, C/Lin seconded, to recommend to the City Council the installation of a 50
foot red curb north of Pasco Court and a 25 foot red curb south of Pasco Court on Fallowfield
Drive. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Istik, Lin, Virginkar, VC/Morris,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Leonard-Colby
Chair/Leonard-Colby arrived at 7:15 p.m. and assumed the gavel.
V. O
A. Kkwa Crest Drive and Santaquin Drive Traffic Concerns.
AE/M ela presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Traffic and Transportat n
Commis n review/discuss the issues raised as well as, possible mitigation measures d to
recommen o the City Council that two multi -way stop signs be installed at the inti sections of
Santaquin D e/Redgate Circle and Kiowa Crest Drive✓Deerfoot Drive and that ditional
signing and pav ent markings be installed along Santaquin Drive, Kiowa Cre Drive and
Cliffbranch Drive.
Deputy Perkins report on the Sheriff Department's spot check study i he Morning Canyon
area. Approximately 10 vehicles were contacted, 70 percent of whic were warned and advised
with respect to speeding an approximately 30 citations were writte . Four of the vehicles
stopped had a speed of betwe 48 and 51 miles per hours. The erage speed for the remaining
vehicles was about 38 miles per our. Cut through traffic acco ted for 8 vehicles out of 100
contacted.
Eileen Ansari, 1823 S. Cliffbranch Dri , said that the ar from Kiowa Crest to Cliffbranch Drive
is a very dangerous area. The visibility a he corner o 'owa Crest and Santaquin Drive due to
the fact that there is usually a van parked n the in rsection. When vehicles fail to negotiate a
complete stop at the bottom of Santaquin Dn a hey enter Kiowa Crest it presents a hazardous
situation. She stated she favors the installation stop signs at the intersection of Shaded Wood
and Redgate as well as, mitigation measures r wa Crest. Additionally, mitigation measures
are needed for Morning Canyon at Santa q . Drive d Cliffbranch Drive. She also asked the
Commission to consider traffic control asures at Sil rhawk Drive in the area of the church
ingress/egress during Wednesday, Sa day evening and nday church hours.
DDPW/Liu stated that last year th City conducted a traffic si at warrant study at the
intersection of Silverhawk Driv t. Denis ingress/egress. At th time, the traffic signal was not
warranted. Staff will follow to determine the conditions at the ' e the study was conducted
and bring the matter back t he Commission for further discussion.
Evan Owens, 21794 S taquin Drive, said he is not opposed to stop sign He asked if the City
has considered inst ' g a chicane in place of a stop sign. He stated co mme ial vehicles parked
at the bottom of S taquin Drive at Kiowa Crest obstruct views.
Claudia Yeag , 21726 Santaquin Drive, said that Fern Hollow and Evergreen do t have posted
speed limit ' s and should be included.
AGENDA NO. 9.2
NO DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING AN EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-12, AND OAK TREE
PERMIT NO. 92-9 FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF
MORNING SUN AVENUE AND NORTH OF PATHFINDER
ROAD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA.
A. RECITALS.
The property owner/applicant, Armut Patel of Sasak Corporation, has filed an
application for a one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map No. 51253,
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9. The project
site is located east of Morning Sun Avenue and north of Pathfinder Road,
Los Angeles County, Diamond Bar, California, as described above in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Extension of Time
shall be referred to as the "Application".
2. On May 17, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 95-21 and 95-22
approving the applicant's project. On May 17, 1995 the map was conditioned to
respond to evidence of unresolved geotechnical concerns upon the property
3. On May 19, 1995 a landslide occurred upon the applicants property.
4. The City Council approval was based on the applicant obtaining a permanent
transfer of property from the Walnut Valley Unified School District to the
applicant. The permanent transfer of property (approximately 3 acres) would
allow the applicant access to the project site from Morning Sun Avenue and allow
the applicant to expand the lot and pad size of lots 5, 6, 7, and 8, in order to
comply with the required lot size and pad size.
5. The approved project would subdivide approximately 6.7 acres (owned by the
applicant) and approximately 3 acres (owned by the Walnut Valley Unified
School District) into a 21 unit, single-family, residential development, along with
the removal and replacement of oak and walnut trees and native vegetation
according to the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program.
6. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density
Residential (RL Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per Acre). It is zoned Residential
Planned Development -Minimum Lot Size, 10,000 Square Feet -6 Units Per Acre
(RPD -10,000-6U).
7. Generally, the following zones and uses surround the project site: to the north is
the Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size 15,000 Square Feet (R-1-15,000)
Zone; and to the east is the Residential Planned Development -Minimum Lot Size
10,000 Square feet -6 Units Per Acre (RPD -100,000-61J) and the Walnut Valley
Unified School District property; to the south is the RPD -100,000-6U Zone; and
to the west is the Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size -8,500 Square Feet
(R-1-8,000) Zone.
8. The City Council project approval expired August 6, 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 Subdivision Ordinance).
9. On November 24, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing on the Application. At that time and pursuant to the applicant's
request, the public hearing was continued to December 8, 1998. On December 8,
1998, pursuant to the applicant's request, the public hearing was continued to
January 12, 1999.
10. On January 12, 1999, the Planning Commission concluded its public hearing and
adopted Resolution No. 99-01 recommending City Council approval of the
Application.
11. On February 16, 1999, 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.
12. Notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel
Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on January 27, 1999.
Notice of the public hearing was mailed to 137 property owners within a 500 -foot
radius of the project site on January 20, 1999.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar as follows:
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.
OA
2. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this City Council hereby
finds as follows:
(a) Due to the Tract Map's design, 3 acres of property owned by the Walnut
Valley Unified School District is required for the Map's development as
presented. Access to the project site through the Walnut Valley Unified
School District property is essential. Without a permanent transfer of
property from the School District to the applicant, the project site has no
means of access. Additionally, in order to comply with the required lot
and pad size, the permanent transfer of land, adjacent to the rear of Lots 5,
6, 7, and 8, from the School District to the applicant is also essential.
Without the transfer of property, the Map cannot record.
(b) The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the conditions of
approval. The following conditions of approval are required for final map
approval/or map recordation:
Resolution No. 95-21: B. 2. through 5.; C. 2. and 10; E. 4., 11. through
13., and 18.; E. 1. through 3., 6. through 8., 11., 12., 16., 17., 20., 21., 28.,
30., 32., 37., 39., 46., 48., 49., 51. through 54. and 57.
Resolution No. 95-22: B. 2. through 5.; C. 2. and 10; E. 4., 11 through
13., and 18.; E. 1. through 3., 6. through 8., 11., 12., 16., 17., 20., 21., 28.,
30.; 32., 37., 39., 46., 48., 49., 51. through 54. and 57.
(c) As a result of the landslide and subsequent grading activity the physical
environment has changed. Evidence has not been presented to the City
Council to support a finding that the earth movement has stabilized.
(d)
The applicant has not demonstrated through the completion of project
conditions that the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the
proposed 21 unit residential development proposed. As a result, the
design of the subdivision or improvements are likely to cause serious
public health problems.
(e) 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 Tract
Map No. 51253, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9
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 the Resolution, by certified mail, to:
Amrut Patel, Sasak Corporation, 858 W. 9th Street, Upland, California
91785
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2nd DAY OF MARCH, 1999, 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 2nd day of March, 1999, by
the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
4
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA N0.
qA-
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999 REPORT DATE: February 24, 1999
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Award of Contract for Dial -a -Cab Services to Diversified Paratransit, Inc.
SUMMARY: In December 1998, the City released a Request for Proposals for Dial -a -Cab Services. The
RFP was mailed to six taxi/paratransit service providers, and only one firm responded, Diversified Paratransit,
Inc. Diversified has been providing Dial -a -Cab services to the City since April 1995. Dial -a -Cab services are
offered to residents who are 60 years of age and older, and persons with disabilities. The services are offered
seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, as a demand -response system. The boundaries for the service
are Arrow Highway to the north; Imperial Highway/Carbon Canyon Road to the south; Central Avenue to the
east; and Hacienda Boulevard/Amar/Sunset to the west. In addition to the boundaries, the City has designated
29 Medical Facilities, Ontario International Airport and Fullerton Amtrak Station. The fares are $0.50 within the
City limits and $1.50 outside the City limits within the boundaries or designated facilities.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve and award the Contract Agreement for Dial -a -Cab
Services with Diversified Paratransit, Inc. for a period of April 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification
Ordinance(s) X Other: RFP/Proposal
X Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been
X Yes _
No
reviewed by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority vote?
X Yes _
No
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
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?
X Yes
No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: Engineering/Public Works
REVIEWED BY:
Terrence L. Belanger
City Manager
e lee A. Fritzal CZ
Assistant to City Manager
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Agenda No._
MEETING DATE: March 2, 1999
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Dial -a -Cab Services to Diversified
Paratransit, Inc.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Should the City approve a contract with Diversified Paratransit for the provision of Dial -a -Cab
services?
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the Agreement for Dial -a -Cab Services with Diversified Paratransit,
Inc. for a period of April 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
The Dial -a -Cab program is funded through Proposition A, Local Transit Funds. The current budget
(1998-99) for the Dial -a -Cab system is $302,000; $276,000 for contract services, $27,000 personnel;
and $2,000 for supplies. The remainder of the contract period will be incorporated into the 1999-
2000 proposed budget.
BACKGROUND:
The City established the Dial -a -Cab service to provide a reliable, useable transportation system for
the elderly (60 years of age and older) and physically challenged residents of Diamond Bar. The
service commenced in mid-April 1995. The Dial -a -Cab system operates 7 days a week, 24 hours
a day, within a designated geographic boundary and designated facilities. In April 1995, Diversified
Paratransit was awarded a one-year contract with four (4) one-year extensions to conduct the Dial -a -
Cab system. The City awarded two (2) one-year extensions, ending in June, 1998. In June 1998,
the City Council elected to award a month to month contract with Diversified Paratransit. In
December 1998, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was transmitted to six (6) companies, and one firm
submitted a proposal, Diversified Paratransit, Inc. One reason firms may not have responded to the
RFP is due to the location of the City and they are providing taxi service in the area.
DISCUSSION:
The current (1998/99) fees are $1.90 flag drop (flag drop is the fixed amount charged for initiating
a trip) and it is and $1.60 per mile, with no wait time fees, and a 10% administrative fee charged by
Diversified Paratransit, Inc. These fees have remained the same since the start of the contract in
Page Two
Dial -a -Cab Staff Report
April 1995. With the new fiscal year (July 1, 1999) Diversified Paratransit will increase the per mile
fee from $1.60 to $1.80. Effective July 1999, the per mile fee will be consistent with the meter rates
in surrounding Dial -a -Cab systems. Diversified Paratransit has also agreed to hold the $1.80 per
mile meter rate for a two-year period, through the Fiscal Year 2000-2001. The last fee increase for
Diversified Paratransit was in 1990.
The RFP sets the standards for the provision of the Dial -a -Cab service. The system calls for shared
rides, which can also be incremental. A shared ride is defined as a trip in which a taxicab picks up
more than one person from a common origin and delivers them to a common destination. The
incremental shared rides means a trip in which the taxicab picks up travelers successively and
delivers them to the same or successive destinations. Shared rides reduce the total trip fees, for each
shared ride passenger; there is not a separate flag drop fee for that fare.
The City will be creating new Diamond Ride Identification Cards. The current cards have the rider's
name, address, ID number, and verification. The new Identification Cards will have the rider's
name, address, telephone number and photograph. The photograph will assist the drivers in assuring
that the person presenting the ID card is a valid passenger. The response time will remain the same,
thirty (30) minutes, with a ten-minute window; however, the new customer service standards will
mandate that if a driver is longer than 40 minutes, the passenger will automatically receive the trip
free of charge. Currently, the passenger needs to ask for the trip fare to be waived. On a monthly
basis, the City will randomly select three days to be monitored for on-time standards. The faithful
performance bond or certificate of deposit has been increased from $5,000 to $25,000. The RFP has
set forth Customer Service Standards which create standards for clean, well maintained vehicles,
clean uniformed drivers, displaying name badges, no smoking in vehicles, and for the dispatchers
to assist the drivers in locating passengers by placing phone calls, when needed.
Diversified Paratransit provides similar Dial -a -Cab services for the Cities of Covina, Claremont, San
Dimas and Walnut. In addition Diversified provides the Dial -a -Cab service for Omni -Trans in San
Bernardino County. The number of yearly trips in the calendar year 1998 was Covina - 20,659;
Claremont - 24,035; San Dimas — 27,015; Walnut — 14,840 and Omni -Trans — 49,649. The yearly
amount of contract services range from 5126,000 to $206,000. The City of Diamond Bar 1998
(January to December) yearly trips were 20, 319 and contract expense was $239,500. Some of the
surrounding city expenditures are less due to the limited geographic boundaries and/or limited or no
out of area designated facilities. In addition the fares for the cities range from $0.50 to $2.50 per trip.
Staff has conducted a review of the Dial -A -Cab system including trips, on-time/customer service
standards, designated facilities, and internal controls/general management of the system.
Page Three
Dial -a -Cab Staff Report
TRIPS/PASSENGERS
The below chart demonstrates the average of the seven-month time frame.
Category
July 98 - Jan 99
July 97 — Jan 98
Net cost per month
$18,675
$20,840
Passengers per month
1,630
1,733
Trips per month
1,783
1,445
Shared rides per month
466
452
Senior trips per month
1,050
1,168
Disabled trips per month
466
388
Trips within City
778
776
Trips outside City
777
957
Average miles per trip
7.53
7.62
Average cost per trip
$12.42
$13.11
Net cost per passenger
$10.35
$10.92
Net cost in town
$6.29
$ 6.60
Net cost out of town
$17.58
$17.99
The City has a total of 1,094 Diamond Ride Identification Cards issued. Of the 1,094 cards, 104 are
issued to physically challenged residents. To review the ridership of the Dial -a -Cab system, the
month of January 1999 was used. In the month of January, 196 residents used the system for 1,203
trips, an average of 6 trips per user.
Total Trips
Below 24 trips 185
Between 25 to 34 trips 8
Between 35 to 40 trips 3
Trips Outside the City
1 to 9
106
10 to 19
7
20 to 29
7
30 and over
1
As a comparison, the review of ridership conducted for the month of March 1998, there were two
passengers who utilized the system over 70 times. Over the last year, the average number of trips
per passenger has decreased.
ON-TIME CUSTOMER SERVICE
The City reviewed the on-time standards for the month of November 1999. The review was based
upon the time the call for a ride was placed and the actual time the taxicab picked up the passenger.
Page Four
Dial -a -Cab Staff Report
Attached is the November review of the number of trips (1,212): there were 708 of those fares
picked -up prior to 30 minutes; and 504 fares picked up after 30 minutes. Of the 504 trips that were
picked up after 30 minutes, 278 of those were picked -up after 40 minutes. The average time for
pick-up is 30.12 minutes, 77% of the calls were picked -up within the 40 -minute time frame. In
November there were several calls that took over one hour for pick-up, and one that took two hours
for pick-up; however, the two-hour call occurred on Thanksgiving Day. Based on the average call
time being 30 minutes, these exceptions are still unacceptable. The City and Diversified Paratransit
have been working on eliminating all calls which take over 40 minutes to be picked up. Since
November, the number of complaints received regarding the pick-up times has decreased. There are
several methods to accomplish the elimination of late calls. The hiring of an employee driver at
$18.00 per hour would assist in eliminating late calls by having a dedicated taxicab within the City
for the shorter trips. However, the employee driver would be an extra cost of $34,560 per year.
The new contract sets out Customer Service Standards which will be monitored with surveys
conducted by both Diversified Paratransit and the City.
DESIGNATED FACILITIES
In addition to the geographic boundaries, the City has designated 29 medical/doctor's facilities. The
City has also designated the Ontario Airport as an eligible destination. The average cost to the
Ontario Airport is $31.00. The trips to Ontario Airport are as follows: November — 45 trips ($1,395);
December - 32 trips ($992); and January — 13 trips ($403). The overall impact to the monthly
invoices is minimal. However, several seniors have been requesting that the Fullerton Amtrak
Station be included as a designated facility. The City currently has St. Jude's Medical Center in
Fullerton as a designated facility; it is not anticipated that the addition of the Amtrak Station will be
a significant increase in fares or expenditures.
INTERNAL CONTROLS/GENERAL MANAGEMENT
The City and Diversified Paratransit have several checks and balances to review the monthly
invoicing and oversee the administration of the contract. The invoices are reviewed in relation to
the computer print outs of actual calls and the daily logs of the taxicab drivers. Attached is a letter
from Diversified regarding their internal controls.
When the City receives a complaint regarding late calls or customer service, Diversified Paratransit
is contacted to review the situation in question. After the review is complete, the resident is called
back by both the City and Diversified Paratransit. If Diversified Paratransit is at fault, they will
provide the cardholder with free coupons. The coupons are paid for by Diversified. Over the last
two months (January and February) the number of complaints have decreased.
Attachments: Agreement
Request for Proposals
Diversified Paratransit Proposal
Wen Chang
Mayor
Deborah H. O'Connor
Mayor Pro Tem
Eileen R. Ansari
Council Member
Carol Herrera
Council Member
Robert S. Huff
Council Member
Recycled paper
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 • Diamond Bar, CA 917654177
y (909) 860-2489 • Fax (909) 861-3117
R, �4?h ternet: http://www.d.diamon"ar.ca.us • City Online (885): (909) 860.5463
FV
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
T - c DIAL A CAB
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
ADDENDA NO. 1
Issue Date: December 17, 1998
This addenda is issued pursuant to questions from the pre-bid meeting conducted on
December 16, 1998. For clarifications purposes:
Section 4 - Scope of Work
I. Service Characteristics
G. Response Time - This is not meant to create the dispatcher to "hold"
calls for 10 minutes. Response time is from the call to 30 minutes. The
late calls not being billed to the City, can be proposed to be eliminated';
however an alternative incentive/penalty for late calls should be
proposed. (i.e. 90% on-call or a discount)
III Qualification of Contractor
C. (1) The financial statements can be confidential and will be returned
to proposer.
D. The proposer can subcontract taxicabs, if it is disclosed in the
proposal.
VIII Eauipment Maintenance Records must be maintained for City review.
The City will request yearly (January to December) accident reports for
any vehicle used within the City.
Section 5 - Insurance
IV - Faithful Performance Deposit. The City will accept a Performance bond
submitted on a form approved by the City Attorney; from a surety company
admitted to do business in the State of California with a standing of AA or
better.
Page Two
Addendum 1
December 18, 1998
Add
Detail the taxicabs which are leased, company owned and contract vehicles.
Last day for questions regarding the Request for Proposals will be Jmu= 11. 1999,
Sincerely,
Kellee A. Fritzal
Assistant to the City Manager
December 8, 1998
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 • Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
To All Interested Parties:
(909) 860-2489 • Fax (909) 861-3117
The City of Diamond Bar is seeking responses from qualified firms to provide Dial -A -
Cab service. The service will be operated for Diamond Bar eligible elderly (60 years and
older) and persons with disabilities. The Dial -A -Cab services will be provided within the
city limits, specific medical facilities and within a designated mile radius of the City
limits (map attached).
Please find the enclosed scope of work and minimum operating parameters. It is the
City's intention to contract with a responsible and experienced operator to provide a high
quality, free of complaints, and highly productive service.
The successful proposer will display a working knowledge of Dial -A -Cab systems and
demonstrate a history of successful public transit operations. A mandatory pre-bid
conference for the purpose of providing a forum for interested parties will be held:
December 16, 1998, 3:00 p.m.
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Attendance of the pre-bid conference is mandatory and failure to attend without prior
excuse could render your bid non-responsive.
The proposal is due not later than 3:00 p.m. on January 19. 1999 at the Office of the
City Clerk, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. All questions
concerning this RFP should be directed to Kellee Fritzal, Assistant to the City Manager,
at (909) 396-5690.
Sincerely,
11
Q
Kellee A. Fritzal
Assistant to the City Manager
Kecycled paper
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
NUMBER
TITLE
NUMBER
SECTION 1
INSTRUCTION TO THE PROPOSER
1
SECTION 2
CONTENTS OF THE PROPOSAL
4
SECTION 3
PROPOSAL LETTER/CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE 6
SECTION 4
SCOPE OF WORK
8
SECTION 5
INSURANCE, CONTRACT TERM, AND OTHER
14
REQUIREMENTS
SECTION 6
SAMPLE CONTRACT
17
FORM 2
PROPOSED PRICING
22
EXHIBIT A
MONTHLY MANAGEMENT REPORTS
23
EXHIBIT B
CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS
24
SECTION 1
INSTRUCTION TO THE PROPOSER
I. PREPARATION OF PROPOSER FORM
Proposer shall be solely responsible for examining the entire request for proposal document,
and any addenda the City may issue. Furthermore, the proposal period, and for informing
itself with respect to any and all conditions (for example, changes in laws) which may in any
way affect the amount or nature of the proposal, or the performance of the Services in the
event Proposer is selected. No relief for error or omission will be given.
II. INTERPRETATION OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Proposer may request of the City in writing, prior to submission of proposal, clarification or
interpretation of the RFP Documents. Where such interpretation or clarification requires a
change in the RFP Documents, the City will issue an Addendum. Proposer shall
acknowledge receipt of any and all addenda in the Proposal Letter. The City shall not be
bound by and Proposer shall not rely an any oral interpretation or clarification of the RFP
Documents.
III. PREPARATION OF PROPOSAL
The proposer shall submit its Proposal as specified in Section 2 of this document. The
proposal shall include all items listed in Section 2 Proposal Letter and forms shall be
executed by an authorized signatory. All proposals shall be prepared by and at the expense
of the Proposer.
IV. REJECTIONS OF PROPOSALS CONTAINING ALTERATIONS, ERASURES OR
IIRREGULARITIES
Unauthorized conditions, limitations, or provisos attached to a proposal will render it
informal and may cause its rejections. The completed proposal forms shall be without
interlineation, alterations, or erasures. Alternative proposals will not be considered unless
called for. No oral, telegraphic, or telephonic proposals or modifications will be considered.
The proposal may be withdrawn upon request by the proposer without opening of proposals,
provided that the request is in writing, has been executed by the proposer or his duly
authorized representative, and is filed with the City Clerk.
V. PROPOSAL BOND
All proposers shall furnish a proposal bond executed by a surety company licensed to do
business in the State of California. The bond shall bind the proposer to indemnify the City
against all losses, not to exceed the sum of the bond, which may be occasioned by failure to
consummate the contract for services. Said proposal bond shall be in the sum of $5,000
(five -thousand dollars). A certified check or cashier's check, payable to the City of Diamond
Bar, or cash may be deposited in lieu of a proposal bond.
VI. RETURN OF PROPOSER'S BOND
Within ninety (90) calendar days after award of proposal, the City will return the proposal
bonds or all other security deposits accompanying each bond, except that of the successful
proposer. The successful proposer's bond will be returned upon the signing of a contract.
VII. FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE DEPOSIT
Concurrent with the execution of an Agreement and maintained throughout its duration,
Contractor shall deposit with the Office of the City Clerk a cash deposit, irrevocable letter
of credit, or other such document evidencing an irrevocable case deposit payable to City, in
the amount of Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), in the form approved by the City
Attorney, guaranteeing Permittee's faithful performance of the terms of this Agreement.
VIII. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAU/PERIOD OF ACCEPTANCE
The proposer shall deliver in a sealed envelope bearing on the outside of the envelope the
words "DIAMOND RIDE PROPOSAL", six (6) copies of its proposal to the Diamond Bar
City Clerk at 21660 E. Copley , Suite 100, Diamond Bar, CA, 91765 by 3:00 p.m., on
igagga 19, 1999. It is the proposers sole responsibility to assure that its proposal is received
as stipulated.
The Proposer agrees to provide the services it describes, at the price it offers if the City
accepts its proposal within 90 days from the proposal due date.
IX. BASIS OF AWARD
A. The City Council is not obligated to award a contract and reserves the right to reject
all proposals. The City Council intends to award the contract to the lowest
responsible bidder; however, the City Council is not obligated to award a contract to
the low proposer, but will consider other factors such as evidence of Satisfactory
performance under other contracts or financial condition that may convince the
Council that a given proposer would provide the most effective, cost effective, and
reliable service to the City.
B. The contract will be awarded only to a bidder who has (a) complied with all of the
terms and provisions of the request for proposal; (b) proposal that would be
economical and serve the interest of the City.
2
C. The City further reserves the right to waive an informality or irregularity in the
proposal when doing so would serve the public interest.
D. If awarded, a contract will be granted within ninety (90) calendar days from the
proposal due date.
X. EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
The agreement shall be signed by the successful proposer and returned with the required
bonds within ten (10) days, not including Sundays and legal holidays, after the City has
provided written notice that the proposal has been awarded. Failure to execute an agreement
and file acceptable bonds and insurance documents as provided herein shall be just cause,
at City option, for annulment of the contract award and forfeiture of the proposal bond.
Should the successful proposer decline to execute a contract, City Council has the option to
either reject all proposals and call for new proposals or accept one of the other proposals. In
case of proposal rejection, the proposer's security of the successful bidder who declined to
execute a contract, shall be forfeited to the City.
1► 7 A
For the purposes of this Request, the following words are defined as follows:
(a) Fare - Shall mean the fare paid by the customers to the taxicab driver for a trip.
The City will set the fares.
(b) Flag Drop- Shall mean the fixed amount charged for initiating a trip. The flag
drop amount shall be set forth in the successful proposal and therefore in the formal
contract as the flag drop that shall prevail throughout the term of the contract.
(c) Shared Ride - Shall mean a trip in which a taxicab picks up more than one person
from a common origin and delivers them to a common destination.
(d) Incremental Shared Rides - Shall mean a trip in which a taxicab picks up joint
travelers successively and delivers them to the same or successive destinations.
(e) Net Charges - Shall mean trip charges (flag drop plus per -mile fees) less revenue
collected from riders.
(f) Trip - Shall mean the transport of a customer or customers from origin to
destination, where destination is defined as the point at which the customer or
customers leave the vehicle.
3
1
1' 310 -MM .1'.x.1'1
I. GENERAL FORMAT OF PROPOSAL
The proposal shall constitute the Proposer's plan for completing the Scope of Work.
Accordingly, the Proposer should present the technical approach demonstrating a well -
structured, reasonable work plan. Proposers should refine and/or expand the Scope of Work
in the RFP to reflect the particular plan they would use to perform the work. Proposers shall
address any problems that they envision to be associated with the work, citing specific
suggestions for avoiding these problems.
Six (6) copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope bearing the words
"DIAMOND RIDE PROPOSAL", to the City Clerk by 3:0012.m. on January 19. 1999. The
proposals must be in the City Clerk's office by the day and time stipulated. Postmarks
bearing the due date are not acceptable substitutes.
II. PROPOSAL CONTENT
The Proposal shall have the following components:
A. Proposal Letter (Section 3) Must be completed and executed by an authorized
representative of the Proposer.
B. Qualification Statement A qualification statement indicating general work
experience specifically relevant to the Scope of Work. List any major projects in
which your firm has participated (either in a lead or support role and state the degree
of involvement). A minimum of three (3), but not more that six (6) references from
current and past clients is required for review. Qualification statements shall be
submitted for the Proposer, Subcontractors and Joint Venture partners.
C. Work Plan/Technical Description The proposal shall include a work plan which
would delineate the approach Proposer would utilize to complete the work. The plan
shall demonstrate the Proposer's understanding of the scope of services. As stated
previously, it should refine and/or expand scope of services to reflect how Proposer
would complete the work.
The work plan should include how the Dial -A -Cab service would be conducted from
the customer telephone request to invoicing the City. If subcontractors are utilized,
the Proposer must submit a description of each firm or person and the work to be
done by each subcontractor.
4
D. Proposed Manpower Analysis The Manpower Analysis shall include information
regarding proposed person hours broken down by tasks that key staff is expected to
devote to the work. The plan should incorporate resumes of the background, related
experience, accomplishments and other pertinent information, and the remaining
information. Proposal should include an analysis of other commitments of the
contractor and subcontractors and availability of key staff.
E. Price Proposal Price Proposal shall be submitted on the form provided.
The Proposal shall be valid for 90 calendar days from the date stipulated in the
Proposal. If this offer is accepted within that time period, the Proposer agrees to
furnish all services and items as stipulated in the RFP and any accompanying
addenda.
City Dial -A -Cab passengers shall pay a set fare per trip. Proposer would invoice the
City for each trip at the municipally approved taxicab meter rate in affect at that time.
All fares collected by contractor from the passengers are the property of the City.
The total amount of such fares shall be retained by Proposer and deducted from the
billing statement.
F. Failure to submit all required forms and certifications duly executed by an authorized
officer of the Proposer's firm may render the proposal incomplete and unresponsive
and may cause its rejection.
FORM #1
SECTION 3
PROPOSAL LETTER/CERTIFICATE OFACCEPTANCE
PROPOSER:
TERRENCE L. BELANGER
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
21660 E. COPLEY #100
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765
In response to the Request for Proposal (RFP), for Dial -A -Cab Service, we the undersigned hereby
declare that we have carefully read and examined the RFP documents, and hereby propose to
perform and complete the work as required in the Contract.
The undersigned agrees to supply the Scope of Work at the costs indicated in its cost proposal if its
Proposal is accepted within ninety days from the date specified in the proposal.
If awarded a Contract, the undersigned agrees to execute a Contract which will be prepared by the
City for execution, within 10 calendar days following Notification of Award, and will deliver the
City prior to the commencement of Scope of Work the necessary original Certificates of Insurance
and Faithful Performance Bond. If services are authorized to commence prior to the execution of
the Contract pursuant to a Notice to Proceed issued by the City, pending the execution of the
Contract, the services shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the Scope of Work and the
Contract.
Incorporated herein and made a part of this Proposal is the Proposal Requirements.
The undersigned acknowledges receipt, understanding and full consideration of the following
Addenda to the RFP Documents (if applicable):
Addenda No.
Proposer represents that the following person is authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the City
in connection with this RFP:
Name Title
R
Phone
The undersigned certifies that it has examined and is fully familiar with all of the provisions of the
RFP Documents and is satisfied that they are accurate; that it has carefully checked all the words and
figures and all statements made in the Proposal Requirements; that it has satisfied itself with respect
to other matters pertaining to the proposal which in any way affect the work or the cost thereof. The
undersigned hereby agrees that the City will not be responsible for any errors or omissions in these
RFP Documents.
Signature
Type or Print Name
Title
7
Proposer's Business Address
and Telephone/Fax Numbers:
SECTION 4
SCOPE OF WORK
I. SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS
The service characteristics describe the qualifications the City requires. Where the proposer cannot,
or for good reason declines to provide the described service or condition, he or she should provide
a written explanation.
A. Hours of Operation. Service shall operate seven days a week, fifty-two weeks per
year, twenty-four hours a day, including all holidays.
B. Eligible Users. The service shall be available to Diamond Bar residents who are: (a)
At least sixty (60) years of age; or (b) Disabled as certified by a physician. The term
disabled is intended to include all who are unable to use public transit because of
illness, injury, age, or other permanent or temporary incapacity or disability.
C. Identification. Each eligible resident who signs up to use the service shall have a
uniquely numbered identification card bearing his/her name, address, telephone
number, and photograph. A resident may use a valid Medi -Care, Medicaid, Medi -
Cal or DMV Disabled identification card to obtain Dial -A -Cab services until he or
she receives a City of Diamond Bar identification card.
D. Dedicated Telephone Number. The contractor will maintain a dedicated telephone
number for the exclusive use of Diamond Bar Dial -A -Cab users. The contractor will
have its dispatchers and other staff members answer the line with the words
"Diamond Ride".
E. Calling for a Ride. When a resident embarks on a Dial -A -Cab trip, he or she must
telephone for a taxicab and report their identification number to the dispatcher.
When the traveler begins the ride, the resident must show the driver their
identification card to confirm their eligibility. Failure to identify himself or herself
as an eligible user of the Dial -A -Cab to either dispatcher or driver means that the
traveler must pay full fare, and the City will not pay for any portion of the trip.
F. Lead Time in Callina for a Taxi. Riders will be required to call for rides 30 minutes
in advance of when they wish the taxi to arrive. Riders will be responsible for
calculating when they will need the cab to arrive.
G. Response Time. A taxicab will arrive sometime during a ten-minute "response
window" that starts ten minutes after the cab is called. If a taxicab arrives more than
40 minutes after a customer calls, the customer will ride free of charge, and the City
will not be billed for any portion of the trip.
8
H. Pick -Up and Drop -Off Standards. Taxis will offer curb -to -curb service for ambulatory
senior riders, and portal-to-portal service for the disabled.
In curb -to -curb cases, because taxis will arrive during a twenty -minute response
window, riders may not be standing at the curb; in these cases, the taxi driver will
beep the horn gently to signal arrival. In instances where riders cannot walk out to
the curb but can walk as far as a driveway that is accessible to a taxicab, the taxi will
pull into the driveway to nick them gp.
In portal-to-portal instances, drivers will, if necessary help disabled riders negotiate
their exit from their dwelling by taking such actions as holding open a door, stepping
a short way inside the dwelling to help with a wheelchair, or carrying a small package
or handbag. Drivers are not expected to carry groceries into a dwelling.
I. Aides for the Disabled. One aide may accompany each disabled rider and shall not
pay a fare. When reporting service data, the contractor shall report aides separately
from eligible, registered riders.
J. Service Area. Eligible Diamond Bar residents may be picked up and transported with
in all incorporated areas of the City of Diamond Bar. In addition, they may be picked
up from or transported to:
(1) Designated Medical Facilities (list attached)
(2) Within the 5 mile boundary (boundary map attached)
(3) Ontario International Airport
If a resident wishes to make a trip to an out of the designated area, he or she will have
the trip subsidized up to the Diamond Bar boundary and will be charged the out of
town fare for that portion of the trip from the boundary on; the resident will be
charged commercial per -mile and per -minute rates and will be responsible for paying
for that out-of-town boundary portion of the trip.
K. Fares. Will be set as follows:
(1) Trips with the City boundaries - $0.50 one way
(2) Trips outside the boundaries, but within the boundaries or a designated
facility - $1.00 one way.
The City may change the fares at its discretion.
L. Billing. For each trip the contractor will invoice the City at the taxicab flag drop and
meter rates stated in Form 42 (the "not to exceed" price proposal) submitted by the
successful proposer. Charges are to be based on flag drop and mileage only, not on
0
periods of time. All fares collected by the contractor from passengers are the property
of the City. The total amount of such fares shall be retained by the contractor and
deducted from the total trip charges invoiced to the City.
M. Shared Rides. The contractor will make every reasonable effort to create shared rides
in order to minimize costs to the City.
To encourage shared rides, persons who are picked up at the same origin and
delivered to the same destination in the same taxicab may ride for a single fare per
taxicab.
An "incremental shared ride," where a taxicab picks up joint travelers successively
and delivers them to the same or successive destinations, shall be billed to the City
as a single trip from the point where the first rider is picked up to the point where the
last joint rider is dropped off. Each rider shall pay the full rider fare identified in
Point K above. All fares collected in this incremental shared ride will be deducted
from the gross charge to the City.
N. Management Reports. The contractor shall furnish a report with each month's billing
giving standard boarding, trip, revenue, and cost statistics as shown in Exhibit A.
The number of trips shall be reported separately from the number of riders
transported. The contractor shall furnish additional reports at the City's request.
O. Monitoring Customer Satisfaction. Every year the contractor shall carry out a survey
to determine satisfaction with the service and collect information that could suggest
service improvements. The survey, to be answered anonymously, could include
Dial -A -Cab users, those who have signed up for the service but do not use it, City
personnel, and council members.
P. Criticism and Initiative. The contractor will work closely with the City to make the
service as responsive, cost effective, and complaint -free as possible. Because of the
contractor's expertise, the City will expect the contractor to observe the program with
a critical eye and suggest changes that will improve any and all aspects of the service,
including City administrative practices.
Q.
Responsibility of Contractor. Contractor shall provide all management and
operational functions necessary for the success of the Diamond Bar Dial -A -Cab
service. Contractor must provide all vehicles, dispatch, drivers, insurance, fuel, and
maintenance.
10
II. ADJUSTMENT TO SERVICE
It is probable that service will be adjusted at some future time by the City. Adjustments may
include (but are not limited to) expanding or decreasing service hours or days of service, or
increasing or decreasing service areas, adjusting fares, or requiring advance reservations.
Contractor is required to make changes as requested within thirty (30) calendar days of the
receipt of notice. If contractor cannot or elects not to make the changes requested, or costs
cannot be agreed on, the City shall have the option of cancelling the contract.
III. QUALIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTOR
Contractor must meet the minimum qualifications set forth to be considered eligible to
provide the proposed service. Contractor must:
A. Be a transportation organization experienced in the provision of Dial -A -Cab services.
(1) List the major relevant projects in which your firm has participated in either
a lead or a support role; state the degree of involvement. A minimum of three
(3) references from current clients or from clients served within the last three
years is required for review.
(2) Furnish brief resumes of the designated project manager and key project
personnel.
B. Be a privately owned transportation company.
C. Be financially sound.
(1) Please provide two years of audited financial statements.
D. Be able to commit enough vehicles to the Diamond Bar Dial -A -Cab to handle the
highs and lows of the demand without subcontracting.
IV. LIAISON
Contractor shall coordinate closely with the City and relevant municipalities, agencies, and
interest groups on all City transportation program matters and operation status. Under no
circumstances shall Contractor represent or speak on behalf of the City. Contractor shall
attend meetings with the City as requested. Contractor may be required to make
presentations at community or service club meetings.
11
V. DRIVER QUALIFICATIONS
All drivers performing the Dial -A -Cab service shall meet the following minimum
qualifications:
A. Be legally licensed to operate a taxi in Diamond Bar or in a jurisdiction with
licensing standards accepted by the City of Diamond Bar.
B. Be alert, clean, careful, courteous, sober, and competent in their driving skills.
C. Dressed in a conservative, safe manner (i.e., uniform shirt, long pants, no open -toed
sandals, no tank tops).
D. Meet all City, County, State and Federal requirements.
VI. DRUG TESTING
The Contractor shall conduct an ongoing drug and alcohol testing program which shall meet
state and federal standards and include a driving test, test on incident or accident, test on
reasonable suspicion, random testing, and training of supervisors to recognize drug and
alcohol symptoms. A list of testing laboratories shall be provided to the City and all
employees tested.
VII. SAFETY
The contractor shall have an ongoing safety program that promotes and rewards safe driving.
Please attach a description of a comprehensive safety plan that the proposer has adopted and
that demonstrates the proposer's commitment to safe transportation. The Contractor shall
provide the name of a person trained and designated as the safety coordinator who shall
report to the City as requested on safety issues and accident statistics as requested.
VIII. EQUIPMENT
Vehicles shall be easily recognized and marked as taxis. Vehicles shall be maintained on a
regular schedule with regular preventative maintenance inspections at a minimum of every
5,000 miles. Vehicle maintenance records shall be kept for at least one year as required by
the California Highway Patrol. Contractor shall provide copies of the completed preventative
maintenance check lists to the city.
Wheel chair accessible vehicles shall be available within the same service parameters as
regular sedan service. The wheel chair accessible vehicles shall meet all requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and all applicable amendments thereto.
12
Each vehicle shall be equipped with a fire extinguisher, taxi meter with a current approval
and inspection by the Department of Weights and Measures, a two-way radio, a device for
alerting authorities in case of hijacking or robbery, and a digital terminal for receiving rider
information.
The proposer shall submit a photograph of a typical sedan and a typical wheel -chair -
accessible vehicle to be used in the proposed service.
The proposer shall describe the system used to insure that the vehicles are washed and the
interiors cleaned daily.
Maintenance records shall be submitted to the City yearly.
IX. DISPATCHING
The contractor shall provide a dedicated telephone number which shall be answered with the
words "Diamond Ride". The contractor shall provide dispatching twenty-four (24) hours per
day.
The dispatchers will be courteous and patient with what we acknowledge is perceived to be
a difficult population to serve.
Calls on the dedicated Diamond Ride number shall be answered within 30 seconds, and hold
times shall not exceed two (2) minutes.
Because of the topography of Diamond Bar, radio service may be marginal. The proposer
shall provide documentation that its radio service system will allow communication in most
areas of the community and contain a back-up system.
Contractor shall dispatch its cabs via a digital dispatch system, which is more reliable in a
hilly area and eliminates radio noise in the vehicle.
Because the dispatcher is an invaluable component of a successful Dial -A -Cab program, the
dispatcher shall have demonstrated experience in dispatching taxis and putting together
shared rides, in a timely manner.
X. LOSS OF DESIGNATED PROJECT MANAGER
The proposer commits to maintaining throughout the term of the contract the project manager
designated in the proposal letter. Should the contractor's project manager no longer be
available to administer the contract, the City of Diamond Bar reserves the right to terminate
the contract thirty (30) days from the date on which the designated project manager is no
longer available.
13
SECTION 5
INSURANCE, CONTRACT TERM. AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS
I. INSURANCE
With respect to performance of work under this agreement, Contractor shall maintain
insurance from a company acceptable to City as described below:
A. Worker's Compensation insurance with State of California statutory limits and
employer's liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per accident.
Worker's Compensation shall cover all employees and independent Contractor
drivers.
B. Comprehensive general liability insurance with a combined single limit of not less
than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall:
C. Commercial Automobile liability insurance with a combined single limit of not less
than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall:
1. Include coverage of all vehicles used in this service.
2. Name the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, and
agents as additional insured.
3. Be primary for all purposes.
4. Contain standard cross -liability provisions.
D. Proposer or contractor shall:
1. Furnish a statement of insurance with the proposal describing to what extent
they meet these requirements by types and amounts of coverage Q provide
copies of certificates of insurance already in place which meet the minimum
requirements.
2. Furnish properly executed certificates of insurance to City prior to start of
work under this agreement, such certificates shall clearly evidence all
coverage required above and provide that such insurance shall not be
materially changed, terminated, or allowed to expire except on 30 days' prior
written notice to City; and
3. Maintain such insurance from the time work first starts until completion of
the work under this agreement; and
14
I1. TERM OF CONTRACT
The initial contract shall cover one year. The City may, with approval by the Diamond
Bar City Council, extend the effective termination date of the contract for a period of
time not to exceed twelve (12) months per extension, by enacting an amendment to
the contract that is mutually agreeable to both parties.
Negotiations for contract extension may begin three (3) months before the effective
termination date of the agreement in force and they shall end forty-five (45) days after
the beginning date for contract extension. Should the City and the contractor not agree
to the terms of a contract extension, the City may request proposals for the service
with the intent that the service will continue uninterrupted until a new contract is awarded.
III. AMENDMENT OF CONTRACT
At any time during the contract, including those times when the contract is amended to
extend the length of the contract, the City may, with the approval of the Diamond Bar City
Council, enact amendments to the contract that are mutually agreeable to both parties.
All amendments, with the exception of amendments that extend the length of the contract,
shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date on which both parties formally agree in writing
to enact the amendments unless the parties mutually agree to a shorter time period.
Any action that results in an increase in the "not to exceed" prices committed to by the
successful proposer may require the City to re -open the contract to competitive bidding.
IV. FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE DEPOSIT
Concurrent with the execution of an agreement and maintained throughout its duration, the
contractor shall deposit with the Diamond Bar City Clerk a cash deposit, irrevocable letter
of credit, or other such document evidencing an irrevocable cash deposit payable to the City
in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), in a form approved by the City
Attorney, guaranteeing the contractor's faithful performance of this agreement.
V. FEES PERMITS TAXES. AND CERTIFICATES
The contractor shall have the sole obligation to pay all license fees, assessments and taxes,
including but not limited to use, sales, property, or other taxes, plus penalties and interest
which may be imposed on the contractor as a result of the work under the contract.
The Contractor must obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the City.
15
VI. PAYMENT
The contractor shall invoice the City monthly, submitting all management reports along with
its invoice. The City shall pay the contractor monthly and within a reasonable time from
receipt of invoice, in a manner consistent with the City's normal accounts payable practices.
VII. TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT
A. The City shall have the right to terminate the contract upon giving a thirty (30) day
written notice of such termination to the contractor. In the event of such termination,
the City shall determine the amount of fees to be paid to the contractor for services
rendered to the date of termination. This determination, in the amount determined
and as approved by the Diamond Bar City Council, shall be final and conclusive.
B. Any of the following provisions may result in termination of the contract executed
between the City and the successful proposer:
(1) Bankruptcy of the contractor or assignment by it to the benefit of its creditors.
(2) Failure or refusal of the contractor (after written warnings by the City) to
perform the services specified in the contract in a manner satisfactory
to the City.
(3) Failure or refusal of the contractor to comply with the instructions of the City
or with applicable federal, state, and local laws.
(4) Any evidence of fraud or over- billing to the City.
(5) Any loss of funding (Proposition A local return is the current source) or non -
appropriation of funds as a result of budget considerations.
(6) Unavailability of the person designated in the contract as the contractor's
project manager.
C. The City and contractor may mutually terminate the contract if a new contract is
established and approved by both parties.
VII. PLANNING AND MARKETING
The successful proposer shall participate with the City in the design and implementation of
changes in the service's operating characteristics. Recognizing the proposers expertise, the
successful proposer shall be requested to inform the City of any observations regarding
modifications to the service routing, scheduling, marketing, etc. for purposes of improving
the service.
It is noted that marketing costs should not be included in the proposer's cost for this contract.
The City will address marketing efforts separately.
AGREEMENT
DIAL -A -CAB SERVICES
This agreement is made this _ day of
referred to as the "CITY" and
CONTRACTOR".
, 1999 between the City of Diamond Bar, hereinafter
, hereinafter referred to as the
Whereas, the CITY desires to provide Dial -A -Cab services to the eligible elderly (60 years and
older) and persons with disabilities who reside in Diamond Bar.
Whereas, CONTRACTOR operates a local taxicab service and is, therefore, capable of providing
the Dial -A -Cab service;
Now, therefore, CITY and CONTRACTOR agree as follows:
1. Contract Administrator. The City Manager or authorized representative, hereinafter
designated as "Administrator". shall be the administrator of this agreement. CONTRACTOR is
responsible for performance of each and all tasks to be performed hereinunder and in accordance
with the CONTRACTOR'S proposal attached as Exhibit "A" and the CITY'S Request for Proposals
attached as exhibit "B".
2. Project Description - General. CONTRACTOR will pick up and transport passengers
upon telephone request within the hours of service identified and within the stated geographic
boundaries as identified in Exhibit "C" of this Agreement.
3. Services to be Performed by CONTRACTOR. Services to be performed by
CONTRACTOR in connection with the subject of this agreement shall be as follows:
a. Accept telephone requests from the eligible general public for Dial -A -Cab
service and dispatch a taxicab to the pick-up location. The taxicab shall arrive at the pick-up
location within thirty minutes from the time the telephone request was received by CONTRACTOR.
b. Shared rides shall be coordinated by CONTRACTOR to the maximum extent
possible.
C. CITY Dial -A -Cab passengers shall pay a set fare per trip, as determined by
the CITY. CONTRACTOR will invoice the CITY for each trip at the City approved taxicab meter
rate in effect at that time. All fares collected by CONTRACTOR from the passengers are the
property of the CITY. The total amount of such fares shall be retained by CONTRACTOR and
deducted from the billing statement. CONTRACTOR may accept fare tickets only if authorized to
do so in writing by the CITY.
17
d. CONTRACTOR shall gather ridership data and report such information to
the Administrator on a monthly basis. More frequent reporting will be acceptable. The type of data
to be collected shall be determined by the Administrator.
4. Services to be Performed by the CITY. In connection with the service and this
agreement, the CITY shall:
a. Designate hours of service and geographical boundaries of service.
b. Set public fares for the service.
C. Give prompt written notice to CONTRACTOR when Administrator observes
or otherwise becomes aware of any deficiency in CONTRACTOR'S service.
5. Hours and Geographic Boundaries of Service. The hours and geographic boundaries
for services under this agreement shall be included in Exhibit "C" of this agreement.
6. Changes. The CITY reserves the right to order an increase or decrease in the level
of service provided with thirty (30) days written notice.
7. Compensation and Method of Payment. The CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR for
services at the approved taxicab meter rate in effect at the time service is provided under this
agreement, less cash fares collected by CONTRACTOR.
CONTRACTOR shall submit invoices itemizing Dial -A -Cab trips in the CITY. Invoices will
be reviewed and paid by the CITY within thirty calendar days. If the CITY disputes any items on
an invoice for a reasonable cause, CITY may deduct that disputed item from the payment but shall
not delay payment for the undisputed portions.
8. Independent Contractor. CONTRACTOR's relationship to the CITY in performance
of this agreement is that of an independent contractor. The personnel performing services under this
agreement shall at all times be under CONTRACTOR's exclusive direction and control.
CONTRACTOR shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection
with this agreement; and shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting them, such
as social security, income tax withholding, unemployment compensation, and worker's compensation
insurance.
9. Permits and Licenses. CONTRACTOR shall maintain in force during the contract
period all licenses and permits required by law for the operation of CONTRACTOR's business in
Diamond Bar, including applicable business license.
10. Insurance. During the term of this agreement, CONTRACTOR shall procure and
maintain the following insurance form a company acceptable to the City as described below:
18
A. Worker's Compensation insurance with State of California statutory limits and
employer's liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per accident.
Worker's Compensation shall cover all employees and independent Contractor
drivers.
B. Comprehensive general liability insurance with a combined single limit of not less
than $1,000,000 per occurrence.
C. Commercial Automobile liability insurance with a combined single limit of not less
than$1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall:
1. Include coverage of all vehicles used in this service.
2. Name the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, and
agents as additional insured.
3. Be primary for all purposes.
4. Contain standard cross -liability provisions.
CONTRACTOR shall name the CITY additional insured on said policies and shall provide
evidence of such insurance. Such policies shall provide that they may not be cancelled
without at least (30) days written notice to the CITY.
If Contractor, for any reason, fails to maintain insurance coverage which is required pursuant
to this Agreement, the same shall be deemed a material breach of contract. City at its sole
option, may forthwith terminate this agreement and obtain damages from the Contractor
resulting from said breach; alternatively, City may purchase such required insurance
coverage, and without further notice to Contractor, City may deduct from sums due to
Contractor to pay any premium costs needed to maintain insurance during performance.
11. Worker's Compensation. CONTRACTOR certifies that it is aware of the provisions
of the Labor Code of the State of California which requires every employer to be insured against
liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions
of that code, and it certifies that it will comply with such provisions before commencing the
performance of the work of this agreement.
12. Mediation. Any dispute or controversy arising under this Agreement, or in
connection with any of the terms and conditions hereof, shall be referred by the parties hereto for
mediation. A third party, neutral mediation service shall be selected, as agreed upon by the parties
and the costs and expenses thereof shall be borne equally by the parties hereto. In the event the
parties are unable to mutually agree upon the mediator to be selected hereunder, the City Council
shall select such a neutral, third party mediation service and the City Council's decision shall be
final. The parties agree to utilize their good faith efforts to resolve any such dispute or controversy
so submitted to mediation. It is specifically understood and agreed by the parties hereto that referral
of any such dispute or controversy, and mutual good faith efforts to resolve the same thereby, shall
19
be conditions precedent to the institution of any action or proceeding, whether at law or in equity
with respect to any such dispute or controversy.
13. Indemnity. CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and hold the CITY harmless from
all claims, damages or liability, including all reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in
defending any claims arising out of or in connection with the services performed by CONTRACTOR
under this agreement. Such indemnity shall extend, but not be limited to, claims, damages, and
liability arising from injuries or damages to person or property, provided that the obligation to
indemnify shall not extend to claims, damages, or liability arising solely from the negligence or
misconduct of the CITY or its officers, agents, or employees.
14. Notices. All notices herein required shall be in writing and delivered in person
or sent by registered mail, postage prepaid.
Notice required to be given to the CITY shall be addressed as follows:
Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Notice required to be given to CONTRACTOR shall be addressed as follows:
15. Termination. The City may terminate this agreement at any time with or without
cause by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall be
compensated based upon the work which has been completed, and CONTRACTOR shall be entitled
to no further compensation.
CITY.
16. Assignment. This agreement shall not be assigned without written consent of the
17. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from through ,•
PA
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement was executed on the day and year first mentioned
above.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to Form
City Attorney
21
CONTRACTOR
Signature of Authorized Official
Company
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Mayor
PROPOSED PRICING
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Dr., #100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
FROM:
Name of Proposing Firm
FORM #2
To furnish the Dial -A -Cab services described in this proposal, the proposer would charge the
prices given below. Please complete this form or in an attachment, and sign and date this form
and any amending document.
(1) Flag Drop, per trip: $
(2) Per Mile: $
(3) Per minute or other time period: (Prices are to be mileage -based only.)
(4) Administrative Overhead: % of net charges charged to City of Diamond
Bar where net charges are defined as the total trip charges net of collected revenues.
(5) To encourage shared rides, persons who are picked up at the same origin and delivered to
the same destination in the same taxicab may ride for a single fare per taxicab. (As well as
encouraging ridesharing, this provision ensures that aides to the disabled will ride free of charge.)
(6) An "incremental shared ride," where one taxicab picks up joint travelers successively and
delivers them to the same or successive destinations, shall be billed to the City as a single trip
from the point where the first rider is picked up to the point where the last rider is dropped off.
Each rider shall pay a full individual fare. All fares collected in this incremental shared ride will
be deducted from the gross charge to the City.
(7) Other charges (please describe):
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing prices are valid for ninety (90) days from the
proposal due date, and that these will be the prices maintained throughout the contract period.
Name, Title
22
Date
Exhibit 'A'
DESIRED
MONTHLY MANAGEMENT REPORTS
Monthly management reports should include these statistics:
Financial
Total Fares, by Day, By Month
Total Revenues, by Day, By Month
Total Fares Net of Total Revenues, by Day, By Month
Revenue by Different Fare Categories
Riders. ner Month
Total Number of Riders Transported
Riders by Category: weekend, weekday, senior, disabled, other (including aides), inside/outside
City limits
Average Weekday/Weekend Riders
Average Passengers per Hour and per Trip
Net Cost per Passenger
Shared Ride Data
Trips. per Month
Total Number of Trips
Total Number of Vehicle Service Miles
Total Number of Vehicle Service Hours
Average Miles Per Trip
Net Cost per Trip
Custom Service
Number of Complaints
Average Wait Time
23
Exhibit'B'
DIAMOND RIDE
CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS
The following customer service items are mandatory for the Diamond Ride program, these
standards are considered minimal:
1. Vehicles to be kept clean and well maintained, including: no tears in upholstery,
windows in working condition.
2. Vehicles to be air-conditioned.
3. Clean, uniformed drivers displaying a name badge/ identification at all times.
4. No smoking allowed in vehicles.
5. Vehicles to arrive on time, within thirty (30) minutes of a call.
6. Drivers to open vehicle doors for passengers.
7. Drivers must be courteous, use of is profanity strictly prohibited.
8. If driver can not locate passenger, they must notify dispatcher, and dispatcher
will place a call to the customer.
24
AGREEMENT
DIAL -A -CAB SERVICES
This agreement is made this day of 1999, between the City of Diamond Bar, (hereinafter referred to as
the "CITY") and (hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR").
Whereas, the CITY desires to provide Dial -A -Cab services to the elderly (60 years and older) and persons with
disabilities who reside in Diamond Bar.
Whereas, CONTRACTOR operates a local taxicab service and is, therefore, capable of providing the Dial -A -Cab
service:
Now, therefore, CITY and CONTRACTOR agree as follows:
1. Contract A ministrar rs. The City Manager or authorized representative, shall be the administrator of
this agreement for the City (hereinafter referred to as "City Administrator"). Brian Hunt shall administer this
agreement for the contractor, and shall have the authority to bind contractor.
2. Proiect Description - General. CONTRACTOR will pick up and transport eligible passengers upon
telephone request within the hours of service identified and within the stated geographic boundaries as identified in
Exhibit "C" of this Agreement.
3. Services to Performed by CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR is responsible for performance
of each and all tasks to be performed hereinunder and in accordance with the CONTRACTOR'S proposal attached
as Exhibit "A" and the CITY'S Request for Proposals attached as Exhibit "B". Services to be performed by
CONTRACTOR in connection with the subject of this agreement shall be as follows:
a. Accept telephone requests from the eligible public for Dial -A -Cab service and dispatch a
taxicab to the pick-up location. The taxicab shall arrive at the pick-up location within thirty minutes from the time
the telephone request was received by CONTRACTOR. Only persons displaying a Diamond Bar Diamond Ride
Identification Card issued by the City are eligible for this service.
b. CONTRACTOR shall coordinate shared rides to the maximum extent possible.
C. CITY Dial -A -Cab passengers shall pay a set fare per trip, as determined by the CITY.
CONTRACTOR will invoice the CITY for each trip at the City approved taxicab meter rate in effect at that time.
The total amount of fares shall be retained by CONTRACTOR and deducted from the billing statement.
CONTRACTOR may accept fare tickets only if authorized to do so in writing by the CITY.
d. CONTRACTOR shall gather ridership data and report such information to the City
Administrator on a monthly basis. More frequent reporting will be acceptable. The type of data to be collected shall
be determined by the City Administrator.
4. Services to be Performed by the CITY. In connection with the service and this agreement, the
CITY shall:
a. Designate hours of service and geographical boundaries of service.
b. Set public fares for the service.
C. Give prompt written notice to CONTRACTOR when the City Administrator observes or
otherwise becomes aware of any deficiency in CONTRACTOR'S service.
5. Changes. The CITY reserves the right to order an increase or decrease in the level of service
provided with thirty- (30) days written notice.
6. Comcensation and Method of Payment. The CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR for services at the
approved flag drop and per mile rate in effect at the time service is provided under this agreement, less cash fares
collected by CONTRACTOR, plus an administrative fee in an amount equal to 10% of the invoice amount.
CONTRACTOR shall submit invoices itemizing Dial -A -Cab trips in the CITY. Invoices will be reviewed
and paid by the MY within thirty calendar days of receipt. If the CITY dispuies any items on an invoice for a
reasonable cause, CITY may deduct that disputed item from the payment but shall not delay payment for the
undisputed portions.
7. Retention/Review of Records. The contractor will maintain all records pertaining to the Diamond
Bar Dial -A -Cab program for a period of 3 years; the City has the right to review the records during regular business
hours upon reasonable notice. The City reserves the right to audit all financial records pertaining to the Diamond
Bar Dial -A -Cab program.
8. Independent Contractor. CONTRACTOR's relationship to the CITY in performance of this
agreement is that of an independent contractor. The personnel performing services under this agreement shall at all
times be under CONTRACTOR's exclusive direction and control. CONTRACTOR shall pay all wages, salaries,
and other amounts due such personnel in connection with this agreement; and shall be responsible for all reports and
obligations respecting them, such as social security, income tax withholding, unemployment compensation, and
worker's compensation insurance.
9. Permits and Licenses. CONTRACTOR shall maintain in force during the contract period all
licenses and permits required by law for the operation of CONTRACTOR's business in Diamond Bar, including
applicable business license.
10. Insurance. During the term of this agreement, CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain the
following insurance form a company acceptable to the City as described below:
A. Worker's Compensation insurance with State of California statutory limits and employer's liability
insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per accident. Worker's Compensation shall cover
all employees and independent Contractor drivers.
B. Comprehensive general liability insurance with a combined single limit of not less than
$1,000,000 per occurrence.
C. Commercial Automobile liability insurance with a combined single limit of not less than
$1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall:
1. Include coverage of all vehicles used in this service.
2. Name the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, and agents as
additional insured.
3. Be primary for all purposes.
4. Contain standard cross -liability provisions.
CONTRACTOR shall name the CITY additional insured on said policies and shall provide evidence of
such insurance. Such policies shall provide that they may not be cancelled without at least (30) days written notice
to the CITY.
If Contractor, for any reason, fails to maintain insurance coverage which is required pursuant to this
Agreement, the same shall be deemed a material breach of contract. City at its sole option, may forthwith terminate
this agreement and obtain damages from the Contractor resulting from said breach; alternatively, City may purchase
such required insurance coverage, and without further notice to Contractor, City may deduct from sums due to
Contractor to pay any premium costs needed to maintain insurance during performance.
11. Worker's Compensation. CONTRACTOR certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor
Code of the State of California which requires every employer to be insured against liability for worker's
compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and it certifies that it
will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this agreement.
12. Non-Discrimination and EQual Employment portunity.
A. Contractor 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 regulation 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. Contractor will, in all solicitation or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of Contractor
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.
13. Governing Law. This contract shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the
laws of the State of California.
14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and any other documents incorporated herein by specific
reference, represents the entire and integrated agreement between Contractor and City. This Agreement supersedes
all prior oral or written negotiations, representation or agreements. This Agreement may not be amended, nor any
provision or breach hereof waived, except in 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.
15. Mediation. Any dispute or controversy arising under this Agreement, or in connection with any of
the terms and conditions hereof, shall be referred by the parties hereto for mediation. A third party, neutral
mediation service shall be selected, as agreed upon by the parties and the costs and expenses thereof shall be borne
equally by the parties hereto. In the event the parties are unable to mutually agree upon the mediator to be selected
hereunder, the City Council shall select such a neutral, third party mediation service and the City Council's decision
shall be final. The parties agree to utilize their good faith efforts to resolve any such dispute or controversy so
submitted to mediation. It is specifically understood and agreed by the parties hereto that referral of any such
dispute or controversy, and mutual good faith efforts to resolve the same thereby, shall be conditions precedent to
the institution of any action or proceeding, whether at law or in equity with respect to any such dispute or
controversy.
16. Indemnity. CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and hold the CITY harmless from all claims,
damages or liability, including all reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in defending any claims arising
out of or in connection with the services performed by CONTRACTOR under this agreement. Such indemnity shall
extend, but not be limited to, claims, damages, and liability arising from injuries or damages to person or property,
provided that the obligation to indemnify shall not extend to claims, damages, or liability arising solely from the
negligence or misconduct of the CITY or its officers, agents, or employees.
17. Notices. All notices herein required shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by
registered mail, postage prepaid.
Notice required to be given to the CITY shall be addressed as follows:
Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Fab -24-99 03:45P
Ned" mquited to be given to CONTRACTOR Shall be addrassed at idlou s:
Brian Hunt, Presidem
Diversified PKmWjms . La.
1400 East Mission Blvd.
Pcdn as CA 91766
18. Imniomcm• The City Bury tnminate thin agreerrrent at any time With or wi"at camsc by
wing ditty (30) days mom aotiee to the CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR awU be oempcnaa ed basad up�m
the Watt Which has been complaW and CON RACrOR :Aaii be OMW to no fuRhx eowVcnudop.
19. nk apra0111ewt 2ba11 not be assigned without wtiva cmum of the CTTY.
20. Tim. The tom of tit Agrecumm "be Gyro Aoni I- Lg99 etutwgh Inns 30. ZM
iN WITNESS WHEREOiF. this agrxrttent was e:ecowd an the day and year fico mendomed above.
ATTEST:
Gtr c1wk
Approved as to -Som
City Attorney
4
CONTRACTOR
•
cAnn�patty o%�
CITY OF OF DIAMOND BAR
MAYW
P.05
Exhibit C
DIAL -A -CAB AGREEMENT
FARES, HOURS, AND GEOGRAHIC BOUNDARIES OF SERVICE
FARES: Fares shall be: City limits - $0.50 per trip; outside City limits, within boundaries
or designated facilities - $1.50 per trip.
HOURS: The hours shall be 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week.
GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES: The boundaries shall be Arrow Highway to the north;
Imperial Highway/Carbon Canyon Road to the south; Central Avenue to the east; Hacienda
Boulevard/Amar/Sunset to the west.
Designated facilities for $1.50: Ontario International Airport and Fullerton Amtrak Station
In addition, the following Medial Facilities and/or Doctor's Offices;
Brea Community Hospital, 380 W. Central Avenue, Brea
Casa Colima, 2850 N. Garey (255 E. Bonita), Pomona
Chino Community Hospital, 5451 Walnut Avenue, Chino
City of Hope, 1500 E. Duarte Road, Duarte
Covina Valley Medical Building, 855 Lark Ellen, West Covina
Dialysis Center, 1547 W. Garvey Avenue, West Covina
El Encante Convalescent Hospital, 555 El Encante, Industry
Foothill Presbyterian, 250 S. Grand Avenue, Glendora
Friendly Hills Medical Group, 6301 Beach Boulevard, Buena Park
Friendly Hills Medical Group, 1251 East Lambert Road, La Habra
Glendora Community Hospital, 135 West Acosta, Glendora
Glendora Rehabilitation Center, 435 Gladstone, Glendora
Kaiser Permanente, 1011 Baldwin Park Boulevard, Baldwin Park
Kaiser Permanente, 9961 Sierra Avenue, Fontana
Kaiser Permanente, 441 N. Lakeview Avenue, Anaheim
Kaiser Permanente, 1188 N. Euclid, Anaheim
Lanterman Development Center, 3530 Pomona Boulevard, Pomona
Medical Building, 927 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga
Medical Offices, 412 W. Carroll Avenue, Glendora
Medical Offices, 12454 E. Washington Boulevard, Glendora
Neurosurgery Medical Offices, 405 E. Acosta Avenue, Glendora
Nova Care, 3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Ontario
Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center, 1798 N. Garey Avenue, Pomona
Queen of the Valley Hospital, 1115 S. Sunset Avenue, West Covina
San Antonio Hospital, 999 San Bernardino Road, Upland
St. Jude's Medical Center, 101 E. Valencia Mesa Drive, Fullerton
St. Jude's Heritage Foundation, 433 W. Bastanchury Road, Fullerton
US Family Care Hospital, 5000 San Bernardino Street, Montclair
��— DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSITy INC.
1400 East Mission Boulevard
mck� Pomona, CA 91766
909/622-1316
Proposal for:
City of Diamond Bar
DIAMOND.RIDE
DIAL=A=CAB SERVICES
BUILDINS TRANSPORTATION
PARTNERSHIPS SINCE 1956.
DPI.
DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSR, INC.
1400 EAST MISSION BOULEVARD
POMONA, CALIFORNIA 91766
PHONE (909) 621-1316
Citv of Diamond Bar FAX (909) 6223035
Diamond Ride Dial -A -Cab Services
Kellee A. Fritzal
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Diamond Bar
Q 1660 East Copley, Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Kellee:
Diversified Paratransit, Inc. is pleased to present this proposal for operation of the Diamond Ride
service. Our proposal is focused on providing a complete CUSTOMER SERVICE PACKAGE. All the
elements of our proposal contribute to the provision of excellent customer service to the City of
Diamond Bar and Diamond Ride customers. These elements include:
• Distinctive Driver Uniforms, and Diamond Ride Specific Driver Training;
• Experienced Dispatchers with Double Coverage to Provide Fast Response;
• Computerized Dispatching for Fast Cab Service, Data Collection, and Reporting;
• Extensive Management Reporting and Oversight for Internal Controls;
• More Dedicated Management Staff to Address Customer Complaints and Service Issues.
DPI has developed a complete operations proposal, which provides the city and Diamond Ride
customers with the following benefits:
• A highly experienced operations management & staff;
• Local operating terminal location in Pomona, for increased system efficiency;
• Safe, clean, and secure Yellow Cab vehicles;
• Professional Yellow Cab drivers, dedicated to providing excellent customer service;
• Service options for increased on-time performance;
• Cost-effective, value-added service pricing
DPI is proud of the job it does currently for all its contracts, and we encourage you to contact our
references. Our customers will assure you of our reliable, flexible, and responsive management.
We are dedicated to creating productive, long-term partnerships with our clients and we look forward
to serving your needs, both today and in the future.
Sincerely,
Brian Hunt
President
Diversified Paratransit, Inc.
Table of Contents
FORM#1
1
PROPOSER: Diversified Paratransit, Inc. (dba Yellow Cab)
TERRENCE L. BELANGER
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
21660 E. COPLEY #100
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765
In response to the Request for Proposal (RFP), for Dial -A -Cab Service, we the undersigned hereby
declare -that vee -have cwefi* head and examined the RFP -dock, and hereby propose
perform and complete the work as required in the Contract.
The undersigned agrees to supply the Scope of Work at tree costs indicated in its cost proposal if its
Proposal is accepted within ninety days from the date specified in the proposal.
If awarded a Contract, the undersigned agrees to execute a Contract which will be prepared by the
City for execution, within 10 calendar days following Notification of Award, and will deliver the
City primo to the oommeoee! --n t of Scope of Work the necessary original Certificates of Insurance
and Faithful Performance Bond. If services are authorized to commence prior to the exocartion of
the Contract pursuant to a Notice to Proceed issued by the City, pending the exaction of the
Contract, the services shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the Scope of Work and the
Contract: .
incorporated herein and made a part of this Proposal is the Proposal Requirements.
The undersigned acknowledges receipt, understanding and full consideration of the following
Addenda to the RFP Documents (if applicable): Addenda No. 1 Issued: December 17, 1998
Addenda No.
Proposer represents that the following person is authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the City
in connection with this RFP:
Brian Hunt President (909) 622-1316 x3221
Name Title Phone
C
The wAc s4ned certifies &a it has examined acrd is fully familisr with all of the provisions of the
RFP Documents and is sabsBod that they nae aasrrabe: dzut it hes cw efully chacked all the words and
figures and all made in ft �4 that it has saotisfeod itself with respa�
to odxr matters paw to the pwpowl which in arty way affect the wodcar the coat d�ereo£ The
undersiped h=by agrees that the city will not be responsible for any errors or omissions in dx sc
RFP Documents.
proposet's Business Address
and TelephonelFax Numbers:
1400 East MIssion Blvd..
BY:
Signal Pomona, CA 91766
(909) 622-1316
Brian Hunt
Type or Print Name 909 622-3035 Fax
President
Title
7
Qualifications of D P 1
Diversified Paratransit, Inc. (DPI) is a full service transportation management company,
which has served the transportation needs of Californians for over forty years. Organized
in 1956, DPI is a privately held California corporation, which operates many Dial -A -Ride,
Dial -A -Cab, fixed route, paratransit, and shuttle services in Southern California. DPI
employs more than 300 people who during the past five years have transported in excess
of ten million passengers over thirty-eight million miles!
Company Organization
Diversified Paratransit, Inc. operates three transportation divisions:
25%
10%
65%
* Paretransit services - Operates Dial -A -
Ride, Paratransit, and Fixed Route transit
services throughout Southern California.
Yellow Cab - Provides 24 hour taxi
service in 400 square miles of the Pomona
& East San Gabriel Valley.
inland Express - Provides shuttle service
to area airports and charter busing
services.
Diversified Paratransit, Inc.'s headquarters is located at 1400
East Mission Boulevard, Pomona, California. This 4 acre
facility functions as administrative headquarters for the
company and serves as an operations terminal for DPI's
Yellow Cab, Inland Express, and Paratransit divisions. The
facility operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year with full
dispatch, driver, maintenance, and management support.
In addition to our Pomona headquarters, DPI maintains two facilities to support
paratransit operations. These facilities are:
Huntington Park - Our offices are located at 6123 State
Street, Huntington Park, California. This fenced facility
contains dispatch offices for Huntington Park Dial -A -
Ride, Maywood Dial -A -Ride, West Hollywood Dial -A -Ride,
and the Pacific Palisades DASH system. Our site
includes administrative, fleet maintenance, and training
facilities.
DIVERSIRED PARATRANSIT, INC TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1998
PAGE 1-1
Long Beach - Located at 601 Golden Avenue, Long
Beach, California, this facility provides transportation
services for Harbor Regional Center clients and has
expanded to include the Campus Connection shuttle at
California State University, Long Beach. Our Long Beach
site houses offices, maintenance facilities, and indoor
parking for more than 40 vehicles.
DPI strives to provide efficient, safe, and reliable transportation services. Our mission is
to make a fair profit by providing safe, reliable transportation for the lowest cost while
contributing back to our employees and the communities which we serve.
We recognize that customer satisfaction is the
key to building successful and profitable
partnerships. Our staff has the experience and
expertise to accomplish the goals of our
transportation partners and to guide and
shape those goals to meet the needs of transit
riders.
We achieve this mission by tailoring our
services to meet the goals of our customers.
Our focus on exceeding the goals of our
customers is the driving force behind the
steady growth of DPI over the last several
years.
Annual Revenue (in Millions of:)
$10.0
$8.0
:s.0
"0
$2.0
$0.0
1994 1996 1996 1917
This focus has resulted in special recognition for our services on several occasions.
The City of West Hollywood CityLine service, operated by DPI, received the Most Innovative
Public Transit Award from PTI Journal (March 1993). CityLine also received a Planning
Excellence Award from the American Planning Association (September 1993).
In 1994, the International Taxicab and Livery Association (ITLA) named DPI Paratransit
Operator of the Year, and in 1995 ITLA selected our nominee, Mr. Alfred Jones, as
Paratransit Driver of the Year.
Most recently, DPI was awarded the Harbor Regional Center's Corporate Contributor Award
at the organization's 25th Anniversary Celebration Dinner for providing "daily services of
a consistently high caliber."
Related Experience
Diversified Paratransit, Inc.'s effort to stay abreast of trends in the transportation market
and the needs of our client agencies includes participation in the following transportation
industry and professional organizations:
• Airport Ground Transportation Association
• Association for Commuter Transportation
• California Association for Coordinated Transportation
• California Transit Association
UIVERSIFIED YARATRANSIT, INC TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1998
PAGE 1-2
• Federal Transit Administration
• Friends of Ontario Airport
• International Taxicab and Livery Association
MTA Local Transit Systems Subcommittee
• Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority
• The Ontario Transportation Advisory Committee
• Southern CalNomia Association of Governments
Taxicab Paratransit Association of California
Professional and contract compliance references for DPI are presented at the end of this
section. We encourage you to contact any of our contract references! In most cases DPI has
provided services for these clients for many years and we encourage you to contact them
to confirm the excellent quality of service we provide.
The following references will help you in evaluating our proposal for operation of the
Diamond Ride Dial -A -Cab service. These references are for Dial -A -Cab services currently
operated by DPI:
Claremont Dial A -Cab
George Sparks
Pomona Valley Transportation Authority
2120 Foothill Blvd, Suite 116
La Verne, CA 91750
(909) 596-7399
Operated Since July 1, 1996
Covina DialA-Cab
Steve Henley
City of Covina
125 East College Street
Covina, CA 91723
(626) 858-7219
Operated Since March 1, 1996
Diamond Ride
Kellee Fritzal
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond, Bar, CA 91765
(909) 860.2489
Operated Since April 18, 1995
San Dimas Dial -A -Cab
George Sparks
Pomona Valley Transportation Authority
2120 Foothill Blvd, Suite 116
La Verne, CA 91750
(909) 596-7399
Operated Since December 1, 1987
Walnut DialA-Cab
Bob Russi
City of Walnut
21201 La Puente Road
Walnut, CA 91789
(909) 595-7543
Operated Since June 1, 1998
DNERsiFIED PARATRANsIT, INC TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1998
PAGE 1-3
Credit References
Credit reference information is available by contacting the accounts listed below. The
information provided here and by these references is conAdendsl and supplied to you
solely for the purpose of evaluating our proposal.
Foothill Independent Bank
569 North Mountain Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
(909) 981.8611
Account # 442-163637
Felco Commercial Services
10080 North Wolfe Road
Suite SW3260
Cupertino, CA 95014-2517
(408) 865-0911
Account # 359-2149
Insurance & Bonding
Eaton Financial Corp / AT&T Capital
P.O. Box 9104
Framingham, MA 1701-9104
(800) 452-0231
Lease # 297593
Colonial Pacific Leasing
P.O. Box 2090
Portland, OR 97208
(503) 692-9744
Lease # 056575001
Diversified Paratransit, Inc. carries sufficient insurance coverage to meet the current
needs and future business opportunities of the company. Our standard coverage for Dial -
A -Cab contracts is outlined below.
In addition to our basic coverage, DPI is willing and able to provide additional or
increased coverage as desired by our contracting agency. DPI will provide an appropriate
performance bond (as indicated in the RFP) upon award of an operating contract to
Diversified Paratransit, Inc. Documentation of the required insurance coverage is
provided at the end of this proposal section. Additional information regarding coverage
or insurability can be obtained by contacting our insurance broker:
Mr. Michael Scanlon
RSI Insurance Brokers, Inc.
4 Hutton Centre Drive
Suite 700
Santa Ana, CA 92707
(714) 546-6616
Commercial General Liability:
General Star Indemnity Company
AM Best Rating: A+15
Policy Number: IMA235878F
Effective Dates: 9/16/98 - 9/16/99
Limits: $1,000,000
Deductible: $2,500 per Claim
DIVERSIFIED PARATRAwsrr, INc.
Automobile Liability:
Scottsdale Indemnity
AM Best Rating: A+9
Policy Number: CAS0051863
Effective Dates: 12/1/98 - 12/1/99
Limits: $1,000,000
Deductible: $2,500 per claim
Workers Compensation
Cal Comp
Policy Number:
Effective Dates:
Limits:
W984154929
4/1/98 - 4/1/99
$1,000,000
TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1998
PAGE 1-4
Current DPI Customers
ASI Certification Trip Provider
Mr. F. Soott Jewel
Access Services, krc.
P.O. Boot 71684
Los Angeles, G 90071-0684
213.270.6000
DPI provides transportation services for ADA
eligible diem to and from ASI eligibility
ow tific;adon interviews throughout the Los Angeles
basin. Service Is provided aft days a week using
ten (10) accessible ndni-vans. DPI has provided
this service since October, 1998.
CSULS Campus Connection
Mr. Nash Caddo
California State University, Long Beach
1450 Belifiower Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90713
562.9895.4250
DPI has operated this fixed route parking and off -
campus shuttle service since January, 1994. The
system operates weekdays from 7AM to 11PM
using 5 vehicles and carrying 50 to 55 paseengen;
per hour.
Harbor Regional Center
Mr. Arnold Loveridge
Harbor Regional Center
21231 Hawthorne Boulevard
Torrance,. CA 90503
562.540.1711
On behalf of Harbor Regional Center, DPI
transports more than 650 developmentally
disabled regional center consumers each
weekday. Having provided exceptional service
since July, 1989, DPI was recently awarded
Harbor Regional Center's Corporate Contributor
Award during the regional center's 25th
Anniversary.
Huntington Park Dial -A -Ride
Mr. Donald Jeffers
City of Huntington Park
6550 Miles Avenue
Huntington Park, CA 90255
213.5826161
This demand response and pre -scheduled
paratransit system provides service to the general
public and the elderly and mobility impaired 7
days a week from SAM to 8PM. DPI has operated
this highly successful local transportation system
since January, 1982.
Kai Kan Foods Employee Shuttle
Ms. Johanna O'Connor
Kai Kan Foods, krc.
3250 East 440 Street
Vernon. CA 90058.0853
213.587.2727
DPI provides peak commute shuttle services to
Kai Kan employees to and from Metrolink and
local light-rail stations using 15 passenger vans.
DPI has provided this weekday service since
March, 1998.
Maywood Dial-A-Rlde
Mr. Ed Ahrens
City of Maywood
4319 East Slauson Avenue
Maywood, CA 90270
213.5625000
This demand response and pre -scheduled
paratransit system provides service to the general
public 7 days per week from 7AM to 612M. DPI has
operated this service since Mey.1985.
Pacific Palisades DASH
Mr. Michael Griffin
City of Los Angeles
Departam t of Transportation
221 North Figueroa, Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90012
213.580.5408
Originally awarded as a oneimar demonstration
project, ON has operated this foxed route
community circulator since Deoember, 1988. DPI
provides service Monday through Friday from 6AM
to 6PM to the general public.
Rancho Los Amigos Shuttle
Mr. F. Scott Jewel
Access Service, Inc.
P.O. Box 71684
Los Angeles, CA 90071-0684
21.3.270.6000
DPI provides a pre -scheduled and demand
response shuttle service to ASI clients providing
return trips from Rancho Los Amigos to
destinations In the San Gabriel Valley. Service is _
provided weekdays from 11AM to 6PM using two
(2) muses equipped with four (4) tie -down
positions.
San GabrieUPomom Valley Regional
Mr. Eric Ordway
R & D Transportation .
5148 Commerce Ave. #C
Moorpark, CA 93021
800.966.7114
Since February, 1987. DPI has provided
transportation services to developmentally
disabled clients of the regional center throughout
the San Gabriel Valley on pre -scheduled service
routes.
West Hollywood IMIA Ride
Wast Hollywood CityLine
Ms. Joyce Rooney
City of West Hollywood
Department of Transportation & Public Works
8300 Sarna Monica Boulevard
West Hollywood, CA 90069
213.848.6375
DPI provides demand response and prescheduled
heduled
transportation services to elderly and mobility
Impaired citizens of wast Hollywood This service
complements the City's fixed route service, also
provided by DPI since February, 1992.
Whitftr Transit
Ms. Susan Chow
City of Whitler
13230 Penn Street
Whittler, CA 90602
562.464.3352
DPI operates this fixed route community circulator
6 days per week from GAM to 7PM using five 30 -
foot transit buses on two bi-directional routes
within the City of Whittier. DPI has provided
operators, dispatching, & operations management
since September, 1997.
.1
Previous DPI Customers
Beverly Hills Senior Dial -A -Ride
Beverly Hills Parking Shuttle
Beverly Hills Trolley
Ms. Christine Rugee
City of Beverly Hills
333 North Foothill Road
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
213.285.2564
DPI provided a fixed route parking shuttle, tourist
oriented trolley service, and dial -"de services to
the residents of Beverly Hills. Services operated 6
days a week. 1983 -:199L
Central City DASH
Mr. James McLaughlin
City of Los Angeles, DOT
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
213.485.7433
DPI operated the Downtown Area Short Hop
(DASH) fixed route system serving downtown
activity centers and transporting more than 5,000
passengers daily using 19 transit vehicles. 1985
- 1989.
Frank D. Lanterman Regional Center
Mr. Patrick Aulicino
Frank D. Lanterman Regional Center
3440 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90010
213.383.1300
DPI provided transportation services to
developmentally disabled regional center clients
in the West -Central and Downtown areas of Los
Angeles. 1989 - 1992.
Metro Access Pamtransit
Mr. George Sparks
Pomona Valley Transportation Authority
2025 Bonita Avenue
La Verne, CA 91750
909.596.7664
Under this demonstration project, which pre -dated
the creation of Access Services, Inc., DPI provided
accessible transportation seven days a week, 24 -
hours a day, to ADA certified individuals not
capable of using traditional transit service. 1991
-1994.
Omnkmns Dial -A -Lift
Ms. Jean Koenig
Omnitrans
1700 West 5+h Street
San Bernardino, CA 92411
909.889.0811
DPI provided residents in the West Valley portion
of San Bernardino County with Dlak4-Ride and
ADA parstranslt service six days per week, from
6AM to 7PM.1976 -1989.
Santa Monica Tide
Mr. Joe Stitcher
City of Santa Monica
Municipal Bus Lines
1660 Seventh Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407
310.458.1975
DPI provided a free parking & shopping shuttle to
tourists and residents on a fixed route during the
holidays and summer months. 1994 - 1996 -
Westwood Village Parking Shuttle
Mr. lames McLaughlin
City of Los Angeles, DOT
200 North Spring St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
213.485.7433
DPI provided foxed route weekend shuttle service
in Westwood as part of the Central C-rty DASH
project, transporting over 19 passengers per hour
during the contract period. 1985 - 1989.
Walnut Park Dial -A -Ride
Director of Public Works
County of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works
P.O. Box 40890
Los Angeles, CA 90051
213.226.8111
DPI provided paratransit service to the general
public, elderly, and mobility impaired residents of
the Walnut Park/Florenoe Graham area of Los
Angeles County. 1987 -:1990.
.•...r.,•. / :fl '1T I:T 1 /1 1� Tri ^f'— i 1 A:ri l t ' IT/l Tal [%1 f rte: A r► y'%�f-- GATEAAMIDDYYI
Ha.vrsu„ LCf� 1TrTV/`1 I C Vr LI/"1o7L1 1 T..:1'IVJV1�/`11VrCr"' �"
DIVERSI :': 'a 12/03/98
pRDoucet THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION
ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
_9.1. Insurance Brokers, Inc. HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
4 Hutton Centre Dr Ste# 700 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.
Santa Ana CA 92707 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
Like Scaaloa COMPANY
A General Star Indemnity #37362
714-546-6616 Fax No 714-546-4527
INSURED
F
COMPANY
B Scottsdale Indemnity Co.
COMPANY
C Cal Comp
I Diversified Paratransit
COMPANY
1400 East Mission Blvd.
Polmona CA 91766
D
OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD
THIS 6 TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OD
INDICATED. NOT WITHSTANDING ANY REOUIREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCLMrENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTrC ATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN Is SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS.
DCCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF Sum POLICIES. LMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAMS.
• ODTYPE
OF EE?3JRANC
PODGY NUMBER POLICY
EFFECTIVE
DATE (MIMIDD M
POLICY EXPIRATION
DATE (IMNDM'Y)
LIMITS
GENERALUABLm.
GENERALAGGREGATE $1,000,000
FATS-COMP+OP AGO S Included
A
X comm aALGomimAwAsLm
IMA235878F
09/16/98
09/16/99
PORRSDNALAADVKIURY $1 000 000
I
CLAMMADE rOCCUR
EACx1000URRBiCE S1,000,000
OWNeR-S&CONTRACTORS PROT
FIRE DAMAGE (Mw om *4 $50,000
X 2,500 DED/CLAIM
MED EXP (Any mw powon) S EXCL
B
A
Au oUABr1TY
CAS0051863
12/01/98
12/01/99
COMOINED LIMIT S1,000,000
PYYINJURY f
IALL
OWNMAUTOS
X SCHEDULED AUTOS
BODILY MNURY S
(Pwaocidom
I$
X HIRED AUTOS
NON-OWIE DAUNOS
PROPERTY DAMAGE f
GARA13EUAOUIY
AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT f
OTHE R THAN AUTO ONLY:
ANY AUTO
I
EACH ACCAOENT S
AGGREGATE S
EXCESS LIABILITY
EACH OCCURRENCE S
AGGREGATE S
UMBRELLA FORM
S
OTFBt THAN UMBRELLA FORM
WOMQM COMPENSATION AND
I
WG STATU• DTH
EL EACH ACCIDENT S1,000,000
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ELDE-POLICYLL0 $1,000,000
ISEAS
C
THftTl tI INCL
O 5 ARE: EXCL
W984154929
04/01/98
04/01/99
EL DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $1,0001000
OTHER
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSILOCArooNSMEHOCLESMPECIAL ITEMS
It is hereby understood 6 agreed the certificates holder is named additional
insured, but only as respect operations performed by the named insured.
CERTIFICATE HOLDER
CANCELLATION
DIAMON8
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
10 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT.
ATTN : KELLEE
21660 E. COPLEY DR-, #100
DIAMOND BAR CA 91765
BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY
OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES.
A EPRES ATI E
UrrtN3B
/
ACORD 25-S (1195)
_ ACORO CORPORATION 1988
American Motorists Insurance Company
Bond: #3SM 702 202 00
BID BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That we, Diversified Paratraosit. Inc., as Principal, and the
AMERICAN MOTORISTS IN R ANCE COMPANY, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of ILLINOIS, and authorized to do business in the State of California as Surety, are held and firmly
bound unto City of Diamond Bar as Obligee, in the sum of Five Thousand & N01100ths ($5,000.00)
DOLLARS, lawful money of the United States of America, to the payment of which sum well and truly to be
M&&, the Principal and Surety bind themselves, their and each of their heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns, jointly and severally by these presents.
The condition of this obligation is such, that, if the Obligee shall make any award to the Principal for
DIAD -A -CAB SERVICES FOR THE SENIORS & DISABLED IN DIAMOND BAR
Bid Date : 1-18-99
According to the terms of the proposal or bid made by the Principal therefore and the Principal shall duly made
and enter into a contract with the Obligee in accordance with the terms of said proposal or bid and award and shall
give bond for the faithful performance thereof, with the AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY,
as Surety or with other Surety or Sureties approved by the Obligee; or if the Principal shall, in case of failure so
to do, pay to the Obligee the damages which the Obligee may suffer by reason of such failure not exceeding the
penalty of this bond, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in frill force and
effect.
SIGNED, SEALED, DATED: January 14, 1999
Diversified Paratransit, Inc. American Motorists Insurance Company
(Principal) (Surety)
A'1a'(1L4e—
By: (,4ABy.
r / ichael E. ff, Attorney In Fact
In DIRECT CORRESPONDENCE TO :
LOU JONES & ASSOCIATES, PO BOX 41375, 7470 N. FIGUEROA ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90041
PHONE (213) 257-8291 • FAX (213) 256-7218
Bid Bond-10-16-97.dot
CALIFORNIAALL- PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of Orange
On JAN 141999
before me, Susan E. MoralesJNotary Public
NAME, TfrLE OF OFFICER
personally appeared Michael F- Cundiff
NAME OF SIGNER
® Personally known to me - or - ❑ Proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) islare subscribed to the within instrument
and acknowledged to me that helshelthey executed the same in
SUSAN E. MORALES hisiherltheir authorized capacity(iss), and that by hislherltheir
COMM. #1166606
NaiARy PUBLIC - CALIfORtgA It signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon
OM14GE COUNTY N behalf of which the on(s) acted, executed the instrument.
My Comm. Exp. Dec. 25. 2001 i
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
-'Q. nimcL
(SIGNATURE OF NOTAR»
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
F] INDIVIDUAL
C] CORPORATE OFFICER
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) [] LIMITED
GENERAL
® ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
0 GUARDIANICONSERVATOR
OTHER-
SIGNER
THER
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTrrY(IES)
American Motorists Insurance Company
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
Bond(s)
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
None
SIGNER OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
1%mvee.
Home Office: Long Grove, IL 60049
POWER OF ATTORNEY
Know AN Man By These Presents:
That the American Motorists Insurance Company, (hereinafter called the -Company') a corporation organized and existing under the 18" of
the State of Tarois. and having Its principal office lit Long Grove, Illinois, does hereby appoint
Michael E. Cundiff of Orange. California
its true and lawful agents) and attorney(s)-in-fact. to make. execute, seal, and deliver during the period beginning with the date of issuance of
this power and ending on the dale specified below, unless sooner revoked for and on is behalf as surety, and as its ad and deed:
Any and all Bonds and undertakings provided the arimunt of no one bond or undertaking exceeds ONE
MILLION DOLLARS ($1.000,000.00)
EXCEPTION: NO AUTHORITY is granted to make, execute, seal and deliver arty bond or undertaking which guarantees the payment or
collection of any promissory note, check, draft or letter of credit.
This aulhoriy does not permit the same obligation to be split into two or more bonds in order to bring each such bond within the dollar limit
of authority as set forth heroin.
This appointment may be revoked at any time by the Company
The execiAon of such h 0 Pin and undertakings in presents
as fully and emply
all irtenbe and purposes. as if the same hod beenduty wexecuted anted acknowledged Company
by is regularly elected officers at its principal office in Long
Grove, Illinois.
THIS APPOINTMENT SHALL CEASE AND TERMINATE WITHOUT NOTICE AS OF December 31, 2001
This Power of Attorney is executed by authority of a resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company
on February 23, 1988 at Chicago, Illinois, a true and accurate copy of which aro hereinafter set forth and is hereby certified to by the
undersigned Secretary as being in full force and effect:
"VOTED. That the Chairman of the Board, the President, or any Vnce President, or their appointees designated in writing and flied with
the Secretary, or the Secretary shall have the power and authority to appoint agents and attomeys-in-fad, and to authorms them to execute on
behaU of the Company, and attach the seal of the Company thereto, bonds and undertakings. m cognizances, contracts of indemnity and
other writings, obligatory in the nature thereof, and any such officers of the Company may appoint agents for acceptance of process'"
This Power of Attorney is signed. sealed and certified by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolution adopted by the Executive
Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company at a meeting duly called and heli on the 23rd day of February, 1988:
"VOTED, That the signature of the Chairman of the Board, the President. any Vwe President or their appointees designated in writing and filed
With the Secretary, and the signature of the Secretary. the not of the Company, and certifications by the Secretary, may be affixed by facsimile
on of the Board of Directors on February 23,
988 a power
such power executed, sealed and ceffiied with rasped to any bond or unof attorney or bond executed pursuant to msokftn adopted by the Executive � kering to which it is attached, shall continue to
be valid and binding upon the Company.'
In Testimony Whereof, the Company has caused this instrument to be signed and its corporate seal to be affixed by its authorized officers,
Oft January 1, 1994.
Attested and Certified:
por
Robert P. Hames, Secretary
by
American Motorists Insurance Company
J. S. Kemper, III, Faxec.Vioe President
STATE OF ILLINOIS SS
COUNTY OF LAKE
I. Inane Khmer. a Notary Public, do hereby certify that J. S. Kemper, III and Robert P. Hames personally known to me to be the same persons
whose names are respectively as Exec. Viol President and Secretary of the American Motorists Insurance Company. a Corporation organ'wd
and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois. subscribed to the foregoing instrument. appeared before me this day in person and
severely acknowledged that they being dwmm to duly authorized signed. sealed with the corporate seal and delivered the said irrsAxnant as
the free and voluntary ad of said corporation and as their am hes and voluntary act for the uses and purposes therein sat forth.
My commission expires 1-26-02
•AI i1 AAAAAAA1
4 °OFRGlll SEW �
f rrw o ruswsr ►
f rwrsryrawic,etas orraneis ►
f ■r to. wwm ftpim W. we ►
VVVVVVVVVVVVV
Irene Khmer. Notary Public
CERTIFICATION
1, JX Conway, Corporate Secretary of the American Motorists Insurance Company, do hereby certify that the attached Power of Attorney
dated January 1. 1994 on behalf of the person(s) as listed above is a true and coned copy and that the same has been in full force and
of d since the date thereof and is in full force and effect on the daft of this oertificate: and i do further certify that the
Kemper, II
and Robert P. Harries, who executed the Power of Aftomey as Executive Vice President and Secretary respectively were on the
date the execution of the attached Power of Attorney the duly elected Executive Yrce President and Secretary of the American Motorists Insurance
Company.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,�II have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the corporate seal of the American Motorists Insurance
Company on this ' 1 AN 1 19
Y PAMM
Y OMI'M�110/
i1 e�
J. K. Conway, Corporate Secretary
This Power of Attorney limits the ads of time named therein to the bonds and undertakings specifically named
therein and they have no authority to bind the Company except in the manner and to the extent herein stated.
FM 0362 6-96
Power of Attorney - Term
Printed in U.S.A
DPI Operations Plan
Diversified Paratransit, Inc. currently manages highly successful fixed route and
paratransit services. We have maintained success and added to these services by relying
on an experienced project manager who personally monitors contract performance
standards.
Our project manager implements customer service programs, assures efficient on-time
performance, and supervises our dispatchers and drivers. Our dispatch staff all know the
service area, can maximize productivity, and are experienced with efficient dispatching
techniques. DPI's senior management staff works closely with our project managers to
plan for the future, establish specific performance objectives, and review service results
to ensure that each system is operating at peak performance.
In short, Diversified Paratransit, Inc. provides to its clients a highly evolved
transportation management system that is tested by time and experience, and works
both efficiently and effectively.
Dispatch Method
DPI provides dispatch services using well-trained and experienced dispatch staff who
possess excellent, flexible scheduling skills. Our dispatch staff uses the Digital Dispatch
computerized dispatch and routing system. This system allows the quick entry,
scheduling, and automatic dispatching of trips to speed the arrival of vehicles for
customers.
Our telephone system is an Executone 108, state of the art digital telephone system, and
automatically records and reports call statistics such as: number of calls per period,
percentage answered within pre -determined parameters, time on hold, calls abandoned,
time on phone for info, lines used, etc.
A customer calls into the dispatch center on the toll free number. The telephone is
answered "Diamond Ride" by the receptionist. The receptionist asks the caller for their
name and ID number. After input of the telephone number, a screen of caller information
instantly appears before the receptionist including pick up address and most recent trip
destinations. The receptionist confirms the address and time requested for pick up. The
receptionist then sends the trip information to the dispatcher who attempts to form a
shared ride for the particular trip.
The ability for the dispatch center to arrange shared rides is a very important aspect of
this system. Shared rides reduce the total cost of the service and increase service
efficiency by allowing more passengers to be carried in fewer vehicles and miles. Shared
rides provide significant economic and environmental advantages to the City.
If the trip can not be shared, the trip is sent via the DDS system directly to the closest
available taxi via the computer. A computer terminal in the taxi beeps and indicates a
new trip has been received. The driver notes the trip information and carries out the trip.
In case of problems, the taxi driver can talk to the dispatcher by voice radio or send pre-
selected messages available on the computer terminal.
DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, INC. TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1999
PAGE 2-1
Fare Handling and Accounting
DPI policy requires that each driver's fare turn in be matched and validated by tripsheet
totals. This is accomplished by personally delivering fares to our office personnel.
Dispatch office personnel then deposit the driver's money and tripsheet into the safe. Our
cashiering department pulls the cash and tripsheet from the safe the following day,
completes a reconciliation report, accounts for the cash collected, and delivers the cash
and documentation to our billing department.
Any discrepancies in this process are immediately brought to the attention of the project
manager for review and appropriate action.
Complaint Resolution
DPI is committed to complete customer satisfaction. Because of our commitment to
passenger satisfaction, we spend a great deal of time training, evaluating, and observing
our drivers to make sure that their performance is indicative of the corporate concern we
have for our customers.
When DPI staff receive complaints, they are handled in the following manner. Our
dispatch staff immediately refers any complaints to the Yellow Cab manager. The Yellow
Cab manager documents and attempts to resolve the conflict immediately. DPI responds
by telephone and/or mail to all complaints, and directs a copy of our response to our
contracting agency.
Accident/ Incident Reporting
Accident and/or incident reporting will be handled directly by the Safety Coordinator on
the day of occurrence, or as soon as possible thereafter. Notification to staff at the
contract agency is made immediately by our experienced dispatch staff. A detailed
accident report will be available within 24 hours. Subsequent insurance reports are
compiled and submitted by DPI's Insurance Administrator, Win Youngblood. She
coordinates all activity relating to claims, and provides written reports in compliance
with contract requirements.
The primary focus of the driver and operations staff during an emergency is the safety
and comfort of their customers. Secondary concerns are the continued provision of
transportation service and the accurate collection of information regarding the specific
incident.
Drivers are instructed to handle accidents in the following manner. When an accident
occurs:
• Drivers contact the dispatch office Immediately.
The dispatcher contacts police and Yellow Cab Safety Coordinator and arranges
emergency medical assistance if necessary.
• The driver assists passengers as necessary, completes a detailed accident/incident
report, and collects courtesy cards from passengers and witnesses.
• Yellow Cab Safety Coordinator coordinates the documentation and Investigation of each
accident and the provision of a replacement vehicle and continuance of the route.
Driver instructions for other emergencies follow substantially similar procedures with
allowances for unique and varied situations.
DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, INC. TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1999
PAGE2-2
Operations Facility
DPI will provide complete operations services from our Pomona terminal. All telephone
reservations, dispatching, and project administration will be performed at this facility.
Located at 1400 East Mission Boulevard in Pomona, our terminal is ideal for operation of
the Diamond Ride service because of its close proximity to the service area. This facility
currently operates our Yellow Cab and Inland Express divisions as well as our paratransit
contract for the San Gabriel Regional Center. And by using our existing facilities, DPI is
able to achieve significant economies as presented in our pricing.
Our Pomona Terminal provides the following resources:
■ Distance to Service Area: Our Pomona facility is centrally located to support
Diamond Ride service. Our facility will also provide easy access to vehicles,
and allow fast and efficient response to emergencies of all kinds.
■ Storage and Administration: Our Pomona facility has -more than 3000 square
feet of office space for office and accounting staff, as well as reservations
and dispatching. With paved and striped parking for more than 100
vehicles, these facilities are more than adequate to fulfill the requirements
of this contract.
■ Maintenance: Our maintenance garage provides more than 2500 square feet
of space including 8 service bays, 4 vehicle lifts, parts storage and
maintenance offices. It is fully equipped for completion of the preventive
maintenance, scheduled repair, and emergency response needs of the
service vehicles.
• Facility Security: Our Pomona facility is fully fenced and well lighted. This
facility is staffed 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. In addition, DPI uses
sophisticated video surveillance and professional alarm services to deter
crime.
• Telecommunications Equipment: The telecommunication equipment used in
performance of this contract consists of our programmable Isotec
Executone System. This digital telephone system provides excellent service
and can provide management reports to document various call statistics.
The system can be programmed and customized for a maximum number of
rings, after which the caller is routed to an automatic call distributor, which
directs the call to the first available operator. In addition, DPI provides high
capacity fax capabilities, duplication equipment, and PC based computer
applications for system management.
■ Radio Equipment: Each vehicle is equipped with both voice and data radios.
Data is transmitted from Johnstone Peak which allows a direct transmit to
vehicles in Diamond Bar and this radio coverage has proved acceptable for
dispatching taxi cab service. We have a full back up system available from
our Pomona office tower that can be activated in the case of emergencies.
DPI has extensive experience with the operation and maintenance of radio
equipment, and DPI follows FCC rules and regulations regarding radio use.
DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, INC. TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1999
PAGE2-3
Vehicles
Diversified Paratransit takes pride in the mechanical and cosmetic appearance of the
Yellow Cab fleet. All maintenance and repairs except engine and transmission rebuilds
and body repair are completed in our Pomona shop facility by our trained mechanical
staff.
The Yellow Cab taxi fleet consists of late
model Ford Crown Victoria 4 -door sedans.
Painted in our distinctive yellow color and
adorned with the checkers and Yellow Cab
logo, these vehicles are easily recognizable as
our Yellow Cab product.
DPI also operates eight accessible vehicles in
our Yellow Cab division. These vehicles
support contract operations for the PVTA Get
About service, Claremont Dial -A -Ride, Covina
Dial -A -Ride, and Walnut Dial -A -Ride, among
others.
And when Yellow Cab supports local civic
activities, we use our fully restored 1940
Yellow Cab! This showpiece vehicle is an
actual New York City taxicab, which DPI has
restored and operates for special events such
as parades and other community events. So if
you want some nostalgia for an event in
Diamond Bar, please call us to arrange
participation.
DPI Maintenance Policies
DPI has learned from thousands of hours of operating experience that strong preventive
maintenance programs lower maintenance costs. But good maintenance programs do
more than lower costs. They also reduce road calls and encourage drivers to have pride
in and take personal responsibility for their vehicles.
Our preventive maintenance program maintains records for service, inspections, and
work orders for the life of each vehicle. Preventive maintenance inspections are regularly
performed in compliance with manufacturer's specifications, California Highway Patrol
requirements, and as specified by the contracting agency.
DIVERSIFIED PARATRANsrr, ING TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1999
PAGE 2 - 4
DPI is responsible for the mechanical condition and cleanliness of the vehicles we
operate. DPI ensures that our vehicles appear inviting to our customers. No vehicle is
placed in service if the condition of any component part may jeopardize public or driver
safety, cause damage to other vehicle components, or is in violation of the California
Vehicle Code.
A brief overview of DPI's preventive maintenance program is as follows:
• Driver Inspections are submitted daily and necessary repairs are scheduled
Immediately.
• Vehicles are scheduled by mileage or days of service for preventive maintenance
Inspection.
• All repairs are recorded in detail on a work order.
• Repairs are also recorded on a vehicle summary card for quick review of repair and
summary of costs by vehicle.
Driver Inspections
A'walk around' inspection of the vehicle is performed by the driver twice daily:
before leaving the yard and at the end of each shift. The driver inspects the
vehicle for damage, cleanliness, fluid levels, and other items. If the driver finds
a problem during the inspection, the defect is reported immediately to the
maintenance department for corrective action, and the defect is noted on the
Vehicle Condition Report (VCR). The shop then repairs each defect before the
vehicle is placed back in service. A vehicle is taken out of service any time a
safety related defect is reported.
Preventive Maintenance
Preventive maintenance inspections are performed as recommended by the
vehicle manufacturer, and in accordance with DPI's maintenance schedule.
Each vehicle is regularly inspected at 4000 -mile intervals with a
comprehensive checklist. Specific maintenance performed at each inspection
conforms to specifications identified on our preventive maintenance inspection
report.
Repairs
DPI's experienced, well-trained maintenance staff performs all repairs. Our
mechanics have the equipment and tools to perform any necessary repair
work. Maintenance and repair of vehicles is performed in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. Mechanics are trained on the job and DPI takes
advantage of many outside schools. Since our fleet consists primarily of Ford
sedans, our mechanics often attend the dealer mechanic training offered by
the Ford factory. Our mechanics are up to date on the latest diagnostics and
repair methods. In order to provide the most efficient and effective service,
DPI's maintenance facilities are staffed 7 days a week and operate on two
shifts.
The forms used to document these activities are described below, and samples are
submitted for your review at the end of this proposal section. These documents provide a
check and balance system for ensuring that preventive maintenance is performed at the
regularly scheduled intervals and that all necessary vehicle repairs are appropriately
UIVERSIFIED YARATRANSrr, INC. TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1999
PAGE 2 - 5
completed. These detailed records are available for review and inspections by city staff at
any time, and DPI will be happy to provide any summary or report information desired.
Vehicle Condition Report (VCR)
This form is completed by the driver on a daily basis. It includes a pre- and
post -trip checklist, as well as a damage report. This checklist ensures that the
driver is an active participant in the daily maintenance of the vehicle. A copy
of this report is provided to the maintenance staff.
Preventative Maintenance Cheddist
This form is used by our maintenance staff to perform preventative
maintenance inspections on service vehicles.
Vehicle Repair Summary Card
This form is a master record (summary) of repairs performed on a particular
vehicle. The repair summary allows maintenance staff to verify repairs
performed on the vehicle and assists in identifying chronic problem areas.
Repair Order
All maintenance or repairs performed on a vehicle are recorded on a repair
order. Repair orders are reviewed by the maintenance manager and are kept in
a vehicle specific file. Records include all parts used, and any sublet purchases
required.
Our maintenance system and capabilities were recently validated by a surprise CHP
inspection at the Ontario International Airport. While many other services were cited for
mechanical defects, our taxis were given very high marks because of their excellent
mechanical condition.
DPI Reporting
Diversified Paratransit, Inc. adheres to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in
all financial record keeping. Each contract is assigned a separate record location and all
contract records are centrally located in their exclusive archive.
DPI's accounting functions are operated with Open Systems accounting software. Open
Systems is the leader in accounting applications for business. This software package
allows us to fully isolate all costs, revenue, provide statements by revenue center, and
provide a complete financial statement for our contract clients.
DPI's business and transportation experience ensures that the reporting needs of
contract agencies will be met swiftly and accurately. All contract records are open and
unsealed during business hours for the agencies' review. Our staff is highly experienced
in all aspects of transportation reporting and will provide any report desired by the
contractor. Output options include computer diskette, modem, or hard copy output.
Information commonly provided in management reports includes, but is not limited to:
• Daily Ridership per Vehicle
• Dally Vehicle Mileage
• Service Hours
• Driver Statistics
• Passengers Per Hour
DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSrr, INC. TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1999
PAGE2-6
DPI believes it is the responsibility of the contractor to provide accurate and complete
information, not only to our client agency, but to their parent and funding partners as
well. Our expertise includes FTA National Transit Database (NTD) reporting, as well as
local and state government agency preferences for data gathering, processing,
compilation, and reporting. We consider this approach essential to comprehensive
system management.
A complete sample of DPI management reports, trip sheets, accident/ incident reports,
etc., is included for your review at the end of this proposal section.
Service Summary: Reservation to Billing
1. Call for Service
An eligible Diamond Bar resident calls the dedicated telephone line to arrange a
Diamond Bar Diamond Ride. The receptionist asks for a pick up address, destination,
client name and card number. The call then posts on the dispatcher's screen for review.
2. Dispatcher Review
The dispatcher looks at timing of the call, and compares with other calls in the area for
the possibility of share ride. Every share ride saves the city money and is a more efficient
use of available vehicles. We share ride over 20% of your calls. The dispatcher assigns
the call to an available taxi.
3. Taxi Cab
The taxicab driver receives the call and makes the pick up. If the passenger is a miss, the
driver lets the dispatcher know, and the dispatcher attempts to call the passenger and
resolve the issue. The driver completes a trip sheet with all completed calls and turns
this in the next time they are at the office. Most drivers turn in daily and some turn in
weekly.
Diamond Bar does not pay for misses, or miles traveled without passengers. Diamond
Bar does not pay waiting time on calls, which discounts the meter rate by about 20%.
4. Yellow Cab Accounting
Yellow Cab accounting's Yvonne Garza receives the trip sheets along with the driver's
other paperwork. She makes an accounting of the cash turned in and credit claimed,
miles driven, and balances the driver's account. The trip sheets are turned over to
Carmen Moran in accounting for inspection and the billing compilation. Carmen is
supervised by Peggy Stein and Phyllis Rockwell.
Carmen Moran specifically looks for abnormalities in the trip sheets such as:
■ Trips that might be too close together,
■ Improper addresses,
■ Improper city,
■ Multiple trips with the same rider,
■ A single driver with a lot of Diamond Rides,
■ A trip that happens before or after the driver's shift,
■ A trip that is listed on the trips sheet out of sequence,
■ A trip that is written in different ink or writing style.
A comparison is made of the trip charge vs. a mileage/taxifare chart, to insure that the
charge is consistent with the miles traveled. Any overcharge is corrected at that time.
DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, INC. TUESDAY, JANUARYI9, 1999
PAGE 2 - 7
Any of these abnormalities trigger an investigation of the trip. The trip is immediately
checked against the DDS log. The trip is brought to the attention of Steve Carrigan and
Steve verifies that the trip took place by contacting the passenger and inquiring about
the relationship between the passenger and the driver. Any discrepancies require action
and Diamond Bar would be notified.
5. Management Report
The statistics of the system are compiled and compared with earlier months. This
procedure helps defeat fraud. Average billing amounts, trip costs, riders per day and
riders per week are important statistics, and substantial variations are a red flag. We are
also tracking the number of calls competed vs. the number of calls through the DDS
system, which will indicate any problems if the comparison strays far from norm.
6. Review by Operations Manager
Steve Carrigan, General Manager of Yellow Cab Co, reviews each monthly billing, for each
of our contracts. A review letter is submitted with the billing, identifying trends and
service issues. This review is an additional opportunity to find any inappropriate activity
and helps us manage your project.
7. City of Diamond Bar
The billing with all supporting documentation includes the summary bill, management
report, review letter, trip sheets, and DDS back up documentation. This allows your staff
to perform any audit of on time performance and make billing inquiries. The detail allows
staff to contact riders as needed and verify activity such as daily riders and exceptionally
long trips. This information lets the city make informed decisions about what serves the
rider the best and most efficient way possible.
DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, INC. TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1999
PAGE 2 - 8
DP141Z- 1400 EAST Mit BOULEVARD
orjwtSr ®'ARATRANOT, INC. POMON& CALIFORNIA 91766
PHONE (9M 6224316
FAX (9A9) 622-3035
December 15, 1998
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Ort", Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Subject Billing for the Diamond Ride For the Period: 11/16198 thru 11/30/96
$8,583.70 w $648.30 $0.00 57
�LUS 10% ADMINISTRATIVE FEE 5793'54
TOTAL DUE DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, INC. W.7M."
Z y,
Date
Carrigan
,'?ellow Cab Operations Manager
diam 1198.wk4 12/15/98
DATE
METER FARE
FAREBOX
YC COUPON TOTAL DUE
Mon
16 -Nov -98
$754.90
$55.50
x0.00
$699.40
.5420.40
Tue
V -Nov -98
$46L90.
$42.5Q
$0.00
- 11S1�d
'5789.00
558.00.
SO.DO . =
$731.00 - . ,
Thu
19 -Nov -98
$530.60
$39.80
$0.00
$490.80
-FW
-20-NOV-98
$615.40
$44.50-•
$0.0.0..
5576.90. .
Sat
21 -Nov -98
$351:80
'526.50
$0.00
$325.30
Sun
22 -Nov -98
$260.90
$23.50
$0.00
5237.40
Mon
23 -Nov -98
$1,070.70
$76.00
$0.00
$994.70
Tue
24 -Nov -98
$523.00
$44.00
$0.00
$479.00
Wed
25 -Nov -98
$713.80
$46.50
$0.00
$667.30
Thu
26 -Nov -98
$170.10
$13.50
$0.00
$156.60
Fri
27 -Nov -98
$519.60
$34.50
$0.00
$485.10
Sat
28 -Nov 98
$299.80
$30.50
$0.00
$269.30
Sun
29 -Nov -98
$220.90
$18.50
$0.00
$20240
Mon
30 -Nov -98
$1,300.30
$94.50
$0.00
$1,205.80
$8,583.70 w $648.30 $0.00 57
�LUS 10% ADMINISTRATIVE FEE 5793'54
TOTAL DUE DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, INC. W.7M."
Z y,
Date
Carrigan
,'?ellow Cab Operations Manager
diam 1198.wk4 12/15/98
OIVER1311IFND PARATAANw, Imo. 1400 EAST MISSION BOULEWUW
POMONA. CALf4ORNU101766
PHONE MM 622-1316
Deoember 15,1996 FAX MOI 622.-i5
City of Diamond Ber
21660 E. Copley Drtve, Suite 100
Desmond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Subject: Mwmgwr ant Report for Diamond Ride
Period 11101/98 thru 11 Mas
Monthly
Comparison
Summary Item
10(1631/98
11/1630/98
10198
11198
RIDERSHIP TOTALS 6 AVERAGES:
Total Passengers:
908
731
1691
1580
Total Trips:
753
615
1404
1345
Total Vehicle Service Miles:
5594.4
4696.80
10419.30
10075.40
Total Weekday Poses WM.
691
610
1349
1240
Tafel Weekend Pawwvws:
215
121
342
340
Averap Wed day Ridership:
62.82
55.45
61.32
59.05
Averapa Miss Per Trip:
7.43
7.64
7.42
7.49
Averape Paws rpers Per Trip:
12
1.19
120
1.17
COST ANALYSIS:
Net Cost Per Trip:
$1217
$1290
$1228
$1249
Net Cost Per
$10.11
$10.86
$10.20
$10.63
Net Cost Per Trip M Area:
$6.05
$6.32
$6.14
$5196
Net Cost Per Pena go M Area:
$4.86
$5.15
$5.04
$5.02
Net Cast Per Trip Out of Area:
$17.32
$17.89
$17.26
$17.66
Net Cost Per Pasaaper Out of Anes:
$14.82
$15.79
$14.46
$15.35
PASSENGER TYPES:
Trial Serwor 01m ns M Area
335
250
604
552
Total Handicapped In Am
81
76
139
144
Toted Seniors Outside Area
317
213
588
482
Tafel Ftandcspped Outside Area
139
150
282
325
Total Other Panergere M Area
12
13
23
26
Total Other Panargo Out of Area
22
29
55
51
REVENUE BREAKDOWN:
Tata) Revareie C $ .50:
$169.50
$138.50
$306.50
$299.00
Total Revenue @ $1.50:
$614.00
$507.80
$1,170.50
$1.10420
Tata) Other Revenue M Area:
$6.00
$200
$12.00
$14.50
Total Other Revenue Out d Area:
$250
$0.00
$7.50
$1.00
YC Coupons:
$0.50
$0.00
$0.50
$0.00
Coupons:
$0.00
$4.00
$1.00
$4.00
Of 1580 Passengers 489 Shared Their Rides
diam1198.wk4 12/15/98
ACCIDENT/INCIDENT REPORT
TO BE COMPLETED BY COMPANY DRIVER
3 DATE
IUI MANY 1 OOOLE8 INVOLVED? I DATE OF ACCIDENT ITIME
AM
PM
31DENT ON STREET
1AT- 8ErWEEN - DNi8C7)ON TRAVELING)
aTY
LICE CONTACTED? YES ❑ No (3 REPORTS VIOLATIONs/CITATIONS? YES ❑ No ❑
Ir -PORT ATTACHED YES ❑ NO ❑
'UR NAME DATE OF BIRTH AGE
NEWS LICENSE • HOME TELEPHONE 0,
ADDRESS CITY ZIP
R VEHICLE S- PLATE S WERE YOU WEARING YOUR SEATBELT? YES ❑ NO ❑
)ESCRIBE DAMAGE TO OUR VEHICLE
rHER VEHICLE or PROPERTY: (For additional information, use extra shoot of pilon
OWNER
NAME A00RE3S
:LEPHONE NO DRIVERS LICENSE NO
RES. eus.
DRIVER
NAME ADORESS
:LEPHONE NO DRIVERS LICENSE NO
RES. sus.
v -E LICENSE NO TYPE OF VEHICLE NO. OF PERSONS IN VEHICLE
OMAGE TO VEHICLE OR PROPERTY MATED COST $
RECTION OF OTHER VEHICLE
WAS OTHER VEHICLE INSURED? YES ❑ NO ❑
NAME OF COMPANY,
)T.SPEED: whenfirstnoticed M.P.H.; at time otcollision M.P.H. DISTANCETRAVELEDAFTER COLLISION? FL
;TALL PEOPLE INVOLVED
nbulance? YES ❑ NO ❑ HOSPITALIZED? YES ❑ NO ❑ NAME OF HOSPITAL
FORM 291
z
m
o
ti
S
S
T
X
O
NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONES
INJURIl
nbulance? YES ❑ NO ❑ HOSPITALIZED? YES ❑ NO ❑ NAME OF HOSPITAL
FORM 291
'ASSENGER ACCIDENT
j,T TIME OF ACCIDENT: (Check proper nems)
WAS PERSON: Boarding ❑ Alighting ❑ On board ❑ At front door ❑ At rear door ❑ Struck by doors ❑
TYPE OF DOOR CONTROL
hTiON of COMPANY VEHICLE Standing [3. stag ❑ Slopping ❑ Rr wit (Straight ❑ Curve ❑) Going M.t
FALL. GIVE LOCATION: Front steps ❑ Frontplatform (3 Able ❑ Rear of center platform ❑ Rear or center steps ❑
)ID PERSON CONTACT COMPANY VEHICLE IN FALLING? YES ❑ NO ❑
If outdit distance from vehicle tt Distance of door involved from curb n
NISCEUTAMEOUS INCIDENT .
Diahubanoes. amwta. 000MM nts. fns. skdmeas, fags not on company vehicle. other collisions. etc.)
D INCIDENT OCCUR ON COMPANY VEHICLE? YES ❑ NO ❑ If not. give distance from company vehicle fL
LS PERSON A PASSENGER PRIOR TO INCIDENT? YES ❑ NO ❑ WAS COMPANY VEHICLE INVOLVED YES ❑ NO ❑
ANDMON OF EQUIPMENT
d you notice any equipment deeds (steps, floors. doors. seats. brakes. etc)? YES ❑ NO El
did you notify of defects? •wgm— -
3MPANY VEHICLE: How far were you from point of socident when other vehicle or pedestrian first seen?n
Estimated speed when you first noticed danger M.P.H. How far from collision when you applied brakes? -
,timaiedaPon ofyourvet icleattimeofooGslon M.P.H. How far did -your vehicle move after oogWon? n-
.amage to company vehicle Estimated Cost S
ISDESTRIAN: (At time of collision) At crosswalk ❑ Loading zone ❑ Near curb ❑ Jay walking ❑ Other
ST ALL WITNESSES (and obtain Courtesy Cards)
Nwss --
."��.Address Ph one
.�g Add Phone
- Address Phone
-
Address
AddPhone
Sion of
ENERAL DIRECTION (Eastbound. etc) bound WEATHER (Fog. eta)CONDITION OF ROADWAY
.umber of Passengers, Number of Courtesy Cards Obtained
DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT
)r additional information use extra sheet of paper.
3def summary
'scribe in Detail:
L�30
a�
Tw
o=�acc°i
SCC wD
r
� ca ca
�-u 0
m
a
m c
CD
E m
0-
0
Co
m" m
cc 0
N I
'a
o0
m \
\
m =
0
z
<
E
0m
.0 v
¢•
�
o-
m� o
d
d O 0
C aD m
.i
O m
W
U
o
C
m O m
_
f
E
C C
m
W
O
%
a"M O
m
. w
W
._C m 0
3 z �+
Ci c =
O
c
0
O
W
It
C
aim =3
� _
44p
d
F-m�m0E I
L�30
a�
Tw
o=�acc°i
SCC wD
r
� ca ca
�-u 0
m
a
m c
CD
E m
0-
0
Co
m" m
cc 0
N I
'a
m \
\
E
�
I
I �
I �
I �
I s�
-----------— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -----------
I i
I �
i
i
o; {
us
j
V =
Oa m cis c i� J >
a o -o Om > ccIc
CLLL a
U. o = o
Q c> o
w
3 G0 L---------------- -e
zo
hum I �\
" m ( \\
Cm
L 3 O { \
3 \\
O � -6 O `
L-CISaw 3
W.L.O'er ` oOz
�EcaomE
m ,a cis a ccl ` 3
.. c = CL
m..ommo�
Em#�c:2
a2
333Ea,
aWE G:t
I -
z
o�
0
CL
2
�--------------------
TAXI DRIVER PRE -SHIFT
INSPECTION FORM
O:ORM TO BE RURMN® PRIOR TO DBAVM 7W YARD)
TAXI NAME
PIC= Drier
TIME STAMP
MARK ANY EXISTING BODY DAMAGE WITH A
CIRCLE AND NOTIFY DISPATCHER OF DAMAGE
ODOMETER READING:
m Q.� cimmrlc F__t�t rrEM
RadiatodReservoir
Tm
nvDrvro wt 1 x
Head
Tail Lights
Meter
Tum Sigoak
Lock Box
Borer& Flubers
Gas cap
Wipers
Oil Level
Hum
Trans. Fluid
Seat Belts
Pwr. Steer Fluid
Brakes
Radio
Driver Llsc/Perrnit
Mobile Data Term.
Brake Fluid
Fire Extinguisher
I HAVE INSPECTED THE ABOVE ITEMS ON VEHICLE
# AND BELIEVE THE TAXI IS IN GOOD
WORKING CONDITION AND SAFE TO DRIVE.
THE TAXI MUST BE INSPECTED AND VERIFIED PRIOR TO
'LEASING THE VEHICLE FOR DEFECTS AND/OR DAMAGE.
REPAIRS TO TAXIS BROUGHT BACK IN A DEFECTIVE OR
DAMAGED CONDITION WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE DRIVER
Sighed
Date
VEHICLE CONDITION REPORT
"RED TAG SLIP"
VEHICLE # DATE
PM DUE CURRENT MILEAGE i
DRIVER SIGNATURE
DEFECT IN:
( ) ENGINE ( ) TRANSMISSION
( ) BRAKES ( 1 TIRES
( ) BODY ( 1 RADIO
( ) METER/MDT ( 1 UGHTS
( ) HEATER/AC ( ) IN'T'ERIOR
( ) PM DUE ( ) OTHER
k 4 « 4 i 4 * 4 « 4 « * 4 4 * 4 « t t 4 * * t • * * * * t * * *
(GIVE FULL EXPLANATION OF DEFECT)
CORRECTED BY DATE -/-/.
Q
Q
01111111111111111111111111
11111111111111111111IIIIII
i Em
0
is
SAFETY PROGRAM
DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT
1996
Diversified Paratransit has an outstanding safety record yet accidents and insurance consume one fifth
of our revenues, not including vehicle downtime and lost comfort for those injured. This
comprehensive safety program continues our tradition of safety and reenforces the importance
Diversified management places on providing our employees and customers a safe riding environment.
The Yellow Cab Plan
Our full time safety coordinator leads the way to safety with the following program. We promote
safety by giving incentives to modify behavior, which is the only proven way to reduce accidents
consistently over a long period of time.
1) Lease incentives are a soon, certain, and positive way to encourage safe behavior.
a) Drivers who operate five days per week without an accident receive a sixth day with no
mileage charges which is a discount of about $25.
b) Drivers who work part time receive the same incentive at the end of each month if driving
without an accident or complaint.
c) Drivers who reach one through ten years of safe driving with no accidents receives a pin
recognizing the accomplishment.
Driver statistics are kept by the insurance administrator Win Coune and Yvonne Garza of Yellow Cab
accounting on computer using a driver profile system. Profiles show which accidents are most costly
and most frequent, allowing management to address these specific issues.
Of 1994 accidents, 43% were rear end accidents, 25% were from a "failure to yield" and 12% were
from an improper left turn. 90'/a of all accidents happened in. the afternoon when the cab was empty
of passengers. This information leads to several theories of the contributing bad behavior and those
behaviors are specifically addressed.
2) Posters and announcements
a) A regular program of displaying posters which give specific safety messages allows
management to communicate effectively about the progress of the safety programs. Posters
list recent accidents, their causes, related costs and inconveniences. The most common
accident types are targeted for elimination.
b) Safety messages are sent over the air to the drivers via the Digital Dispatch system These
reminders are specific to ask drivers to refrain from unsafe behaviors.
c) At the time of checking out a car, the cashier reminds the driver of the safety message of
the month
d) An electronic billboard in the driver's lounge gives safety information specific to preventing
unsafe behaviors.
e) A notebook with pictures from the California Highway Patrol magazine is kept on the
counter for driver edification. The pictures are explicit photos of accidents.
3) Personnel Hiring and contracting practices.
The contract taxi driver must meet the following qualifications to be eligible to lease vehicles from
Yellow Cab.
• Must have at least five years U.S. driving experience.
• Must have at least 50,000 miles driving experience.
• Must be at least 25 years old.
• No more than two violations or accidents in past three years.
• No DUI or reckless driving convictions.
• No felony or "fraud on the public" convictions.
• Must demonstrate ability to read a map and drive safely.
• No assaultive behavior or drug sales convictions.
The drivers are on a pull notice program with the DMV which provides us a printout anytime there
is activity on their record. If any driver receives disqualifying citations, his/her driving privileges are
suspended.
Attitude plays an important role for the driver. The driver must be willing to learn and not exhibit an
indifference to the safety issues. The driver must take responsibility for his or her actions when
observed violating a safety procedures. A driver must not display a poor attitude when dealing with
others in the office including cashiers and management. It has been our experience that drivers with
poor attitudes, soon join the ranks of those who caused accidents.
4) Orientation and Training.
Independent drivers receive intensive orientation before they are allowed to drive. The program
includes:
• Four hours classroom on defensive driving.
• One hour on accident causes and investigation.
• One hour of road supervised driving.
• Three hours classroom on transporting the disabled with sensitivity.
• One hour on map reading.
• Three hours on operation of digital dispatch terminal, meter, and radio.
• One hour on company policies and procedures.
• One hour on positive and proper mental approach to safe driving.
Drivers who can not pass standard driving exams or demonstrate intelligent driving are not offered
a vehicle lease.
Much emphasis is placed on the unique demands of taxi driving. It is explained that bad driving habits
manifest themselves as an accident in a short period of time because of the exposure and distractions
encountered. Consequences of poor habits are reinforced by using unpleasant examples.
5) Non driving employee safety.
a) In compliance with SB 198, monthly questionnaires ask for employee input of any unsafe
conditions. This process gives management Priorities for fixing and hazards. In 1994, the
parking lot was repaved to eliminate holes and other trip hazards, the stress level was reduced
m dispatch by carpeting the walls, remodeling to reduce sound, changing Phone system to
one that distributed calls, and installing a computer dispatch system These changes have
lowered the stress created by peaks and valleys of calls in the taxi business.
b) A quarterly sight inspection results in correction of other hazards that appear from time to
time.
c) Right to know hazardous material training is given to all employees- Mechanics receive
specialized training because of their exposure to chemicals and petroleum products.
d) An incentive program pays $175 per month to the safety committee's discretion fiord for
any mouth the facility has no worker's compensation injuries. The committee may use the
money any way they see fit. This has been successful in creating peen' pressure to reduce
claims.
6) The following consultants have been retained to guide in implementation and success of our safety
programs:
The Worksafe Group, Inc.
Sharon D. Llewellyn
25231 Paseo de Alicia
Laguna HILLS, CA 92653-4616
(714) 583 - 1760
Comp Management Associates
Tun Snook
4332 Cerritos Avenue
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
(714) 220-6400
Other resources include our insurance agents:
Anderson and Anderson
M ke Scanlon
2495 Campus Drive
P.O. Box 15954
Irvine, CA 92715
(714) 476-4343
Van Beurden Insurance Services
Bob Paul
P.O. Bx 67
Kingsburg, CA 93631
(209) 897-2975
We are also members of the following safety organizations:
National Safety Council
303 Twin Dolphin Drive
Redwood City, CA 94065-1409
(415) 457-5100
CALACT
2150 Capitol Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95816
(916) 446-8018
Diversified Management has Pledged an all out effort to reduce accidents and injuries in the
workplace.
Brian Hunt
Chief Executive Officer
4
YELLOW CAB CO.
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE INSPECTION
VEHICLE #
DATE
ITS
NEXT PM DUE
MmakQ April 16, 1998
OK
DEF
OK
DEF
1. START ENGINE - CHECK GAUGES
& LIGHTS
21. CHECK ALL DOOR GLASS - OPERATION
2. CHECK TRANSMISSION - PRND
22. CHECK ALL DOORS ALIGNMENT
3. CHECK BRAKE PEDAL OPERATION
23. CHECK ALL DOOR LOCKS OPERATION
4. CHECK PARKING BRAKE OPERATION
24. CHECK ALL DECALS, NOTICES,
STI(ZCERS
S. CHECK PEDAL PADS CONDnm
25. CHECK METER I SELF ?EST OPERATION
6. CHECK HORN OPERATION
26. COCK INTERIOR AND DASH LIGHTS
7. CHECK AC CONTROLS & FANS
27. CHECK ALL BODY & PAINT DAMAGE
S. CIBCK HEATERMEFROSTER
OPERATION
28. CHECK ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTS
9. CHECK MIRRORS - SECURE &
OPERATION
29. CHECK BRAKE LIGHTS
10. CIMCK AM/FM RADIO & SPEAKER
30. CHECK BACK-UP LIGHTS
11. CHECK 2 -WAY RADIO &
MICROPHONE
31. CHECK BANDIT SWITCH OPERATION
12. CHECK UPHOLSTERY CONDITION
32. CHECK TURN SIGNALS
13. CHECK SEATS - ADJUST & SECURE
33. CHECK EMERGENCY FLASHERS
14. CHECK HEADLINER CONDITION
34. CHECK AIR FIZ.TER - REPLACE IF DIRTY
15. CHECK CARPET CONDITION
35. CHECK BATTERY HOLD DOWN ASSY
16. CHECK DOOR HANDLES & PANELS
36. CHECK BATTERY WATER LEVELS
17. CHECK ALL SEAT BELTS
OPERATION
37. CLEAN & TIGHTEN BATTERY CABLES
18. CHECK LACK BOX - SECURE &
LOCKED
38. HYDROMETER TEST
19. CHECK WINDSHIELD CONDITION
39. CHARGING RATE VOLTS
20. CHECK WIPERS - OPERATION &
CONDITION
40. STARTER DRAW AMPS
MmakQ April 16, 1998
COMMENTS:
OK
DEF
OK
DEF
41. CHEM ALTERNATOR CONNOCIIONS
65. CHECK STARTM MOUNT & CONNECr.
42. CHECK STARTER, RELAY CONNECT.
43. CHECK BRAKE MAS ER CYL LEVEL
66. CHECK TRANSMISSION MOUNT BOLTS
67. CHECK TRANSMISSION PAN BOLTS
44. CM3QC BRAKE BOOSTER A
CYLINDER MOUNTS
6a. C HECK REAR SUSPENSION
4S. CIC PS RESERVOUR - FULL, NO TEAKS
69. CHECK PARKING BRAKE CABLES -
CONDITION - ADJUST
46. CHECK PS HOSES - SECURE, NO
70. (SCK TIRES CONDITION & INFLATION
LELEAKS
47. �QC MOTOR MOUNTS
71. LS VE IICLE CLEAN INSIDE & OUT
4a. CEEBCK ENGINE VACUUM L NES
72. TEST E - CHECK )OMETER
49. CK WIRDIG - CONDITION It ROUTING
73. CHBCIC RB0blrRATION ENVE LDPE
S& CHECK ENGINE OQ. LEAKS
74. C jECK MBEER POR WIRE AND SEAL
Sl. CHECK TRANSMISSION FLLM LEVEL
75. PRESSURE TEST430M LEAKS
S2. CEIECK COOLANT LEVEL &
CONDITION
76. CHANGE ENGINE OIL & FILTER
53. CHECK HOSES & CLAMPS
77. REMOVE WHEELS -ROTATE
54. CHECK BELTS -CONDITION & ENSION
7E. FRONT BRAKES CONDrMN
SS. CHECK SMOG EQUIP - HOSES & UNES
79. CALIPERS SECURE & NO LEAKS
56. RAISE VEHICLE -CHECK FLUID LEAKS
ao. BRAKE HIES & HOSES SECUR&NO
LEAKS
57. CK DRIVESHAFT & U JOINTS - LUBE
91. REAR BRAKES CONDITION
'Y.
58. CHECK T7E RODS, CENTERLINK-LUBE
V- SPRINGS, CABLES & MOUNTS
CONDITION
59. CHECK IDLER & PITMAN ARM -LUBE
83. WHEEL CYLINDERS SECURE -NO LEAKS
60. CK SHOCKS & SPRINGS MOUNTING
34. AXLE SEALS NOT LEAKING
61. CHECK BALL JOINTS -LUBE
.85. AXLE BEARINGS NO EXCESSIVE PLAY
62. CK CONTROL ARM BUSHINGS -LUBE
86. DIFFERENTIAL - FULL & NO LEAKS
63. CHECK EXHAUST SYSTEM NO LEAKS-
MOUNTING
87. DMV TAGS
64. CHECK EXPANSION PLUGS -NO LEAKS
$9. VALVE STEM CAPSEll
COMMENTS:
DPI Staffing & Manpower
Project Staffing
Our management and operations staff are experienced and well-trained transportation
professionals, and each individual makes a special contribution to the success of DPI.
This project will be integrated into our existing Di al -A -Cab and taxi management
programs. Our current staff of experienced managers, dispatchers, receptionists, and
drivers will handle the calls generated by a Diamond Bar Dial -A -Cab system. This
advantage provides DPI and the City with only incremental increases in expenses for
management and driver time. It allows DPI to provide the City and Diamond Ride
customers with cost savings and efficiency in delivering quality transportation service.
DPI Management
Management staff time involved in the Diamond Ride operation includes: Brian Hunt,
President; Phyllis Rockwell, Accounting Manager; and Peggy Stein, Senior Billing and
Reporting Clerk.
Mr. Brian Hunt, President of DPI, has extensive experience in the
transportation industry and is a talented troubleshooter. He has the
industry -wide knowledge and first hand operational experience to make
any decision needed to ensure smooth, customer oriented transportation
operations.
Phyllis Rockwell, Accounting Manager, is a professional accounting
expert with more than 20 years of accounting experience, including
nearly seven years as DPI's Accounting Manager. Her previous
experience includes: 4 years of bookkeeping experience; more than 7
years accounting management experience; and more than 4 years
experience as company controller. Her extensive experience and
professional attitude ensures the accurate accounting of our contract
services.
Peggy Stein, Billing Supervisor, has been an asset to DPI for nearly 15
years. As a billing and accounting clerk, Peggy has extensive experience
reviewing and compiling tripsheet records and other billing
documentation. For the last 7 years, Peggy has served DPI as our billing
supervisor, directing all billing and data gathering activities for Yellow
Cab and DPI. Her extensive experience ensures the accuracy of our
billing documents.
Organization Chart
The organizational chart presented at the end of this section provides a visual
representation of our operations team and identifies the reporting relationships that will
facilitate the provision of efficient and effective transportation services.
DwERSIFlED PARATRANs1T, INC TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1999
PAGE 3 - 1
Project Manager
DPI's project manager for Diamond Ride is Mr. Steve Carrigan. Steve has extensive
operations experience with Yellow Cab, and the system knowledge to effectively manage
dynamic transportation services. Steve has more than 7 years experience with Yellow
Cab, including:
■ Yellow Cab General Manager since January, 1997
■ Lead Dispatcher from January, 1993 to January, 1997
■ Independent Contractor cab driver from June, 1991 to January, 1993
After startup of the Diamond Ride service, Steve will spend approximately 10% to 15% of
his time managing, troubleshooting, and fine tuning the Diamond Ride service. Part of
his responsibility is to generate the management reports needed to implement good
service for the residents of Diamond Bar.
Assistant Manager
Mr. Jeffrey Aslakson is a well trained operations, customer service, and transportation
professional. Jeff has extensive experience in recruiting, computer systems, and
personnel management. Jeff has been an important addition to our management team
since October, 1998.
Jeff will devote approximately 20% of his time to management of the Diamond Ride
system including coordinating and troubleshooting dispatch activities, to coordinating
systems and billing reporting. His unique skills and knowledge of the Diamond Ride
service will provide the essential management oversight necessary to provide efficient,
cost effective, accurate, and timely transportation service.
Dispatchers
Yellow Cab's dispatchers combine for more than 50 years of operational experience!
Each of our dispatchers has multiple years of experience as a taxicab operator prior to
becoming a dispatcher. Our dispatching staff has the experience, knowledge of the
service area, and operational understanding to solve taxi system problems quickly and
easily.
Staff
Position
Driving
Ex erience
Dispatching
Experience
Training
Experience
Lead Dispatcher
Richard Pawloski
6 Years
2 Years
Dispatcher
Jeff Horton
7 Years
1 Year
Dispatcher
Nate Martin
10 Years
5 Years
2 Years
Dispatcher.
Terry Sovine
13 Years
3 Years
1 Year
Dis atcher
Kevin Miranda
2 Years
2 Years
Dispatcher
Lee Welshans
I 2 Years
4 Years
5 Years
DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, INC. TUESDAY, JANUARY 1W, laaa
PAGE 3-2
Safety Coordinator
Mr. John Avera is a very experienced transportation professional, having driven
commercially for more than 20 years and logging more than 2.6 million miles on the
road. John has been with DPI since 1995, and has performed an essential function for
Yellow Cab. As our Safety Coordinator, John performs a variety of functions from
customer service to management. John's duties include:
• Accident Prevention;
■ Training and Re-training Drivers;
■ Accident Investigation, Analysis, and Reporting;
■ Producing the Yellow Cab Gazette Monthly Newsletter.
John's primary duty involves listening to drivers and helping them resolve personal and
professional issues which affect their job performance.
Drivers
Good drivers are the key to operating demand response public transportation systems
and DPI has some of the very best. These drivers are familiar with Dial -A -Cab systems
and the customers of these systems. This type of work requires a caring attitude, and
more understanding of disabilities than ordinary taxi service because of the different
sensitivities of the riders.
All drivers are subject to alcohol and drug testing including: pre -driving drug screen; on
incident; on reasonable suspicion; and random testing. The drivers are fully aware of this
testing which is a deterrent to illegal activity. Alcohol testing is also included and all
records are kept in confidential driver files.
Driver safety and screening requirements are outlined in the Yellow Cab Safety Plan for
1995 included at the end of this proposal section.
Receptionist
Yellow Cab employs approximately twenty receptionists to staff our 24-hour taxi dispatch
operations in Pomona.
Each receptionist is given two and one-half hours of training before they begin handling
taxi calls. The training consists of:
■ 30 minutes - Operation of telephone and head set system, log on log off,
transfers, conference, holds, microphone placement, barge in, available
time, etc. This includes learning standard greetings to be used for each of
our multiple incoming lines.
■ One Hour - Videotapes are viewed to teach proper telephone attitude, tone,
and demeanor. A follow up test is conducted to assure comprehension.
■ One Hour - Operation of the DDS computerized dispatch system, including
order entry, corrections, queries, and time estimating
Each new hire then works the 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM shift when the most direct
supervision is available. They receive on the job training and guidance as they
handle routine incoming calls and sit next to our receptionist supervisor.
DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, INc. TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1999
PAGE 3-3
Our receptionists receive on going training through monthly meetings, on the job
training, management review of twenty four hour video taken during each day, and they
are periodically required to complete a customer service course and workbook.
Subcontractors
DPI maintains on-going relationships with various suppliers of parts, oil, office supplies,
uniforms, etc. However, we do not sub -contract with outside parties to provide major
contract services or labor. DPI does not anticipate any formal subcontracting
arrangement in connection with this project.
However, Yellow Cab drivers are primarily Independent Contractors. For all intents and
purposes they are entrepreneurs and small business people who lease their equipment
and services from Yellow Cab. DPI does carry worker's compensation insurance on them
in the rare case that a successful lawsuit would require us to pay them for any work-
related injuries.
Yellow Cab does also employ some drivers as hourly employees. Yellow Cab employs
these drivers to support our contract service operations and ensure that we get the
service coverage we need in our service area. Unlike independent contractor drivers, we
can direct and control the duties and hours of employee drivers. Using an employee
driver, the driver can afford to wait in a particular service area or dedicate themselves to
a particular type of trip (like Diamond Ride). Employee drivers are never profitable for a
taxi company because they are not as efficient as independent contractors, but by using
them, we can better meet our operating parameters.
DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, INC TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1999
PAGE 3-4
Bob Austin
Driver Trainer
Don Demille
Road Trainer
Lee Welshans
Road Trainer
Diversified Paratransit, Inc.
Yellow Cab Division
Brian Hunt
President
Steve Carrigan
Yellow Cab
General Manager
Jeff Aslakson
Assistant Manager
Richard Pawloski
John Avera Lead Dispatcher
Safety Coordinator
AM Shia Mon -Fri
Jeff Horton
Dispatcher
Swing Shift Mon -Fri
Nate Martin
Dispathher
Patty Narsajo
Driver Advocate
Business Development
Graveyard Shift Mon -Fri
Terry Sovina
Dispatcher
AM Shift Sat -Sun
Lee Welshans
Relief Dispatcher
Kevin Miranda
Dispatcher
PM Shift Sat -Sun
Cost Proposal
After reviewing the RFP and considering various options to improve service delivery while
maintaining cost effective service. DPI offers the following proposal options for your
review.
DPI understands the desire to improve the on-time performance of the Diamond Ride
system. On-time performance is directly impacted by how much excess capacity is
available during the entire day to cover the peaks in demand. On-time performance is not
necessarily improved by a provider "working harder" (since each taxicab can carry only a
limited number of trips per hour), but specifically by committing, at a cost, to have
vehicles stand idle during slow times so they are available when needed to cover the peak
demand. As an operator receiving public funds and accountable to public agencies for
it's expense. our job is to find the balance of system capacity which provides adequate
peak coverage without generating excessive expense during the laws.
DPI is willing to negotiate service delivery options with the city, and appreciates the city's
willingness to consider alternative service delivery approaches.
Both options presented contain the same basic service costs as noted on Form #2:
Proposed Pricing (attached). The charges are $2.90 flag drop per trip, and $2.80 per
mile, with no wait time charge. By charging no wait time, the rate charged to the city is
effectively reduced by 209 below retail taxi fares.
Option #1) Existing Service:
The Diamond Ride service provided today by Yellow Cab operates with on-time
performance in the 85% - 90% range. On-time performance sampling of our trip sheets
has reported this result, with the median being 87% on-time.
Yellow Cab expects this level of service in standard Dial -A -Cab programs due to the
inherent capacity restraints of the transportation system. This level of service is accepted
as the standard in demand response services throughout Southern California, including
the Claremont Dial -A -Cab and Get About services (documentation attached).
DPI can continue to provide this basic service level using our current staff and operations
standards. DPI will continue to provide this service for the same rates as charged
currently, including the current administrative overhead cost of 10% of net charges.
Option #2) Employee Drivers:
A good method to provide increased on-time performance is to assign one or more
employee drivers to the Diamond Ride service. These drivers would be dedicated to the
Diamond Ride service and would be specifically directed by our dispatch staff.
Most Diamond Ride calls would continue to be handled by independent contractor
drivers. However, employee drivers would be used to increase the peak system capacity,
and would assist in handling peak call volume, handle nearly late calls, and calls for in -
town trips.
DACRSInED PAMTRAMT, INC. TUESDAY, :ANUMY 191, 1999
PAGE 4.1
Adding a single employee driver car to the Diamond Ride service is expected to raise on-
time performance in the system to approximately 9296, A second dedicated employee
driver car is expected to raise this percentage to approximately 9696 on-time.
Each employee driver car assigned to the system will be billed at a rate of $18.00 per
hour and'260 hours per month. The hours would be scheduled to provide the best
operational coverage for the Diamond Ride system. such as additional hours on the first
and fifteenth of the month, Tuesdays, and Sunday mornings, and assist with Diamond
Ride calls throughout the normal service day. This rate would be billed in addition to the
standard trip billing generated by the cab ($1.90 flag drop do $2.80 per mile) and our
standard 10% administrative overhead charge for all trips carried by both employee
drivers and independent contractors.
This service delivery method has been implemented in the Walnut Dial -A -Cab program,
and has worked to solve service delivery problems in that system with great success. We
highly recommend this option, because it offers a direct increase in the level of service
to Diamond Ride customers. In addition, the city continues to pay only for trips delivered
instead of additional administrative expenses.
DNERSIF7EEp P/ MMNSIT, !NG TtEsnnr, JANUAW 19,1999
PAcu: 4 - 2
TO: Tatrence L. Belanger, City MsmBrr
City of Dia� Bar
21660 E. Copley Dr., #100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
FROM:
Diversified Paratransit, Inc. (Yellow Cab Co.)
Name of Proposing Fbm
FORNO
To finish the Dial -A -Cab services described in this proposal, the proposer would dmv the
p wo grunt below. Please con*ew this form or in an attachment, and sign and date this form
and amy ametdiag doctm iaL
(1) Flag Drop, per trip. $ 1.90
(2) Per We: $ 1.80 .
(3) Per minuta or other time period: Nom (Prices are to be mileage4mud. only.)
(4) AdmWsttative Overhead: -10% % of tax chaW coed toQW of Diam4ond
Bar where net charges ane defined as du total trip charges net of collected revenues•
(5) To encourage shared rides, persons who are prclaod up at the samc origin and delivered to
the same desdnadon in ft acme uxdcab may ride for a single fare per ttuticah. (As weft as
meoumgmg ricladmirin& this pmEmon aast = But aides to the disabled will ride free of charge.)
(6) An %wremenW shared aria," where am taxicab picks up joint travelen mccmve(y and
delivers thea► to the SmW or mooessive dcsdmgons, shall be billed to the City as a single trip
fi+om Bre point where the first rider is picked tV to Bre point where Ire last rider is dropped off.
Each rider dull pay a full individual fern. All fines collected in this mental Amid ride will
be deducted from the gross charge to fire City
(7) Other charges (please describe):
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing prices arc valid for nincty (90) clays Brom the
proposal due date, and that these will be the prices maintained throughout the period.
Name, TFdIc Brian Hunt, President
1-15-99
Date
Diamond Ride
On -Time Standards - November, 1998
Number of Trips on Trips over Trips over Average
trips time 30 minutes 40 minutes Trip Response
29
19
10
5
28.7
47
24
23
17
35.85
56
31
25
18
32
57
35
22
15
28
57
38
19
7
26
48
27
21
14
31
35
17
18
8
30.48
14
6
8
6
40
52
27
25
19
35
53
38
15
7
23
43
28
15
8
28
48
30
18
12
34
58
31
27
17
33
29
17
12
6
35
37
18
19
14
36
48
17
31
9
26
50
30
20
11
28
52
33
19
6
24
44
23
21
10
29
41
27
14
5
23
24
16
8
5
34
22
10
12
7
29
44
27
17
7
27.13
42
23
19
11
32.76
44
28
16
7
25
8
6
2
2
35
28
15
13
7
32.17
20
14
6
4
28.7
22
16
6
3
26.77
60
37
23
11
26.93
1212
708
504
278
30.12
Rides
Prior to 30
After 30
After 40
Average Call
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Response
JANUARY DIAMOND RIDE
RIDERSHIP REVIEW
CARD # *TRIPS *TRIPS OUT TOTAL
100-D
0
2
2
101-D
0
21
21
108-S
10
6
16
111-D
0
2
2
118-S
5
5
10
120-S
1
0
1
121-S
1
0
1
124-S
4
0
4
127-S
1
0
1
128-S
2
0
2
132-S
1
0
1
134-S
0
1
1
138-S
3
0
3
142-S
5
0
5
147-S
1
1
2
153-S
19
17
36
157-S
2
1
3
171-D
4
0
4
176-S
2
0
2
189-S
1
0
1
192-S
18
9
27
194-S
3
2
5
195-D
11
14
25
200-S
16
0
16
208-S
0
1
1
221-D
0
1
1
222-S
4
2
6
224-D
1
27
28
229-S
12
4
16
234-S
1
0
1
237-S
8
0
8
241-S
0
2
2
257-S
1
0
1
266-D
3
36
39
272-S
0
4
4
278-S
2
0
2
284-S
1
0
1
285-S
3
0
3
286-S
1
0
1
290-S
0
2
2
RIDERSHIP REVIEW
CARD # *TRIPS IN *TRIPS OUT TOTAL
293-S
0
2
2
296-S
0
2
2
297-S
0
2
2
301-S
0
2
2
302-S
1
2
3
314-S
0
1
1
326-S
0
1
1
331-S
12
16
28
332-S
3
0
3
334-S
2
3
5
339-S
0
1
1
346-S
11
10
21
352-S
12
5
17
357-S
14
11
25
364-S
1
0
1
368-S
4
21
25
378-S
0
1
1
382-S
0
6
6
391-S
1
0
1
400-D
0
14
14
403-S
5
1
6
405-S
1
0
1
412-D
0
15
15
416-D
0
2
2
424-S
8
1
9
425-S
4
2
6
426-S
0
2
2
428-S
7
0
7
430-S
5
0
5
435-S
1
0
1
436-S
2
2
4
439-D
0
1
1
441-S
1
0
1
442-S
1
5
6
443-S
0
1
1
446-S
5
3
8
449-S
4
3
7
451-S
4
0
4
452-S
5
0
5
455-D
7
3
10
463-S
1
4
5
464-S
6
0
6
2
RIDERSHIP REVIEW
CARD # *TRIPS IN *TRIPS OUT TOTAL
CITY OF CITY TRIPS
465-S
0
2
2
476-5
1
0
1
477-S
1
1
2
478-S
25
1
26
487-S
0
1
1
492-D
0
3
3
496-S
0
1
1
509-S
20
2
22
506-S
5
2
7
511-S
8
1
9
515-S
5
0
5
519-S
3
3
6
529-S
1
0
1
533-S
1
0
1
538-S
1
3
4
545-D
1
1
2
546-5
39
0
39
549-S
0
2
2
558-D
1
2
3
566-S
2
0
2
571-S
5
0
5
573-5
0
1
1
574-S
1
0
1
575-S
2
0
2
590-S
0
1
1
595-S
8
22
30
603-D
2
8
10
604-S
1
0
1
607-S
4
6
10
614-S
1
1
2
621-S
3
10
13
624-S
0
2
2
625-S
3
0
3
628-S
0
2
2
634-D
0
2
2
642-5
1
0
1
647-S
3
2
5
653-D
1
0
1
662-S
0
1
1
664-S
1
0
1
3
RIDERSHIP REVIEW
CARD # *TRIPS IN *TRIPS OUT TOTAL
675-D
16
4
20
680-S
4
0
4
708-D
19
2
21
730-S
3
0
3
753-S
0
1
1
754-D
0
1
1
764-D
0
4
4
768-S
0
1
1
780-D
1
0
1
789-D
2
2
4
794-S
1
2
3
799-S
2
0
2
801-S
7
5
12
802-S
0
3
3
806-S
1
0
1
807-S
1
1
2
820-S
0
2
2
825-S
1
0
1
828-S
1
0
1
830-S
2
7
9
832-5
4
4
8
841-S
2
0
2
850-S
2
0
2
865-D
0
9
9
891-S
10
0
10
894-D
5
0
5
896-D
1
1
2
898-S
1
0
1
899-S
1
0
1
901-S
0
3
3
913-S
16
1
17
914-S
7
0
7
916-S
1
0
1
920-D
0
20
20
921-S
8
0
8
925-S
7
1
8
926-S
3
0
3
928-S
0
1
1
932-S
0
1
1
941-D
11
9
20
952-5
2
0
2
4
RIDERSHIP REVIEW
CARD # *TRIPS IN *TRIPS OUT TOTAL
CITY OF CITY TRIPS
954-D
1
25
26
992-S
0
1
1
994-S
0
6
6
996-5
0
3
3
997-D
7
14
21
1006-S
0
1
1
1024-5
0
5
5
1033-S
3
3
6
1036-S
1
3
4
1042-S
1
0
1
1059-5
1
0
1
1054-D
8
0
8
1082-S
0
20
20
1083-D
0
12
12
1088-S
1
0
1
1096-D
8
1
9
1098-D
0
1
1
1107-S
0
2
2
1114-S
0
2
2
1115-S
0
2
2
1121-S
0
1
1
1129-S
0
1
1
1134-S
3
0
3
1146-S
0
1
1
1147-5
0
3
3
1148-5
0
1
1
1165-5
0
2
2
1190-S
2
0
2
1193-S
0
6
6
1195-D
4
0
4
1196-S
5
0
5
1296-D
1
0
1
1524-S
1
0
1
614
589
1203
* based upon pick-up address
5
January 7,1999
Ms. Kellee Fritzal
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copely Drive #100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Ms, Fritzal,
Thank you for your call this week about our auditing and internal control process. We
take our contract obligations very seriously, and are aware that an unscrupulous
independent taxi operator might attempt to defraud us by presenting trips that were not
actually taken. After your and our extensive audits over the last several months, we don't
believe there is fraud in the system.
Here arc our safeguards we have had in place to keep that from happening.
First, we have a sophisticated computerized dispatch system (DDS) which records data
on all calls for service. The records for the Diamond Bax calls are printed each day (as are
logs for other contracts we have). These DDS logs are compared with the trip sheets that
drivers present for payment These DDS logs are turned in with the billing and
management report to the City.
There are several reasons a trip might not show up on the log, even though the trip was
performed, but by and large, most trips are on logs and match the trip sheets. Carmen in
our accounting department does this match for Diamond Bar.
If a trip is on a DDS log, but not on a driver's trip sheet, this does not indicate a problem
since Diamond Bar is billed according the driver's trip sheet. If a driver's trip sheet
contains a trip that is not on the DDS log, this is a potential problem. If Carmen finds this
situation, she turns the situation over to Steve Carrigan, Yellow Cab manager, so he can
verify the trip actually happened. In some cases. the operator cn%rcd the trip with the
wrong account number and so the Diamond Ride trip would not be on the DDS log.
It is easy to see patterns in this situation. For example, a driver who is consistently
turning in trips each day that are not on the DDS log would indicate a problem. This is
not happening.
1400 E.1vG dm Blvd., Pomona, CA 91766
(909) 622.1313 Fax (909) 622-2173
Another check into the trip validity happens in the driver's cashiering system. our
computerized cashiering program balances all driver's accounts daily. if a driver turns in
trip sheets which exceed his vehicle mileage, this is a red flag.
Another advantage in avoiding this type of fraud, is that there at less than 10 drivers
customarily providing service to the Diamond Ride system, and we get to know these
drivers over time, their work babits, their honesty and their riders. If a driver takes the
same rider over and over, we talk to the rider and verify the trips are happening -
Another advantage we have over other taxi companies, is that we have a high ratio of
management persons involved, as a ratio to drivers. This is a more time to follow cip on
system anomalies, customer comments, driver comments, and system issues. This close
inspection daily of the system lets us keep track of issues that may arise regarding
accountability. With a mrmber of managers looking at the driver's work, we have a good
chance of recognizing fraud -
We have had drivers m the past, especially those who have driven taxis in other areas,
attempt to defraud us. We have turned drivers into the Pomona PD, and they have been
prosecuted. Our drivers know they can go to jail and that we will turn them in if they are
perpetrating a fraud. We will remain diligent on your account to make snre this doesn't
happen.
Our business records are an open book for the City's inspection at any time. Thank you
for your time and please contact me with any questions.
sincerely,
Brian Hunt
President
Summary of Dispatch and Accounting for Diamond Ride Trips
1. Call for Service
An eligible Diamond Har resident calls the dedicated telephone line to arrange a
Diamond Har Diamond Ride. The receptionist asks for a pick up address, destination,
client name and card number. The call then posts on the dispatcher's screen for review.
2. Dispatcher Review
The dispatcher looks at timing of the call, and compares with other calls in the area for
the possibility of share ride. Every share ride saves the city money and is a more efficient
use of available vehicles. We share ride over 200/6 of your calls. The dispatcher assigns
the all to an available taxi.
3. Taxi Cab
The taxicab driver receives the call and makes the pick up. If the passenger is a miss, the
driver lets the dispatcher know, and the dispatcher attempts to call the passenger and
resolve the issue. The driver completes a trip sheet with all completed calls and turns this
in the next time they are at the office. Most drivers turn in daily and some turn in weekly.
Diamond Bar does not pay for misses, or miles traveled without passengers. Diamond
Bar does not pay waiting time on calls, which discounts the meter rate by about 201/6.
4. Yellow Cab Acme sting
Yellow Cab accounting's Yvonne Garza receives the trip sheets along with the driver's
other paperwork. She nukes an accounting of the cash tuned in and credit claimed, miles
driven, and balances the driver's account The trip sheets are turned over to Carmen
Moran in accounting for inspection and the billing compilation. Carmen is supervised by
Peggy Stein and Phyllis Rockwell.
Carmen Moran specifically looks for abnormalities in the trip sheets such as:
Trips that might be too close together.
Improper addresses,
dopa, city.
- Multiple trips with the same rider,
A single driver with a lot of Diamond Rides,
A trip that happens before or after the driver's shift,
• A trip that is listed on the trips shoe out of sequence,
A trip that is written in different ink or writing style.
A comparison is made of the trip charge vs. a mileageffatdfwc chart, to insure that the
charge is consistent with the miles traveled Any overcharge is corrected at that time_
Any of these abnormalities trigger an investigation of the trip. The trip is immediately
checked against the DDS log. The trip is brought to the attention of Steve Carrigan and
Steve verifies that the trip took place by contacting the passenger and inquiring about the
relationship between the passenger and the driver. Any discrepancies require action and
Diamond Bar would be notified.
S. Ma mgement Report
The statistics of the system are compiled and compared with earlier months. This
procedure helps'defeat fiaud. Average billing amounts, trip costs, riders per day and
riders per week are importact statistics, and substantial variations are a red flag. Weare
also tracking the number of calls competed vs. the number of calls through the DDS
system, which will indicate any problems if the comparison strays icor from norm.
6. Review by Operations Manager
Each monthly billing, for each of our contracts, is reviewed by Steve Carrigan, Gencaal
Manager of Yellow Cab Co. A review letter is submitted with the billing, identifying
trends and service issues. This review is an additional opportunity to find any
inappropriate activity and helps us mw age your project.
7. City of Diamond Bar
The billing with all supporting documentation includes the summary bill, management
report, review letter, trip sheets. and DDS back up documentation. This allows your staff
to perform any audit of on time performance and hake billing inquiries. The detail allows
staff to contact riders as needed and verify activity such as daily riders and exceptionally
tong trips. This information lets the city make infomned decisions about what serves the
rider the but and most efficient way possible.
Thank you for allowing us to continue to serve Diamond Bar. We are pleased to be able
to provide service to your residents and look forward to continuing to be of service.
Respectfully Submitted,
�3
Brian Hunt
President
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS R4p4r FEBRUARY 16, 1999
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair/Ansari called the meeting to order at 10:44 p.m.
in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera, O'Connor, Vice
Chairman Huff, Chairwoman/Ansari.
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, Executive Director; Amanda
Susskind, Assistant Agency Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager;
David Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works; Bob Rose, Community Services
Director; Mike Nelson, Communications & Marketing Director; Linda Magnuson,
Finance Director and Lynda Burgess, Agency Secretary.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR: AM/Chang moved, AM/Herrera seconded, to approve the
Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS - Chang, Herrera, O'Connor, VC/Huff,
Chair/Ansari
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS - None
3.1 APPROVED MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 2, 1999 - as
submitted.
3.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated February 16, 1999 in the
amount of $31.05
3.3 RECEIVED AND FILED TREASURER'S REPORT - for the month of
December, 1998.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS:
6.1 RESOLUTION NO. RA99-01: A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING ADVANCE AND
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT NUMBER 11 WITH THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR.
Clyde Hennessee commended the Agency for their recent decisions.
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 2 REDEV. AGENCY
AM/Chang moved, AM/O'Connor seconded, to adopt Resolution No. RA99-
01 approving Advance and Reimbursement Agreement No. 11 with the City
of Diamond Bar in the amount of $32,000. Motion carried by the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS - Chang, Herrera, O'Connor, VC/Huff,
Chair/Ansari
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS - None
6.2 REAL ESTATE AND ECONOMIC ANALYSES CONSULTANT SERVICES
- ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP - RELATED TO LOTS 22 AND 23 OF
GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER.
AM/O'Connor moved, VC/Huff seconded, to approve the proposal tendered
by Rosenow Spevacek Group (RSG) for real estate and economic consulting
services relating to office complexes on Lots 22 and 23 of the Gateway
Corporate Center in an amount not -to -exceed $20,000 and that the Board
authorize and direct the Executive Director to execute the agreement.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS - Chang, Herrera, O'Connor, VC/Huff,
Chair/Ansari
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS - None
6.3 AWARDED CONTRACT WITH STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH
FOR SPECIAL LEGAL SERVICES.
AM/O'Connor moved, AM/Chang seconded, to approve continued special
legal services with the firm of Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth in an amount
not -to -exceed $12,000 and authorize and direct the Executive Director to
execute an amendment to the agreement. Motion carried by the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS - Chang, Herrera, O'Connor, VC/Huff,
Chair/Ansari
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS - None
7. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS: AM/Herrera said she anticipates good days
ahead for D. B.
AM/Chang stated that he was pleased to see things happening in the City and the
Agency will work hard to attract more businesses.
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PAGE 3 REDEV. AGENCY
Chair/Ansari commented that the ball is rolling and it is an exciting time for D.B. as
well as a time of concern for taking the next step. The Agency and Council is acting
in a very prudent and careful manner in proceeding with redevelopment business.
AGENCY ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, Chair/Ansari
adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m.
ATTEST:
Chairman
LYNDA BURGESS
Agency Secretary
DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman Ansari and Board of Directors
FROM: Linda G. Magnuson°- Finance Director
SUBJECT: Voucher Register, March 2, 1999
DATE: February 25, 1999
Attached is the Voucher Register dated March 2,1999 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.
DIAMONC BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
VOUCHER REGISTER APPROVAL
The attached listing of vouchers dazed March 2, 199q have been
reviewed approved and recommended for payment. Payments are
hereby allowed ` d f ` the following funds in these amounts
FUND DESCRIPTION
610 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND
Finance Director
Terrence �. �e�any
Executive �irector
PREPAID
.00
�ileen R. Ansari
Chairma�
Robert S. Huff
Vice Chairman
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
9,306.25 9,306.25
RUN DATE: 022/24/1999 o ;�'n+ii BAF: .EDE`:!ELO='!ENT HiE�IC;`
I 17:13:48 V0 `C�E�FEu:STEr
PAGE'
DUE THRU: i[.i 1;oca
PREPAID,
FUND /SECT -ACCT - PROJECT -ACCT PO # IN'v0_lt;L DESCRIPTIO' AMOUNT DATE CHECK
DEWAN LUNDIN & ASSOCIATES
6107110 -46411 -ROME, -46411 DB -010-A-1 REDVLPMT-BREA CYN-PTHFNDR
TOTAL PREPAIDS ,00
TOTAL VOUCHERS a 02=.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 9 0215.00
ROSENOW SPEVACEK: GROUP INC
6107110-44000-- 307` RDA CONSULTING SVCS -JAN 231.25
TOTAL PREPAIDS 00
TOTAL VOUCHERS '1.2_j
TOTAL DUE VENDuR 231,2
RE;=OF°T TOTAL PREPAIDS .Of)
REPORT TOTAL `,!QUCHERS06.--,5
REPORT TOTAL o 306
DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA N0.3,3
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, Executive Director
MEETING DATE• March 2 1999
REPORT DATE: February 24, 1999
FROM: Linda G. Magnuson; Finance Director
TITLE:
Treasurer's Report—January 31, 1999
SUMMARY:
Submitted for the Redevelopment Agency Board's review and approval is the Treasurer's Statement for the
month of January 1999.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review and approve.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
Resolution(s) — Bid Specification (on file in City
Clerk's office)
_ Ordinance(s) _, Other:
_ Agreement(s)
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1.
Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
_ Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
2.
Does the report require a majority vote?
_ Yes _ No
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed? NIA
_Yes _ No
4.
Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? NIA
_ Yes _ No
Which Commission?
5.
Are other departments affected by the report? NIA
_Yes _ No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
—11,1�- -
Terre ce L. Bnger
Executive Director
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
G7 ..
Linda G. Magn s
Finance Director
DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REPORT
AGENDA N0.
MEETING DATE:
March 2,1999
TO:
Chairman and Members of the Board
FROM:
Terrence L. Belanger, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Treasurer's Statement—January 31, 1999
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Per City policy, the Finance Department presents the monthly Treasurer's Statement for the
Redevelopment Agency Board's review and approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the January 1999 Treasurer's Statement
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
No fiscal impact
BACKGROUND:
Submitted for the Board's review and approval is the Treasurer's Statement for the month of January
1999. This statement shows the cash balances for the Redevelopment Agency, with a breakdown of
bank account balances, investment account balances and the effective yield earned from investments.
PREPARED BY:
Linda G Magnuson
DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TREASURER'S MONTHLY CASH STATEMENT
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FD
TOTALS
SUMMARY OF CASH:
January 31, 1999
$1,100,101.33 $18,141.75 $45,941.63
$1,072,301.45
$1.1100.11011.33 $18,141.75 45,941.63 $0.00 $1,072 301.45
DEMAND DEPOSITS:
GENERAL ACCOUNT $89,260.95
TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS $89,260.95
INVESTMENTS:
TIME CERTIFICATES 983,040.50
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FD 0.00
TOTAL INVESTMENTS $983,040.50
TOTAL CASH
$11072,301.45
Note: The Redevelopment Agency approved a development and disposition agreement with "Triple T Diamond Gateway, LLC'
This agreement requires the Agency to invest $983,040.50 in a Time Certificate of Deposit. The agreement
provides that the developer guarantee the current LAW investment yield.
L.A.I.F - Effective Yield for January 31, 1999 5.265%
Certificate of Deposit Yield (11/16/98 - 5/16/99) 4.500%
Terrence L. Belanger, Treasurer
PRESENTATION
DATE: March 2, 1999
PREPARED BY: J. Michael Huls, REA
Integrated Environmental Services Coordinator
SUBJECT: STAFF PRESENTATION ON EVALUATION OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DIAMOND BAR SOLID WASTE
STANDARDS TASK FORCE
Background
The final report of the Solid Waste Standards Task Force (Task Force) was presented
to the City Council on July 21, 1998. The final report was received and included Task
Force recommendations on nine separate items. Council requested staff to evaluate
the recommendations, and bring back to Council an assessment of time and resources
needed to fully evaluate them. Staff found that five of nine recommendations required
further study and in a presentation on August 4, 1998, proposed completion of further
studies within a six-month period. The items not requiring any further study included
business sector recycling, educational outreach, avoiding bans and mandatory
provisions, and construction and demolition debris recycling; all of these are currently in
place or in progress. The items requiring further study included: yard waste collection,
variable rates, automated collection, mandatory recycling provisions for multi -family
residences, and selection of a single service provider for Diamond Bar's residential
sector.
Context
There are nine months plus the remaining days of March until the California Integrated
Waste Management Act's medium term deadline of January 1, 2000, which is the date
that California jurisdictions are to comply with the 50°% diversion mandate. We have all
of the year 2000 to demonstrate compliance. The programs discussed herein have
different milestones and implementation schedules, but overall could take up to eight
months as a minimum to reach full implementation. Assuming March 2, 1999 as the
start point, the earliest target date will be about December 1, 1999 for full
implementation. This means that the full impact of these programs will not be felt until
mid -way 2000.
Summary of the Five Staff Reports
Overall, the City of Diamond Bar (City) appears to have a "healthy" diversion rate of
about 38°% based on the official statistics received from the California Integrated Waste
Management Board (Board). However, this diversion rate is still short of the mandate of
50°% by January 1, 2000 by 12°%. Since the City has progressed from an estimated 9°%
Page 1 March 2, 1999
in 1990, this means that on average the diversion rate has increased about 4% per
year. Obviously, maintaining our course as is without change will likely result in the City
being far short of the expected diversion goal. Since we have less than a year to the
mandated deadline, the City will have to implement substantive programs to achieve
50%, which means that voluntary -like programs that we previously implemented will be
inadequate to the task. Additionally; our local landfill, Spadra, is set to close in June
1999, meaning that our waste will need to be transported to a more remote landfill.
Already, the principal hauler in the City has informed its customers that commercial
rates will rise about 10% to pay for the longer haul.
The findings of the five reports are presented below with report number 5 first, then
numbers 1 through 4 in their respective order. In addition, we have included a short
brief of the City's current diversion rate and an analysis of our existing shortfall with
respect to the 50% mandate. The waste generation brief is presented as a introduction
to the five reports.
Waste Generation. The most likely source of diversion in the City is the residential
sector. Together, multi -family residences (MFRS) and single family residences (SFRs)
compose about 62% of all wastes, with single family residents alone responsible for
50% of all measured disposed wastes. MFRS are responsible for 12.5°x6 of all wastes.
Commercial and industrial wastes compose about 37.5% of all wastes, but about half of
this is self -hauled waste which is not easily regulated nor identified (much of the self -
hauled loads of wastes coming from Diamond Bar and other cities are simply identified
as "cash accounts" at local landfills). Of the types of waste accepted at local landfills,
yard waste is a readily identified component and reflects about a third of our waste
stream. Nearly 90% of all yard wastes comes from SFRs. Also, SFRs currently
contribute about 8% diversion to current diversion rates, and MFRs contribute less than
one percent to diversion rates.
Based on this, SFRs could contribute up to 18°x6 diversion if all programs recommended
in this presentation for this sector were to be implemented and we recovered the
maximum extent feasible. MFRs could contribute about 4% if all programs
recommended in this presentation for the sector were to be implemented and we again
recovered the maximum extent feasible. The commercialfindustrial sector could
contribute about 7.5% diversion at maximum. Realistically, we could expect about half
of these levels to be achieved based on practical experience, yielding a net diversion of
about 14%. This would be enough to slightly exceed the year 2000 mandate.
Conclusion: Programming needs to be targeted primarily at SFRs to gain the most
diversion at the least cost. However, all sectors must participate to enable the City to
meet the AB 939 mandate looming in year 2000.
Single Service Provider for the SFR Sector. Staff reviewed the options for the City in
terms of a single service provider for the SFR sector. Although not explicitly required for
any of the SFR programs identified above, having a single service provider enhances
efforts by reducing the City's administrative time and resources required to oversee
solid waste firms. Rather, time and resources can be spent on implementing
educational and outreach programs designed to encourage residents to participate.
The probable pathways to acquire a single service provider are to either negotiate
Page 2
March 2, 1999
directly with one of the existing permittees, or to launch a bid process with the aim of
selecting the most qualified hauler.
Conclusion: City could extend the permit of a specific hauler or conduct a bidding
process. The latter is seen as the most open and economical approach, while the
former is viewed as the easiest way of getting a single service provider for the SFR
sector.
Yard Waste Collection. Yard waste is one of the most readily identifiable components
of our municipal waste stream. It is ordinarily separated at the home in the process of
gardening, then often mixed with other wastes. This gives an excellent opportunity to
homeowners to simply keep yard wastes separated, then place the materials in a
segregated barrel. This means that diversion should be quite high for the component,
perhaps yielding about 8% diversion alone. The obstacles to green waste collection
include the potential cost which could range from $2 to $4 per household, the need to
distribute "green" barrels, the need for a longer term permit or a contract, and the need
to integrated existing grass cycling and home composting programs into the mix. It is
noted that the principal hauler in the City proposed to offer some incentive to
homeowners currently composting and grass cycling if they were awarded an exclusive
"right" to collect the SFRs' waste.
Conclusion: A yard waste recycling program aimed at SFRs will be the single most
effective program that can be implemented in the time remaining to the deadline. There
is no apparent reason not to implement this program based on the analysis.
Automated Collection Using Three Barrels. Several cities have opted for the look
and economy of automated collection. Just recently, Walnut opted for automated
collection, while Baldwin Park, La Puente, San Dimas, West Covina, Glendora, Duarte,
Bradbury, EI Monte, and Covina all have chosen automated systems. The reason is
simple: less labor equals lower cost. This helps to offset increasing disposal rates and
longer travel times required to move waste to more remote disposal sites. In addition,
the use of automated barrels has additional benefits: communities report that their
neighborhoods look better with the standardized barrels, the lidded containers keep
rainfall out of the refuse (reducing the net weight taken to landfill), and any type of
variable rate requires standardization to equitably distribute costs. There is the high
cost of purchasing the expensive barrels, especially if wastes are to be sorted into three
categories; but this can be ameliorated by extending the length of time for provider's
permit or contract. One significant issue is that many seniors report that they are
unable to handle larger barrels. This is an area that the service provider may want to
address in some innovative manner. Implementation of automated containers alone
would not necessarily increase diversion.
Conclusion: As a minimum, automated collection should be implemented since it is a
necessary precursor to commingled recycling, yard wastes, and variable rates, all of
which are slated to be implemented by the SRRE and recommended by the Task Force.
Variable Rates. Electricity, water, gas, and so many other items we purchase each
day are based on the principle that the more we buy the more we pay. No one balks at
the fact that usage implies greater cost. if we also consider refuse management as a
utility, then its cost should be governed by buying requirements afforded gas, water, and
Page 3 March 2, 1999
electricity. For those who might complain for any variety of reasons, many residents
have had to subsidize their waste generating neighbors for years, so scaling rates
makes a lot of sense on an equity basis. One of the key issues is how best to provide
incentives to residents who significantly reduce their wastes. This may take a
combination of City and hauler monitoring to document reported reduction to merit
incentives. Variable rates are known to have a significant impact upon waste
generation. It is believed that variable rates in Diamond Bar could generate at least
similar levels of diversion to yard waste collection.
Conclusion: Variable rates are a program element placed at the top of the solid waste
management system hierarchy. The importance of variable rates is that it changes how
residents view waste. Variable rates are an important way of rewarding those civic
minded residents who take the time and energy to reduce waste and recycle materials.
Mandatory Provisions for MFRs. The MFR sector is among the most difficult to
implement recycling for the reasons of lack of adequate space to separate and store
recyclables, the transient nature of residents in many complexes, and the low cost
afforded refuse collection in many complexes in the City. However, MFRs do generate
waste, up to 12.5% of the total waste generated in the City, and their recycling rates are
the lowest of all three sectors.
Rather than specify a specific program to be implemented by all complexes (complexes
are too variable to set a single design for implementation), the City should consider
setting a single standard for MFR owners and managers to follow. A single standard,
say, all complexes must provide recycling access, gives each complex the option of
planning and implementing the program that works best based on size, residents,
space, and service type. The City can take the role of facilitator to help the hauler and
the MFR management choose the method best suited for the complex.
Conclusion: Prepare a change to the solid waste ordinance specifying that all MFRs
must offer recycling access to residents by no later than June 30, 2000.
Decision Making Pathways
Decision making on the solid waste issue is predicated on the need to achieve the 50°x6
mandate by January 1, 2000. Further, the City's existing diversion rate is only 38%; that
is below the acceptable range of diversion established by the CIWMB. It is important to
note that the average diversion rate in California for 1998 is estimated at 33%, which
puts the City above the average.
Nonetheless, the City must achieve an additional 12°x6 by the end of year 2000, which is
about 21 months from today. The programs contained in the Source Reduction and
Recycling Element or SRRE, probably do not get the City to the threshold.
Implementation of the full program recommended by the Task Force itself barely
achieves the threshold.
With this as a backdrop, there are three potential pathways that the City Council could
take regards this issue. One, no action could be taken. This is an approach that other
jurisdictions have adopted, instead placing the initiative upon the state to issue
Page 4 March 2, 1999
compliance orders and possibly fines. This represents a significant risk to the public
trust.
There are two action agendas that could be taken. One, all of the recommendations
could be accepted and recommendations
ec omme dationsn to �could be approved athorize staff to mend a motion ed with made to staff
Or, one or more of th
to proceed with the more limited in scope program.
These approaches entail less risk with the state, however, the latter embodies a higher
risk with the state if the City were unable to achieve the mandate of 50% diversion by
January 1, 2000. The state
faith effort
llasignificant role
in the establishment of fines. That state will examine carefully what
programs we have implemented or tried to implement, and our results.
Already, the state has entered into compliance orders with three communities over
failure to achieve the 25% mandate. State board members have been heard to urge a
more active and punitive stance by the board on year 2000 compliance. The very real
possibility exists that the state could fine the City up to $10,000 per day for failure to
meet the numerical and programmatic goals by the statutory deadline, especially if no
action were ultimately taken. On the other hand, failure to implement even a portion of
our programs could mean compliance orders and fines if we were to fall short of the
mandate.
Notwithstanding the law, the City is faced with higher costs in the long term once area
landfills dose which could be as soon as year 2002. Already the pending closure of
Spadra in June 1999 has meant the hike of commercial fees by 10%. There exists the
potential to reduce or at least maintain the level of monthly fee as currently constituted
by introducing cost saving measures (automation and larger recycling containers) and
increasing waste prevention and recycling (incentives are increased through variable
rates and greater recycling opportunities). Even if the City were not to achieve the
mandate of 50% diversion, the state could not fine the City for noncompliance since the
SRRE was implemented (indicating a good faith effort).
Schedule
The probable schedule for implementing these measures requires a minimum of eight
months. Each of the projects described above has its own time and resource demands,
such as the need to modify ordinances, purchase equipment, publicize and educate the
public, and obtain and select winning bids. Whatever mix of alternatives is chosen,
there would appear to be the same amount of time required as different tasks can be
conducted on a concurrent basis.
Action
No action is recommended for this meeting. The intent of the study session is to purely
consider the results of the staff investigation of the Task Force Recommendations.
Review and comments are appreciated. Whatever the outcome of later deliberations,
Council should be cognizant of the need to implement the Task Force
Recommendations or some parallel system that reflects Task Force conclusions. Any
Page 5
March 2, 1999
other outcome risks significant fine and increased costs for the residential and business
communities.
March 2, 1999
Page 6
Wen Chang
Mayor
Deborah H. O'Connor
Mayor Pro Tem
Eileen R. Ansari
Council Member
Carol Herrera
Council Member
Robert S. Huff
Council Member
R—yded 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.d.diamond-bar.ca.us • City online (BBS): (909) 860.5463
STAFF REPORTS
ON
RECOMMENDATIONS
OF
THE DIAMOND BAR SOLID WASTE
STANDARDS TASK FORCE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 29, 1999
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
FROM: David G. Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works
J. Michael Buts, REA, Integrated Environmental Services Coordinator
CC: James DeStefitno, Deputy City Manage
S?JMCT: STAFF RMRTS ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DIAMOND BAR SOLID
WASTE STANDARDS TASK FORCE
Please find attached the five reports directed by the City Council. The reports include:
1. Yard waste collection program
2. Variable rate system
3. Automated collection system
4. Mandatory recycling for multi -family residences
5. Single service provider
Summary
The attached reports evaluate specific conditions in the City of Diamond Bar, and consider the options and
alternatives available to the City respective to the recommendations of the Solid Waste Standards Task
Force. The reports consider aspects of rates impact, implementation issues, equipment needs, diversion
potential, institutional effects, and scheduling related to the programs and systems if they were to be
selected and implemented in the City.
A deadline of January 1, 2000 for the City to meet the 50% diversion goal looms, and the best estimate at
this time for the City is that the present diversion rate is about 38'/0, about 12% short of the goal. This is
important in that the City has ircreaod its diversion rate from about 9% in 1m1997mains to the g ate,oal yielding
el
an average rate of increase of about 4% per year. Since less than one year
gh we
have all of year 2000 to demonstrate compliance), we will have to implement substantive programs to
achieve the mandate.' In addition, the nearby landfill, Spuds, that has been used by the City's haulers
since inception, -is slated to close this June 1999, creating a potential negative impact in terms of cost and
environment, from increased transportation to more remote landfills.
With this as a back -drop, the reports have confirmed that the most likely source of diversion in the City
remains the single-family residence (SFR) SwWr which generates about half of � dence w�aste�Thc
for
disposal citywide and 73% of all residential4ype waste (including multi -family
second largest sector (37.5%) is commercial and industrial waste that includes construction and demolition
debris and all bin -served accounts. Multi -family residence (MFR) waste constimm about 12.5% of all
waste. The total amount of waste is 60,782 tons (1997 data) per Year all sectors.
It was found that yard waste collection and recycling would yield a significant amount of diversion
warranting a City effort to facilitate its implementation using an automated barrel. It was found that a
variable rate among the SFR sector would significantly increase diversion and reward those residents who
I It is ingmunt to now that only in 1998 has the CIWMB issued an official base You tonnage figure that Yields a hard and fast
_ divesion rate of 3M It has been difficult to plan any wbmantive programs in the absence of any official staiistic from the regulatory
agency as to the City's diversion status.
Memorandum to T. Belanger
January 29, 1999
Page 2 of 2
reduced their waste generation. It was found that an automated collection system using three barrels among
the SFR sector would greatly enhance collection efficiencies, and would be necessary to any
comprehensive variable rate system. It was found that MFR sector should share in the responsibility as
well as the opportmidy of recycling through code provisions rather than any specific program. Finally, it
was found that the preferred system of having a single service provider would not negatively impact the
SFR sector, and would facilitate greater collection and disposal efficiencies and diversion.
Recommendations
It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council review the attached reports and then hold a study
session to consider the program details and impacts of potential decisions. Each report does contain
recommendations, salient ones of which are identified above in the Summary section of this memorandum
If further information is desired, please feel free to discuss with me, or our consultant, what might be
required and we will respond at the earliest opportunity.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 29, 1998
TO: Terrence L Belanger, City Manager
FROM: David G. Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works VI
J. Michael Huls, integrated Environmental Services Coordinator
u
CC: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DIAMOND BAR
SOLID WASTE STANDARDS TASK FORCE — YARD WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL PROGRAM
Executive Summary
This report is the first of two staff reports on recommendations made by the Diamond Bar Solid Waste
Standards Task Force. The attached report presents the findings of staff regarding yard waste
collection and disposal, indudng rate impacts, implementation issues, equipment, diversion potential,
institutional effects, and scheduling.
The report found that yard waste is generated primarily by the single-family residence sector (90% of
all yard waste that is disposed comes from homes), and that separate collection of yard waste Is
among the most effecive means of diversion. For Diamond Bar, It is estimated that about 8% diversion
could be obtained from a program using a standardized container of 84 -gallon capacity colleted
weekly.
The program is necessary because two are only two years left for the City to most the 50% diversion
mandate. Based on recent unofficial data, the City needs at least 8% diversion to reach 50%, and If
the City were not to comply wih the mandate, two is the risk of fine In the amount of $10,000 per day.
The cost of implementing yard waste collection can range from $2 to $4 per household per month.
This cost can be minimized by integrating yard waste collection into a systemic bid or contract for
refuse and recycling services.
it is recommended that the City Council review this staff report and recommendations, but delay any
final decision on implemerrdion urrdl completion of the entire series of staff reports on the solid waste
issues. Nonetheless, It Is the recommendation of staff that City Council approve implementation of a
yard waste collection program for single-family residences In the City.
Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to report on the findings of the investigation performed by J.
Michael Huls, R.EA., concerning green waste collection and disposal. As per the instructions of City
Council:
'JMH will prepare the report of ffndngs. JMH will fomru/ate recommendations based on the
resrfs.... This report wlN cwd& the specMcadons of the prWw, issues cf lmplementedon
and design, and theirresdL*M identification of Incentive actions that reward waste prevention
0 Page 1
and recycling, documentation of probable Costs, preserttatier of a timetable for
implementation, and provision d tent for adoption of the program into the City Code. "
Back®rand and Anafiy,"
From comments gathered from the residents at two City Council meetings geld July 21, 1998 and
August 4, 1998, there are some miscaioe AMns about green waste generation, collection, and
recycling. This report will attempt to dear these LIP as V011111 '8111 address the issue of implementing a
green waste.program then saves the best Wisra b d the CIty. To date, t is Ivrown that over 9O% of all
yard wastes disposed originates *am single4 miy nmdarts (see Aftac hrnent 1). Based on evidence
collected from property rntnagers and through waste audits conducted by the City's Integrated
Envircrxnentol Services Coordirnutor, nearly all yard wastes derived from spertimertts and town home
compWces are eill a recycled into albematim daily cover at County Sanitation Facilities or composted.
This is done because gardeners wish to avoid the higher cost of disposing green wastes as regular
trash.
Therefore, it is the objective of this investigation to fowl on development of a yard waste collection
effort aimed solely at she family residents. There were three sub tasks performed:
1. Meet with the permittee
2. Analyze the data
3. Prepare a report of findings
" _.
Meet with aw MrMttNs
The City and JMH met with Waste Mwm gerrrert (the merged hauler) to discuss the potential program.
After this meeting, JMH forwarded a specification (see ABadhmerd 2) of the green waste program for
the hauler to use as the basis of any cost and as to basis d antis) design.
Analyst the Data
The hauler sent Wamration to JMH on Sepba bw 13, 1988 (ace Attachment 3). This and other
information formed the basis of the investigation, and subnclu rtt comparative analysis. Four aspects
were evaluated: diversion, ooat, eQuipriwit, and waste prevention aroertm.
Diversion a one d the best reasons to implement a greeln waste collection program, if local and users
such es the Los Arpsles Canty Sanitabon Districts (CSD) and local composters, we available. The
CSD accept dean green wastes (fisc of contaminsi ) at ita landfills and charge 111.50 per tort, which
a about half the gate rate for regular refuse. Ory two CSD lendMs are woo transfer distance:
Spadra and Puente Htils. The clesn groan gate rate will inaeass m to future once Spectra Landfill
doses in June 1999, as capacity will then be insuffiderht to meet demand, since the only remaining
local site permitted to use ADC is Puw to Hills Landfill. At this point, Puente Hills Landfill is near daily
capacity.
0 Pepe 2 Me= to Dwnond Bar on Groan Waste
Capacity is determined by the State of CadKWN lrbgrated Waste Management Board (CNVMB) which
SD faciNties as alternative daily cover or ADC• h is based on the
permits use d groan waste at C
premise that ADC may be used by the landfills to the limit of earth used to oover refuse on a daily basis.
This is what is rawred to as meeting the facility ParFormanoo standard• Since there is a supply of
green waste tliat more than satisfies the need for as WWADC, any closure of landfills approved for ADC
use has a detrimerdal onped upon capacity. tt is noted that landfill fadilm must petition the CIVVMB to
obtain approval to use ADC on a 0*4pwft basis, and that this approval is dituft to aMn-
Green attain-
Green
waste diversion is Impacted by three faaMM: markets, collection method, and the amount of
materials available. The Citi► has some control over cope =, while markets (saw as ADC) and
supply are outside its control. CoNection usuaNy consists d either manual or automated efforts, which
are either ma xhftd or voluntary. Those progrorns that use atlomated systems and standardized
barrels d 64 to 9fjdW caPIKAY aPPear to divert flee most mate W because more types and Ot
quandlies of materials are sioroble in the larger oontaaMrs, and leas separation is needed due to
commingling. vdu tory and manual program divert less become fewer residents Participate and
containers are smaller in manual systems. In fact diversion fond in other cities ranges from less than
5% for voluntary, manual sysrrrs to greater than 15% for automated, mandatory systems, assuming
an adequate supply d material. In Diamond Bar, two is no wasting green waste axbside collection
Program.
If the City were to implement a mandatory, automated green waste collection system, it is possible to
predict its y1eld in terms of diversion. Since Diamond Bar has a residential yard waste fraction of 25%
based on the Source Reduction and Recyding Element (ERRE) (see Attachment 1), and residential
waste comprises about 64% of all waste in the City. This means that two is the potential to generate
a ma)amum diversion a+edit of about 8% for Diamond Bar arae the program msWres (work out the
bugs' and get ma wmxn participation), assuming a Participation rate of 8!7'16, a diversion eftency Of
80%, and that 80% of residents coed participate (i.e., 20% Wraedy practice gross ung and home
composting).
sample Calculation:
Mwsion Rafts % y rd w=ft X % psi , -, -, wast• X % pereaip " X % diwrsioe X % ,@I 1A noMu s
M x oss xoa x cAx o a■ oae - e%aawsion
If a manual system were selected, then the expected diversion would be about 4% assuming a
participation rate of 50%, an sffiCiancy factor d 60% and all othar considerations remaining equal.
In terns of cost, green waste collections rates vary, depending upon specific factors such as:
• The voluntary or mandatory nab" of the effort,
• The size of wntatrser,
• VNhe w the collection is aubmated or manual,
_ • The size of lawns (s.g., the bigger the lawn the more green waste is produced),
• The local availability of composting WxyOr m AMM saes,
• The geography of the area (hilly or ft?), and
0 pops 3 Memo to Dino Br on Green WOW
• The cost of disposal.
in general, marwd programs cost less than automated program principally because the resident uses
their own containers. No costa borne by the program for buying an automated container nor is there
any need to modify collction vehicles if refuse collection is normally manual. Obviously.. mandatory
,.programs coNed more malsii than voluntary programa therefore avoided costs of disposal and refuse
collection time per stop aro less yielding greater benefit to the systemic program. The trend recently is
to implement automated collection programs because of the benefits of higher diversion helping abes
to inset AB 939 diversion goal
During the Task Farm effort, a cost ahroet of area raft for green waste, refuse and recycling collection
was distributed. This coat sheet simply preesrtted ranges of rafts for such programs (see Attachment
4).
For Diamond Bar, it is expected that the cost of collection will range from $1 to $2 per household per
month for a Manuel system, where the homeowner uses their own container, versus $2 to $4 per
household per month for an automated system, featuring a 641WW or 96 -gallon confiner provided
by the hauler. The hauler has confirmed this a a likely range of nate for Diaamond Bar. Rates are
developed using ooats for several elernerrts itcltuding, but not limited to, containers, taps, if any, labor,
vehicle cod (including insurance, tiuel, and depredNion), disposal cosi at the landfill, avoided cost
(savings from avoided depad cost as efficierxy gms during regular refuse pick -p), other overhead
items, and profit. One of the major capital cost elements is the container. Containers are usually 64 to
96 gallon in capacity, wheeled, and fitted with a lid. Newer models include air ports in the lid, on the
body of the container, and a raised floor to allow moisture to escape through evaporation. Containers
can cost from $45 to $65 each, and they are ron n* amortized around eight years.
For Diamond Bar, the haver is already equipped with aubor>ated vehicles, so the principal capital cost
will be the purchase of containers, I an aularmated system is implerrhented. The major operating costs
are disposal, trnuck operation, and labor. Obviously, autornated systems are less costly in terms of labor
since either fewer people aro needed or the time spent at any given stop is less. In fact, automation
has been one way that marry companies haus been able to improve profitabibly while =N to w riles
at existing levels far several communities (decrease labor wilhaut wafting servioe).
The collection system is a variable that influences cast and diversion. In a misnum system, residents
use whatever container they have Or an obtain, and simply attach a ribbon or tag to signify that it only
contains groan waste. When the collection vehicle makes it stop, the driver or loader must retrieve the
container fixe ft curb and amply its con m int the vehicle hopper At to time of ertiptying the
container, the driver or loader inspects the oonfrtt and decides wheltier Ute groan waste l
contaminated or not If = am, imbed, to cxx W w is fagged as c x donknatsd (bo let the resident know
why R was not remrcled) and left U at Ute curb for call dion by Ute rell ues vehicle; if Ute vehicle has
already., its pees, then t a hauls has the option d either leaving it or arangh for another vehicle
to pick up the cortaminaMd green wombs. Normally, haulers YA leave the container full with flee
explanatory tag. This inconvenience vAN usually result in better compliance by the resident.
Equipment is also a consideration in selection of a collection system. The principal equipment issues
are the vehicle and the container, U one is used. The hauler generally Collects yard waste separately
0 Page 4 Memo b Dierrrand Baran Gran Wafts
using a refuse vehicle. This is done regardless of whettter the Collection is automated or manual.
However, ft manual system regains more labor then the automated system (the contaners must be
manually unloaded into the collection wade) and the partiapants' purchase and usage of their own
container. in the automated system, the hauler must have automated collection equipment on their
vehicles and each participant must be provided an automated collection contamier.
The automated ooNsction container can range in capacity from 64 -gallons to 96 -gallons or more.
Generally, the owft w is wheeled, lidded; and composed of plastic material. Newer types of
cdinuw ws now an designed with va a in the forth of air ports in to Nd and on the body of the
container, along wNh a raised floor to shrines 11 0 aseted by decomposing yard wastes.
These odors aro quits common with unverded containers since yard waste decomposes rapidly due to
its moisture and organic coins
The size of container selected is based on two basic facts s: the extent of yards at any residence, and
the relative amount of yard wast available for disposal as a bxtdion of overall waste. In some
communities, the average amount of ywd wastes might be suftw t to only flu a 64gallon container
given small lawns and the age of the residents. For instance, seniors and retirees dton generate less
yard waste than young farttiliss.
In Diamond Bar, lawns in many homes are expected to be larger than the nam, however, there are a
number of retirees and seniors who either have smaller lawns or use a gardening service that carts
away yard waste. This seems to be wmftrated by the percentage of total waste that yard waste
composes, about 25%. V m oompared to refuse and yard waste, recydables, such as cans, bottles
and papers, oorripose another 25%; so the remainder, or 50% a represented by refuse. V the typical
automated refuse Container used in rw gNxnV cities is of 95 -gallons capacity, then theoretically, two
64 -gallon containers, one each for yard waste and for recyclables, would be adequate. At present, the
refuse haulers have coi Oki, d that the typical Diamond Bar family needs a 96galbn refuse Container
and two 641allon containers for yard waste and reaydables.
Finally, two is documentary evidence tom area cities that about 2096 of the residential population
practices grass cydwV and thane Composting, and may not have much, if any, yard waste b recyde in
a c urbsft collection program. The City has encouraged home composting and grass aiding for
several years, giving away over 200 home composting gins and instructing a similar number of
residents in the practice. Therefore, than is no reason to doubt the appiiarbiNty of such statistics to
Diamond Bar. Also, it is known that a few homeowners pay icr a gardening serYioe. In some cases,
the gardeners had away the mlopirtps. Mm, these dippir g aro ogded as ADC at CSD sites.
This Jeads to a design and Costing issue: to all residents pay for the program if not all have green
waste for cokdjon? In this respect, those who either do an vicallent job at preventing waste or do not
need the service should most Scaly be anoe , from its costs. This is whet could be tented an
incentive. Homeowners who prevent waft should receive a credit on their bill.
Some ways of crediting residents who do not generate yard waste because they already recycle could
be documentation of the presence of a composting art obtained through the City's seminer program;
saff-M Blatt i of pradidng grass cycling naduch yard waste to negligibe levels; or some other
mechanism. If rosiderrts do not dispose yard debris stall, be= they use a gardening service, than
0 Pape 5 Merrw to Diamond Bar on Grow Waste
Presenting proof of service (e,p., a bill or other instrument) should be sufficient or the exemption.
However, simply not PaD would not be an adequao exemption from the
would need b be croai.d�b, at Isast on a sample basis. If sam COOL Certifications
were claiming credit haPProPriaemight lose t
ly, then the resident P showed that some residents
he credit _
The harder has oonprrred With
approach as evidenced in their letter of September 13, 1998. One
WRY that the City and the hauler could pian or this and other co
rapreaWMW may of raOiderals to contingencies is to conduct a quarterly
age• .� wocdd stlowths the OVecled levet of composting and gardening service
hNderb more aocuraely Predict the number of containers needed to be
Purchased. Leer, a card could be distributed to awry residenceu
occupant can quapfy or a credit andsaift for proof.
n0 a reply on whether the
household would be CMdksd and would not receive a�ff ncefin
nned by City Inspection, then that
D waste container.
.The hauler would also cross-check the resuks when they collect refuse. N a resident was placing
green wase to their refuse bin and they did not have a green
would be tagged, and � mon 0 waste container, then their refuse barrel
twice ar more, and K the resident wasb for onborcement action. K a resident was tagged
resident would need to be receiving ate then the credit would be removed, and the
rs-certified beors they could over re -apply for a credit
Recoinmandations
It Is recommended that an automated yard waste separate essar"Perste collection Program be considered for
imeet the 50%mandate, At circurnatance in recommending this is that there are only two years IeR
Of the 50% date Resent Cry's apparent diversion nate Is 42%, leaving k short by 8%
by year 2000. An automated collection system for green waste will obtain the
needed 8% diwralon. Tho may cause an increase in month rate
household. K the mandate is not met, the ma*num y raring from $2 to $4 per
Given the number of nddergisi ung, tfds would result in s netcostfor n compUsnce is $10,000 per day.
This greatly sweads the probable cost of implementing the green month of . A per household.
that implementation of the green waste Program. Another sped is
In im lemen*V IIs SRRE as Program will enable the City o maintain a "Good faith eforP
P Stipulated by AB 939.
However, before aft"ay Proceeding With knPiementation, City Council should consider yard waste as
Part of an overall strsteg C plan or refuse and
implementation until all issues and evidence are recycling. CsConsequently. Counctl should delay
bmkted or dedsbn making.
Schedule
This Program could be set up aapanaely or integrated as part of an overall automated collection
"Stam for ak refuse and rarydables. If set up on a se
montlrs to parse ieais, the hauler would need about sbc
mobil Purchase s and organize the system. During this perbd, the
and outreach. 8eore this the City would need to enact chs �► would conduct
mandating the use of automated containers or green waste. k �suggested
rages to the munktpal code
to hold one or more workshops to Inform residents about the De that the City may want
he Period tsof Clysclbn would span about two months to allow for changes in the cod and in inform
m and the changes It requires.
the residents. Akogether, the total time
months. The text or the code cit �""W to Implement the program would be about eight
changes will be developed later.
0 pogo a Memo 10 Diamond Bar on Green Wase
If integrated within the context of a three barrel system, then additional time might be needed to
publicize the program and purchase the additional barrels.
0 Page 7 Memo to Diamond Bar on Green Waste
Figure 1
Solid Waste Generation BAnalysis
City of Diamond
Indus
Solid Waste Generation (tons/year)
Residential
36,473' => ' Residential
Commercial
Commercial 60.2%
20,058 x
33.1%
Industrial
4.063
Total
60.594
Solid Waste Disposal (tons/year)
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Total
34,809
16,121
3,768
54,698
Indu:
Commemial
29.5%
Solid Waste Diversion (tons/year)
Current diversion rate = 9.76
Residential 1,664
Commercial 3,937
Industrial 295
Total 5,896
r
Mho 4. F32-01.01
Residential 2.8%
Residential
63.6%
Commercial 6.4%
Indusrial 0.5%
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
/' � <' !'!,/��„1 , G l •'� 7� 1, u
Figure 2
Waste Disposal Composition
City of Diamond Bar
I
Inert Solids 1% +
HAMCIOUS Waste 0.7%
Other Oryanict 25.8% . .
Aid& Paper 30.9%
Yana Waste 24.6%
Inert
Other Organics 25.4%
Yard Waste 3.5%
MOW 8.7%
Glass
Ieen Solids 78.3%
Note: Totals do not add te 100% due to roundieq
Mae 2-F32.01.01 3 Pit
Plastics 7.4%
ss 5.8%
Metal 3.6%
Plastics 5.7%
Paper o.1%
c
0.8%
rd waste 7.7%
kherOrganics 13.1%
last* 1.6%
Paper 51.7%
5"1
fA(SIMILE
0 To: David G. Liu, P.E.
Of: City of Diamond Bar
Fax: (909) 861-3117
Phone: (909) 396-5671
Pages: 1, including this cover sheet.
Date: August 18, 1998
Herein I provide the specifications of the solid waste and recycling program for the
residential sector. I plan to forward these to Mike Stephan by Wednesday, August 19'",1998
with your permission
Green Waste Collection
All single-family homes will be included in a green waste collection system that will be
based on each home receiving a single, 64 -gallon wheeled cart complete with odor control
venting and lid. This cart will be filled by residents and collected weekly by the hauler on
the regular trash collection day. The automated cart can contain yard debris including grass
clippings, weeds, and trimmings, but no plastic bags, wood stumps, cacti, or palm fronds,
wood and roofing materials, nor stickvklrush longer than three feet or of greater diameter
than '3 inches. Since single-family homes generate 900/9 of all yard waste, this should divert
about 10 to 15% of the City's waste stream. It is noted that any homeowner who attends a
compost workshop and receives a compost unit, will be eligible for a rebate by the hauler
in the amount of the standard green waste charge which could be set based on the avoided
capital cost of the barrel and the associated collection and disposal fee.
Automated Collection
All single-family homes will be included in an automated collection program based on a
three barrel system. The three barrels that will be provided to each include the above-
mentioned green waste container, a 96 -gallon refine wheeled cart with lid, and a 64 -gallon
wheeled cart with lid for mixed recyclables. All three containers must be set out on the
appropriate trash day alongside the curb.
From the desk of...
J. Michael Huls, R.E.A
588 E. FooMNI Blvd., Suits 107
Ansa, CA 91702
(628)969-7818
Fax (626) 969-7834
Fax to David Liu
Page 2 August 17, 1998
Variable Rate System
The variable rate system will be based on the three barrel
* charge should be developed for all three barrels, system described above. A set
, based on the 96-64-64 gallon volume ratio.
Y additional refuse containers would be charged at no more than $5 each, while additional
recycling and green waste barrels would be complimentary. As an incentive, homeowners
who reduce their waste and require a smaller barrel, should be able to obtain a 64 -gallon
refuse container, at a specified discount. This discount could be 10•/o to 20% of the refuse
rate.
Recycling Collection
The recycling container is described above, and recyclables will include all items of paper,
glass, metals, and specific plastics. Materials must be devoid of food waste and organic
debris. No grass clippings will be accepted.
Cost Specifications
Pricing systems must be specified on two year, five year, and 10 year periods. Costs should
be identified for each barrel and level of service, additional barrels, and any additional
services to be provided including set out service. Discounts for home composting and waste
Prevention should also be identified
Additional Specifications
The City desires to continue certain aspects of the existing
bulky item ick -permit sYstC1r►, including the four
ky pick-ups, used oil collection, complimentary city facilities collection, and others
specified in the permit terms.
Waste0
Man�gen�er>ttw,c r
Waste Management of San Gabriel/Pomona Valley Phone 626.960.7551 •909.5991274
13940 E. live oak Avenue Fax 626.338.5262
Baldwin M. California 91706
September 13, 1998
Mr.J. Michael Huls
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 917654177
Dear Mr. Huls:
Regarding the specifications provided for the City's anticipated green waste program' please consider the
following.
Your report recommends a 64 -gallon wheeled cart with odor control venting and lid. We strongly agree
that this slightly more expensive cart is worth the investment. The venting provided by air ports in the lid
and on the body of the container, along with the raised floor provided in some models will eliminate the
unpleasant odors created by decomposing green waste when stored in a nonvented container. We agree also
with the materials and restrictions proposed in the program.
A rebate program is proposed for residents who attend a compost workshop and receive a compost unit.
The rebate suggested would be funded by the avoided capital cost of the barrel and the associated collection
fee. This approach presents a few problems. Education and compost unit ownership don't necessarily
translate into elimination of green waste from the resident's waste stream. The resident must use the
compost unit effectively and regularly to acheive the desired result. If green waste is set at the curb for
collection as trash, not only is the advantage of reduced collection costs lost, the material will be handled by
the landfill at the more expensive solid waste rates.
Incentives are most effective when linked directly to the desired outcome, which in this case is a significant
reduction in the amount of green waste being set out for collection as trash to be carried to a landfill. A
resident who dilligently composts green waste is producing the desired result and helping the City reach
their AB 939 goals and so should be the beneficiary of the incentive program.
We recommend that the City establish a monitoring program that provides for a spot check of the waste
presented for collection by registered compostem (those who attended the class) on their regular collection
day. The presence. -of compostable green waste at the curb will disqualify that resident for the rebate.
Monitoring can be done on a quarterly or trimester basis in cooperation with supervisory personnel from the
— City's haulers and the City's Public Works Department.
Thank you for the ongoing opportunity to participate in formulating the City of Diamond Bar's solid waste
and recycling programs.
Sincerely,
4
tk Step
han
District Manager
cc: David Liu
— Dean Ruffridge
Waste Management Collection and Recycling. Inc. hnp° p' ,@qc1id o'o"
ifrrd►% 7-
ATTACS1V MW 1
Area Refuse Rates
Sorted Lowest to Hinhest with Divemlon Programa and Rates 1995
MamoNa
10.18
0.00
1.00
11.13
33%
U PUNK.)
10.07
130
0.00
12.07
s
unknown
LSVMO
1008
0.00
1.36
12.1.0
no
29%
Awes
108
0.00
1.73
12.23
IRS no
no
12%
Cow"
11.64
0.611
3.M
12.08
no VSS
VOS
23%
aaldwin Ps
11.81
Me
12.07
no V06 GMWK
m
23%
Wak"
10.08
2.08
030
1324
WE VO4
no
26%
Diamond a
18.16
0.00
0.36
13.6
no VOS
no
30%
Is" Obss
11.04
2.08
0.00
13.08
no yes soM
auto
38%
Wed0WA
12.34
130
0.14
18.117
VMS
yes
33%
Pomona
14.74
0.00
am
14.71
N
unknown
Olondam
11.00
0.611
8.16
14.70
no
27%
ew mem
isAs
am
2.06
111.71
20%
mea IM Am" CeyOwnysifeWWeds AMnrdSo"=
At present, our permitted hsulaa divert less than 10% of the waste they haul. This means that more than 2n of
the City of Diamond Bar's diversion comes from private sector and City efforts to divert materials.
Costs are diffmilt to identify for diversion programs mosmueb ss they are tied directly to other factors including
whether services are automated, the distance to disposal sites, the presence of transfer facilities, do number of
served households, and more. In generak we can estimate such costs as follows:
• Green waster collection manual
• Green waste collection automated
• Curbside collation manual
■ Curbside collection automated
• Compost facility tipping cost
• Transfer facility tipping cost
• MRF tipping cost
• Landfill ADC
• Landfill rate
■ Variable rates
Probable Costs by Option
$1.75 per month per household
$2.45 to $4.00 per month per household
$ 1.00 to $2.00 per month per household
$2.00 to $3.00 per month per household
S25 to $35 per ton
$10 to S20 per ton
$35 to $50 per ton
Ys Sato rate or -$8.50 per ton at Puente Hills
--S 17 per ton at Puente mills
Increases of S2 per can.or more per month
■ Option 1 could increase refuse rates from $1 to 52.00 per month"
• Option 2 could increase refuse rates from $2.00 to $3.00 per month*
■ Option 3 could increase refuse rata 53.00 or more per month•
*These costs include consideration of avoided digm-1 comb and inci=sed collection efficiencies from automated
COUCCUon Aad normalization of collection p uZoes. Actual costs willbe determined by service pcnvida bid.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 25, 1198
TO: Terence L. Belanger, City Manager
FROM: David G. Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works
J. Michael Huls, REA, Integrated EnvironmentsServices Coordinator
CC: James DeSIA"W. Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DIAMOND BAR
SOLID WASTE STANDARDS TASK FORCE - AUTOMATED
COLLECTION AND VARIABLE RATES
Executive Summary
This report represents the second and third of dive reports on recommendations made by the
Diamond Bar Solid Waste Standards Task Force. This report presents the findings of staff
regarding "ftnu*d corlecftn 8&*Vby for y@rd waste, refuse, and recycling, and variable
rates, which is Commonly known as `pay as you throw.' In this report you will find rate
impacts, lmpl mw taWn issues, W mtion about equipment, diversion
scheduling resulting from these potential, and
programs if enacted.
it was found by the Sold Waste Standards Task Force (Task Force) that the existing system
of refuse collection and recyc V (there is no yard waste collection) yields a relatively low
level of di"Mion, and there is no economic incentive to reduce or prevent waste on the part
of residents. In fact, any resident may dispose as much as they want at one standard price
(exclusive of oversized bulky items and unacceptable wastes).
As a result, there is little or no incentive for those wanting or now practicing recycling and
waste prevention to continue their efforts since the overaN Imps is diluted This can be
easily seen in the documented diversion rate by the residential hauler(:) reported as 5% to
6%. This means that about 94% to thy% of residential wastes are disposed in local landfills.
This fact has signifWW" to the City in terns of future costs, since it is already known that
Spadra Landfill will dose in June 1999, requiring City refuse to be carted further at greater
cost.
To address the opportunity of waste prevention, and to fuMv the terms of the Source
Reduction and R*qK** Element (QE), it is required that the City consider establishing
rate structures that encourage waste prevention. To do so, however, requires that service
be automated and starxJardiaed $o as to equitably distribute costs and increase efficiencies.
Automated coction refers to service where residents are provided lidded and wheeled
standardizedcont www of uniform volume that are placed by the resident at the curb in the
street on collection day. They ars emptied by a refuse truck that uses a
device to oft the container andspecial into the
trucks Com O0^te into a hopper feeding directly into the
t�rq mechanism.
Because of this, the hauler needs to employ only one driver per vehicle who also operates
the automated system. Automated Containers have already been partially distributed to
residents in the City, however, any resident at present can use their own container to store
trash. This means that the driver or an assistant called 9 'swamper' must stop and exit the
vehicle, and then manwNy NR the container to empty its contents into a refuse hopper. This
obviously adds nx a time to the process of collection.
The existing recyr3rg system is likewise manual and uses a small crate for residents to store
mixed recyclables.
The advantages of automated collection reportedly include community aesthetics, ability to
implement pay as you throw prograrrrs, ease of collection, encourages waste prevention, and
improves M m it FRAM eMcj - -cia. Disadvantages include 0111cuiti*s for seniors to handle large
barrels, p+oblenr in along* space in some homes, the need to establish longer permit time
frames to amortize the costs of the barrels, and the need to regulate street parking so that
vehicles aro absent from the affected curbs on the day(s) of collection.
Variable rales refers to rate strictures that vary based upon the amount of waste disposed
by a resident. Already, businesses pay for refuse collection based on the number and
volume of bins used and their frequency of collection. In much the same manner, a variable
rate for residential ui t would vary based on how much waste is generated by the resident.
Commonly, a single standardized barrel of at Isast 96-gallon capacity is used to set the base
rate. Additional refuse barrels would have an extra cod or surcharge, so while a resident
is allowed to wade more, they would also pay mon for the privilege. The idea is consistent
with any number of other costs paid by residents including utilities, phone, and gasoline. In
other words, the more the service is used, the higher the cost.
An increasing number of cities ies in Southern California (i.e., 27 and growing) and their haulers
are turning to aubmatd collection since it improves productivity, and provides a number of
other benefits described herein. It is also the basis by which variable rates can be
established if such incentives are warranted for a community.
The cost of automated coke ion and variable rates with reference to Diamond Bar is
unknown at this time. No information was provided by the hauler concerning local impacts.
However, it is known that automated collecticm and variable rates range widely in
communities throughout Southern California. Some communities have paid less once
automated systems have been set up as they have realized the benefits of standardization
and efficiency. Other communities have paid more because the costs of implementation
(a. g., new containers, new bucks, etc.) have outweighed the benefits. Cost impact can
range from a net swings of less than $1 per household per month to an additional charge
of $4 per household per month depending on which rate the homeowner currently pays.
Among the reasons for the variance in costs is length of contract, number of customers,
routing issues, distance to disposal site, presence of intermediate processing and transfer,
and franchise and odw jurisdictional fees.
Variable rates an now practiced in over 200 comunities throughout California. They do
result in sane residents paying more since they imply higher costs in relation to the amount
of refuse disposed. Reading, yard waste diversion, and waste proverhion can reduce the
need for refuse service and therefore can help a resident to avoid higher rates. The hauler
did indicate that incertives could be established for residents who generate less waste.' In
Southern Cakfomia, it is known that the cities of Pasadena, Glendale, and Claremont have
' LettK m Carol Hwfw% Mayor, from Chuck Dion. District Manow, Wast Management, dated 11M &N, ase
Attachment 1.
Page 2 Mena b Dianand Bar on Autoerabd Collection and Vwh" Raise 1112lif98
instituted variable rates for residents. .
It is recommended that the City Council review this staff report and recommendations, but
delay any final decision on impMrnen- Or until completion of the entire series of staff reports
on the solid wast issues. Noneftless, it is the of -staff that City Council
approve irrtpierrtentstlon of an automated collection system consisting of three barrels for
3irtgW4!an* residents in the City. It is also recommended that staff be authorized at a later
date to negoWe a rat structure that rewards those who generate Ions waste through waste
prevention and facycting efforts.
Purpose
The purpose of this menmandurn is to report on the findings of the investigation performed
by J. Michael Huls, REA, the City's Integrated Environmental Services Coordinator,
conceming automated collection and variable rates. As per the instructions of City Council:
'JMH wa prepare tlw sport of findings. JW wl1 formate recommendations based on the
r wA& ... this sport vii n n Wkr the epsdcaMons d the program, issues of implemerlation and
daaign, and Chir resokrMon, idsrWMcdion of inowAve acWona that rewardwaste prevention and
reals ft dootomMsMon d potable oohs, presentation d a timetable for implementation, and
provision d txt for adopion d the program. ti wwmnf ad, lift tit City Code.'
Background
It is known that single-family. residences (SFRs) compose about 70% of all household
residences in the City.= Single-family residences generate about two tons per year while
multifamily residences (MPRs) generate about 1.5 tons per year. This differential is created
by the now absence of green wast in mulfidamily units' Consequently, the single-family
sector is estimated to generate about 75% of all residential waste in the City.
SFRs are characterized by h pe lots, backyards, garages, and frontage along streets which
can be accessed directly by rsWse and rec K*V vehicles. Almost invariably, SFRs have their
own refuse containers. MFRS aro characterized by two housing types: condominiums and
town homes form one type which resemble SFRs (they may be detached), while apartments
in multi -w* eomplexas form another. MFRS of the former may have their own containers or
may share large bins. Apartment complexes normally require tenants to share large bins.
In Diamond Bar, about 50% of MFR* exhibit SFR characteristics Including the presence of
their own refuse conh6ws. For purposes of this analysis, those MFRS who share bins are
excluded from consideration of automated collection and variable rates.
SFR units are often larger than town homes and condos In term of square footage and
spacing. Common areas predominate In MFRS of tate latter type, meaning that available
storage area for kxlvk ual untls is brited, and may not be convenient for two or throe
container oortlipurstions. Anodw asped is that soma of the MFRS are accessed by private
driveways and Bleck topped suxfaoed road ways that are not really designed for tuck traffic.
2 Based on the ERRE published in 1M and approved blithe CIWMB in IM.
The PA&oMhumb for ample fanny rewdermn varus rmAR miy residermm gerwabon N based on numerous
waste dwactwmabon and quan* cardiae, some of Mid have been performed by J. Wheal We. The actual
quantity may dMfsr alto* hasmuah as reeydng programs are not gww* welable to MFRS in Diamond Br.
However, other factors such as iewn time and generation patterns may offaat any variation duo to recycling
opportunity.
Page 3 Memo b Dk moed Bar on Automated Collection and Variable Rates 11MM
Therefore, in the interests of ease of implementation and program development, the
automated collection system and variable rates are considered solely in terns of the SFRs.
It was found by the Sold Waste Standards Task Force (Task Forte) that the existing system
of refuse collection and recycling (then is no yard waste colectionyyields a relatively low
level of diversion, and titan is no economic incentive to reduce or prevent waste on the part
of residents. In fact, any resident may dispose as much as they want at one standard price
(exdusive of oversized bulky items and unacceptable wastes). As a result, there is little or
no incentive for those wanting or now prsctiainp recycling and waste prevention to continue
Gasir efforts since the overall impact is dkdod. This can be easily seen in that the
documented diversion rant by the residential haulers) is about 5 to 8% diversion (minus any
diversion by and residents who recycle their own wastes such as cans and
- bottles for their redemption value). This means that about 94 to 95% of residential wastes
are disposed to local landfills.
This fad has significance to the City in terns of future costs, since it is already known that
Spodra Landfill WIN dose in June 1999, requiring City refuse to be carted further at greater
cost. To address the opportunity of waste prevention, and to fulfill the terms of the Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (ERRE), it is required that the City consider establishing
rate structures that wxxKwage waste prevention. To do so, however, requires that service
be automated and standardised so as to equitably distribute costs and increase efficciencies.
Analysis
There were three sub tasks performed to dearly identify the scope and impact of
implemerdng an automated collection system and variable rates. These included: 1) meet
with the Permittee, 2) analyze data, and 3) prepare a report of findings. These sub tasks are
discussed below with the exception of sub task 3 which is the subject of this report.
The City and JMH met with Waste Management (the merged hauler) to discuss the potential
program. After this meeting, JMH forwarded a specification of the desired program (see
Attachment 2). The hauler was to use this specification as the basis for design and cost
development. The hauler said the City its reply in a letter to the Mayor dated November 13,
1998 (see Attachment 1).
Attachment 1 and other data previously disclosed in the Task Fore (See Attachment 3)
were evaluated by JMH. Five factors were considered in the evaluation: diversion impact,
cost, equipment, waste prevention incentives, and iratitutional irupadx. Both automated
collection and variobie rale arekla Oe d below first, then each evaluated in terns of the five
factors.
Automated coNecdon- Automated collection refers to service where residents aro provided
lidded and wheeled standardized containers of uniform volume that are placed by the
resident at the curb in the street on collection day. They aro emptied by a refuse truck that
uses a special hydraulic device to lift the container and empty its contents into a hopper
feeding directly into the truck's compacting mechanism.
Pape 4 Menw b Dimond Bw on Autwmftd CoNecdon and Variable PAW* 112M
Because of this, the hauler needs to employ only one driver per vehicle who also operates
the automated system. Automated containers have already been partially distributed to
residents in the City, however, any resident at present can use their own container to store
bash. This means that the driver or an assistant called a `swamper• must stop and exit the
vehicle, and then manually Ot do container to empty its contents into a refuse hopper. This
obviously adds more time to the process of collection.
The exxting n xwcbV system is WAwm nw%W and uses a small crate for residents to store
mixed recydables.
The advartages of automated collection reportedly include community aesthetics, ability to
implement pay as you throw programs. ease of collodion, waste prevention, and
improvement of ootiection elutants=. Communiy aesthetics arise from the uniform visual
nature of the cortairas. Rather than a wide variety of different looking containers and baps
and boxes, each home displays the same container. This aspect is widely touted by
communities who implement automated collection such as West Covina and Covina.
By standardizing the volume of the container, it is easier to fix a price or rate to collection.
The uniform barrels means that every resident has an equal volumetric space to stone and
dispose refuse. Generating less than the average or more than the average is easy to
distinguish since the volume can be identified either to the number of barrels or the size.
Rates can than be eastiy set by the service provider.
Since more volume translates info higher cost, than there is a built-in incentive for residents
to avoid the higher cost by preventing waste. it is documented that several communities
have reduced refuse colected by up to 40% after implementation of a variable rate system.
9 and when the City might implanwA automated collection and variable rates, the City can
easily track volume reduction through the regular monthly updates provided by the hauler.
C41lection efficiencies are improved since fewer employees aro needed to collect refuse, and
the routes can be comp! W earlier. The matter of early completion is crucial since filling the
truck eariisr means the refuse can be transferred to the landfill earlier as well. Since most
bucks nuke at least two trips per day (exiting their route to delver full loads to the landfill),
early arrival assures that later bads can be delivered before closure of the landfill. These
days, landfills con dose as early as noon as they reach their daffy tonnage ac ooptance limits.
Disadvantages include difficulties for seniors to handle large barrels, problems in storage
space in some horns, the need to establish WW permit time frames to amortize the costs
of the barrels, and the need to regulate street parking so that vehicles aro absent from the
affected curbs on the day(s) of collection.
H is already known that some seniors aro concerned with automated collection because of
the projected use of three barrels of at least 64 gallon capacity each. One letter to the City
(see Attachment 4) identified issues related to handling of large barrels because of their
potential weight and the lack of storage space.
There can be problems to storage space as three containers is normally more than the
typical family will have in manual programs. However, it Is necessary in order to facilitate
separation into threw categories of waste, one for greens, one for recydables, and one for
- trash. Among the various ways that residents car address these problems is to use smaller
containers or to have the hauler offer roll out service. The City could perform a survey (as
part of the container needs sampling) to identify and canvass resident input on such issues
Pape 5 Merao b Dtanond tsar on AubDmabd CoNeathm and Varhble Rabe IMAM
and others including ADA.
- At present, the City authorizes its permitted haulers and recyclers on two-year cycles,
although nothing prohibits the City from extending longer terns. Usually, a longer permit
time frame of seven to 10 years is required to properly amortize the -equipment needed to
implement automated collection; prfncf * the barrels. This in effect locks a community into
a specific hauler for a long period of time.
In an automated system them is a need to regulate street panting. In an unregulated
acndilion,'residar'scan parts their vehicles without restriction. However, to effect collection,
containers must be placed in the street next to the curb so that the collection vehicle can
easily drive up to the container and hoist it onto the collection mechanism. Parked carscan
interfere with this as the truck must maneuver around the vehicles thereby wasting time and
resources.
There are about 27 jurisdictions in Los Angeles County that have automated collection.
These are fisted below.
Artesia
B4111101wer
Bwedy Hills
Baldwin Park*
Bradbury'
Bel
C wwnonr
Burbank
Downey
Covina'
Pomona'
Duarte*
8 Mona'
Pasadena
Le Puente'
Glendale
West Carha•
Los Angeles
Rosemead'
Huntington Park
Long Beach
Sigma HE
Inglewood
Monrovia•
South Gate
Torrance
Maywood
Altogether, these cities comprise the majority of residents in LA County. Cities noted with
an asterisk are located near or in the East San Gabriel Valley. This fist does not contain the
cities of West San Swrowdino County that also have automated collection. it is known that
Upland, Chino, Chino IFNs, and Rancho Cucamonga have automated collection.
To implement an automated collection program requires extensive upfront planning. First,
the hauler needs to accurately forecast the demand for various sizes of container. This can
be done through a representative survey. Or, the hauler can distribute standardized
containers and later trade out those that the residents require. The advantage of starting
with a single size is that residents often under- or overestimate their disposal requirements.
It is anticipated that residents may want containers ranging from 35 gallon to 96 gallon
capacity.
Second, there is a need to --lblin nae costs to the residents, so the City will want to work with
the hauler(s) on IwVlh of contract. The longer the contract, the lower the cost of
amortization per year since the cost can be distributed over a greater number of years.
Third. there may be opposition to automated collection In the community. This is often the
case in recently incorporated communities or those who have less regulation. Once the
program is in per, gawk*!► the opposition vanishes as the benefits are better understood.
Automated collection has been successful where implemented in improving the "look' of the
community and in increasing the amount of diversion. The City of Downey implemented a
fully automated system in 1996 in which residents were given three 67 gallon containers, one
Page 6 Meow to Dh m W Bar on Automated Collection and Variable Raps 11/ZM
each for rocyclables, green wastes, and refuse. Downey reported that diversion increased
by 35% annualy. Downey captures about 0.84 tons of rrcyclables (excluding preen waste)
annually per houmi hold. In another ciy, Pasadena, the City recently implemented automated
collection, and they are expecting to increase their recycling tonnage from the existing 0.44
tons per household per year. In Diamond Bar, it is estimated that the current manual
collection system recovers about 0.21 tons of recydables per household per year (based on
1998 data).
Vendable Rates—
Variable
ates-
Variable rates are commonly referred to as "pay as you throw.' Variable rates have been
tested or implemented in numerous communities but few within Los Angeles County. It is
known that Burbank, Pasadena, and Clarernont have all implemented variable rates with
impressive success. Burbank pave cuslorners a choice of three sizes of containers, 35, 65,
and 100 gallon units. However, each customer received a base service level of three 65
gallon containers. Residents were later presented with the option to resize their containers
based on need. The City found that reayd ft increased by 96% due to the program.
Claremont has implemented a variable rate system, in which residents pay a total rate of
$18.71 for automated collection of green waste, refuse and rscyclables (i.e., three containers
of 96 gallon capacity each). Latest estimates of diversion aro that at Is" 50% of all
residential wastes are diverted. Residents can pay up to $35 per month for collection if they
desire further disposal capacity beyond the three standard containers.
There are advantages and disadvantages to variable nates. Advantages include greater
diversion, equitable distribution of costs, true disposal costs aro borne by the generator.
Disadvantages include the need to educate the pubic on how to use the new system, the
problems associated with noncompliance, the greater effort necessitated on the part of the
City to maintain the program, the need to update the City's ordinances, and the increased
level of effort required by the residents.
In Diamond Bar, the houisr has indicated that variable rete system and automated collection
can be knplerne led at a reasonable cost. According to the information provided by Waste
Management, additional barrels for refuse would cost no more than $5 each, and additional
recycling and green waste barrels could be provided on a compimentary basis to
ar,(=rnodde greater diversion. In addition, the hauler has indicated that homeowners who
reduce their waste and require a smaller barrel should be able to obtain a smaller unit and
receive a possible discount ranging up to 10% to 20% of the standard refuse rate.
With respect to diversion rate, a combination of variable rate and automated collodion will
increase diversion in the residential sector by up to four times the wdsting level. This means
that full implementation of these programs should divert at least 40% of residential waste,
equating to about 28% diversion, khckrdtng eAstinp diversion of 5 to 6%.4 This means that
these additional programs will obtain about 23 to 24% additional diversion. Through this
program, the mandate should be easily achieved.
` The dWervion rate is actuary bed on deposal qua ft and can be obtained by mulBpyinp 70% of the wore
wawa ohm rh by the aegecbd dfw mn rds of 40%. The not diwreion must deduct the adetinp diversion of 5 to
6% as reported by tM haulers.
Pape 7 Memo to Diamond Bar on Auloraaled CoNocrbn and Variable Raba 11ram
Recommendations
In keeping with the reoornmarxialion of the Report No. 1 of this series, with respect to green
waste, it larecommended that an automated collection system and variable rate system be
considered for tnhplenhern. Mn. The essential cinaxnatenoe in recommending this is that
there is less than two years left to meet the 50% diversion mandate. While the City's
apparent diversion rate is 42%, this is still eight percent short of the mandate, and them is
no guarantee That the CINMMB will agree with the changes to the solid waste study that lifted
the calculated diwrsion rate to that pwasnik. Full implementation of the variable rate and
automated collection system should yield abort 28% diversm it is not dear as to the extent
of rate impact from in le-n-rtation of this program. However, some estimates place the
impact of irnpleniwiling variable rates and automated collection ranging from a minimal net
nxkxtw to about $4 par household per month, depending upon the specific configuration
of refuse and reoydhg at each household and the vd lirg refuse rate paid by the consumer.
Please note that this range of coat kx*xtes consideration of yard waste collection previously
identified in Report No. 1.
On the other hand, if the mandate is not met and this program is not implemented, there
could be a fine imposed by the CIWMB that could result in a maximum penalty of $10,000
per day, or a rat cost to each SFR of US per month. This penalty would greatly exceed the
cost of the recorrve- - dad program. In addition, there is the natter of the impending closure
of Spadra Landfill and other nearby sites, which would negatively impact the cost of refuse
collection if the program were not implemented.
However, prior to implementation, the City Council should carefully consider the
aforementioned issues and integrate automated collection and variable rates as part of an
overall strategic plan for refuse and diversion. While there is no absolute need to award an
exclusive arrangement to a single hauler to implement the programs, keeping the system
open would require a greater effort on the part of the City to 'poW the system of haulers,
and to change the solid waste orcinara to more closely regulate activities. This would
assure the City that the program was being implemented properly by all of the service
providers without giving any competitive advantage to any one.
Consequently, City Council should delay final decision on the matter until completion of all
of the five studies.
Schedule
To implement the program, The service provider is mWesting two items. First, that its permit
(or a contrad) be extended to no less than 10 years, and second, that it be allowed to collect
wastes on a five day basis.
If the program is acceptable to the City, as well as the pricing, than two months prior to the
new program, the hauler will send out a mailer to each individual resident about the new
program. This will be followed up with Wdensive publicity and a final notice to be sent out one
month in advance. The mailers will explain the program as well as when to expect the new
containers.
At least two weeks prior to start-up, advertisements will be placed in all newspapers and on
the local cable channel informing the residents about the new program.
At least two weeks prior to start-up, new containers will be delivered to each individual
Page 8 Meow b Diamond Bar on Aubomobd CoUec*m and Variabb Raba 1125M
house. Attached to the containers wil.be full color brochures explaining the new program
and how to tale me of the new containers. This information will also contain details about
exchanging containers and the rates.
During the early development of the program, the City should expect to host one or more
meetings with cwnnu* groups to explain the new program and solicit input into its design.
The entire program could be set up and implemented within a eight month period once
approval is voted by the City Council. This vA slow the hauler time to make the necessary
purchases. The text for any code changes will be developed later.
Gwvwo�Nauc�m Iso
Pape 9 Mena b Diamond Bar on Aubnaind Coftdbn and Variable Rabe 1IMM
f/TigG'y��NT 1
WASTE MANAGEMENT
San Gabriel /
Pomona Vallev District
13940 E. Live Oak Ave.
Baldwin Park, CA 91706
(626) 960-7551
(626) 814-1955 Fax
November 13, 1998
The Honorable Carol Herrera
'Mayor.
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Dear Mayor Herrera:
Thank you for the opportunity to address the City of Diamond Bar's Waste Collection and
Recycling program. To elaborate on Mike Stephan's September 13, 1998 letter responding
to Michael Hul's August 18, 1998 memo, in order for the City of Diamond Bar to meet it's
AB939 and AB 1820 goals, a number of key services and programs need to be
implemented. The City's Solid Waste and Recycling Task force identified these service
options in their final report. Based on those recommendations and our operational
experience, we would offer the following recommendations designated to assist the City in
meeting your State mandated recycling and diversion requirements.
Automated Green Waste Collection
Based on the City's solid waste composition analysis, the implementation of a uniform and
effective green waste program is the key element toward meeting your 50% diversion
mandate. We recommend an automated green waste program which would include a 64
gallon container with odor control venting and lid. Further, residents who choose a home
composting program would be supplied with a compost unit and could receive a rebate
based on avoided capital costs and disposal fees. Home compost programs require
significant education efforts and a specific time requirement. While we applaud and
encourage this effort, we believe the overwhelming number of residents will utilize the
green waste collection option.
As it relates to disposal of green waste, we would encourage the City to continue to utilize
the L.A. County Sanitation District's facilities at Puente Hills and Spadra. The County's
program offers diversion credit at the lowest possible cost.
A Division of USA Waste of California, Inc.
The Honorable Carol Herrera
Mayor
City of Diamond Bar
Even with the pending closure of Spadra, capacity at Puente Hills should continue to be
available. At such time as the City chooses to move in a new direction, Waste
Management offers cut and cover options at El Sobrante, Landcaster, and Chiquita Canyon
Landfills. We also operate numerous compost facilities and have recently received
approvals to establish a state of the art compost facility in the Antelope Valley.
We concur with the Solid Waste Committee and your consultant on the implementation of
an automated collection -.system. This recommendation contemplates a 96 gallon wheeled
refuse container and two 64 gallon wheeled containers for recyclables and green waste.
Since our automated system can accommodate both 96 and 64 gallon containers, this ratio
is flexible and can be customized to meet an individual homeowner's requirements.
Variable Rates Structures
Waste Management concurs with Mr. Huls in his August 18, 1998 memo when he states:
"rhe variable rate system will be based on the three barrel system described above. A set
charge should be developed for all three barrels, based on the 96-64-64 gallon volume
ratio. Any additional refuse containers would be charged at no more than $5 each, while
additional recycling and green waste barrels would be complimentary. As an incentive,
homeowners who reduce their waste and require a smaller barrel, should be able to obtain a
64 -gallon refuse container, at a specified discount. This discount could be 10% to 20% of
the refuse rate."
Our only concern is that prior to making a large capital commitment regarding new
automated containers, we would work with Staff in developing a sample survey to
determine the variable ratio and options residents desire. This will allow us to order
containers which closely meet the needs of the community.
RecyclingCollection
We concur with the Solid Waste Committee and Mr. Huls on this proposal:
The recycling container described above, will more then double the capacity for recyclable
collection per household. The current list of acceptable and non -acceptable recyclable
materials is listed below. Once collected, the recyclables will be transported to a state of
the art recycling facility for processing. All collected material will count toward Diamond
Bar's overall AB939 recycling diversion percentage.
11/13198 2 ANDRSN3.DOC
The Honorable Carol Herrera
Mayor
City of Diamond Bar
.. Accepted
• All Aluminum and steel cans
• ` All colors of glass bottles & jars
• Clear, colored and white plastic containers if labeled O, A, O, O, A, ®, O on the
bottom
• Newspaper and inserts
• Junk mail
• White ledger paper
• Corrugated cardboard
• Magazines
• Colored and construction paper
• Cereal boxes (with liners removed)
• Telephone books
We Cannot Accept:
• Aluminum foil
• Scrap metal
• Window or safety glass
• Mirrors
• Light bulbs
• Styrofoam
• Wax Paper
• Ceramics
• Drinking glasses
• Plastic bags
• Plastic wrap
• Food waste
• Packaging Material
Disposal Capacity
Waste Management owns and operates several Southern California disposal facilities,
including, Bradley, Landcaster, Chiquita Canyon and El Sobrante landfills. These facilities
allow us to guarantee long term (1 S years +) disposal capacity for the City of Diamond
Bar.
11/13/98 3 ANDRSN3.DOC
The Honorable Carol Herrera
Mayor
City of Diamond Bar
Further, we have re-established and are currently operating a material recycling facility at
Azusa landfill. This facility allows us to process greenwaste and curbside recyclables.
Cost Specifications
The Executive Summary of the Solid Waste Standards Task Force attachment identified a
range of costs for the implementation of these and other potential diversion programs.
These costs accurately reflect the current market place. While current rates are relatively
stable, there are two factors which could dramatically influence these costs.
Closure of Spadra Landfill in June of 1999.
2. Length of permit or franchise agreement.
When Spadra Landfill closes in June of next year, the City disposal cost will increase due
to the fact that haulers will have to travel further and pay higher tipping fees for disposal.
Since Waste Management currently services all single family residences and we own and
operate several regional disposal facilities, increases in residential disposal rates can be
softened and kept to a minimum.
However, commercial haulers which solely rely on access to Puente Hills and Spadra will
be required to travel further for disposal and/or pay significantly higher disposal rates at
local transfer facilities.
Secondly, the length of time the City allows us to operate, be it under a permit or exclusive
franchise agreement, will directly affect our amortization of new equipment. Standard
industry practices identifies a 7-10 amortization schedule for trucks, containers and other
related equipment. The longer the amortization schedule the lower the cost of providing
solid waste and recycling services to your constituents and our customers. We believe a
ten year timeframe falls within the industry standards and will keep price increases to a
minimum.
Service Schedule and Routing
Spadra Landfill, operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District is scheduled to
close next June. As the City of Diamond Bar's residential hauler, Waste Management
currently utilizes Spadra and the Puente Hills Landfills as our primary disposal sites. Due
to the fact that Puente Hills closes by late morning or early afternoon, it is imperative we
establish our routing and pickups to incorporate these factors. One method to address this
dilemma is to continue our current practice of five days per week pickup for residential
customers.
11/13/99 4 ANDRSN3.DOC
The Honorable Carol Herrera
Mayor
City of Diamond Bar
This schedule allows us to mirror local landfill operation schedules and help maintain the
lowest rates possible for Diamond Bar residents.
There are also a number of additional Benefits to five day schedules:
• Reduces the concentration of large trucks in the community.
• Allows for a dedicated fleet of refuse vehicles to service Diamond Bar.
• Provides for a full time supervisor available to City staff and residents.
• Requires that only 20% of the community adjust their current pickup day since we are
currently operating a five day a week program.
• Helps keep disposal costs at current levels.
• Allows continuity with street sweeping services.
While there has been some interest on the solid waste task force and the Council to
consider a one or two day a week schedule, we believe the above factors provide powerful
incentives for the City to maintain our existing schedule.
Outreach Programs
Waste Management will utilize as many means of media necessary in order to educate the
citizens of Diamond Bar of the new waste and recycling programs. Some of the programs
that Waste Management has utilized in the past but is not limited to are the following:
• 1/month prior to the new program a mailer will go out to each individual resident about
the new program. In this mailer it will briefly explain the new program as well as when
to expect the new containers.
• 2/weeks prior an advertisement will be placed in any and all of the local newspapers
informing the residents of the new program. In conjunction with the advertisements in
the local paper we can place a commercial on the local Cable Channel outlining the
new program.
• 2/weeks prior the new containers will be delivered to each individual house. Attached
to the containers will be two full color brochures explaining the new program and how
to take care of the new containers.
Along with the these efforts we plan to meet with various community groups and
organizations to discuss any and all improvements to the City's current solid waste and
recycling program.
11/13/98 1 ANORSN3.DOC
The Honorable Carol Herrera
Mayor
City of Diamond Bar
Additional SRcifications
We concur with the City's desire to continue a bulky item pickup, used oil collection,
complimentary City facilities collection and other specified permit terms. As it relates to
bulky item pickup service, we currently provide this opportunity as part of our weekly
service or by special request.
Under an automated system, this program would require specific days and/or a special
request process. Automated vehicles are only capable of servicing standardized containers.
As always, we will work closely with the City to develop an appropriate program.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the City's Solid Waste and Recycling
programs. We look forward to working closely with your Honorable Council and City
Staff to insure the City meets the State mandate in recycling and diversion goals_
Si cere ,
i
Chuck Dion
District Manager
cc: The Honorable Wen Chang, Mayor Pro -Tem
The Honorable Bob Huff, Councilmember
The Honorable Eileen Ansari, Councilmenber
The Honorable Debby O'Connor, Councilmember
Mr. Terrence Belanger, City Manager
Mr. David Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works
Mr. Michael Huls, Principal, J. Michael Huls, REA
11/13199 6 ANDRSN3.DOC
IQ Waste Management"
NZ/
'Haste Management of San Gaoriel!Pomona Va:lev
13940 E live Oak Avenue
Baldwin Pvk. CaNfanw 91'06
November 3, 1998
i
The Honorable Carol Herrera
Mayor
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Dear Mayor Herrera:
Pltcne 626.960.7H • 9091H ':7a
Fax 626.338.5261.
Thank you for inviting Waste Management of San Gabriel/Pomona Valley and USA Waste to
participate in the City's Solid Waste and Recycling task force. Due to the active involvement of
the Council Staff and Residents, the process was comprehensive and productive. As the process
began, your two residential haulers, Waste Management and USA Waste were competitors, and
even though the task force was aware of the potential merger, due to federal rules and
regulations, our two companies were required to operate as competitors.
Since then, the merger has been completed and we are one company - Waste Management. This
merger has not only produced a stronger more viable business entity, but more importantly,
allows us to provide significant new services for our customers.
Along with traditional solid waste and recycling services, we have added new local transfer and
uisposal capabilities. For the City of Diamond Bar, these new services can play a critical role in
guaranteeing the City will meet it's state mandated AB939 and AB 1820 goals.
We believe these recent developments provide the City with a unique and positive opportunity to
move forward in the establishment of a uniform solid waste and recycling program. Your solid
waste task force has identified and forwarded a set of recommendations for Council's review.
These recommendations include consideration and possible implementation of the following
programs:
• Automated Green Waste Program
• Automated Solid Waste Program
• Automated Recycling Program
• Variable Rate Structure
• Long Term Transfer and Disposal Options
• Multi -Family Recycling Option
11/3/98 Waste Management Collection and Recycling. Inc. 1
ANDRSN_DOC h'""Crdw r'w
• Comprehensive Public Education Program
• Single Residential Franchise Hauler _
Waste Management has the capability and is prepared to provide these services to the City of
Diamond Bar. Currently we provide many of these same services to our local franchise cities.
As you know, Waste Management and USA Waste have been involved in the community of
Diamond Bar for many years. Currently we service all residential customers and the vast
majority of businesses. Further, we have and will continue to support a variety of community
activities and organizations. The positive relationship between the community and Waste
Management is important and we will continue to build on that relationship.
In light of all these factors, we believe it is in the best interest of the City and Waste Management
to begin negotiations on a Residential Franchise Contract. A Franchise Contract will assist the
City in meeting your AB939 requirements, provide for a reduction of local truck traffic, bring
conformity and certainty of pickup day(s), and provide for better coordination of your Solid
Waste and Recycling Programs.
Since Waste Management now services all residential customers, any transition to new programs
and services can be accomplished in a productive and orderly fashion. We strongly believe we
can negotiate the terms of a franchise contract with the City Staff, which will provide
competitive rates, unsurpassed service options, and a smooth transition. Under this type of
contract, we will guarantee the City meets it's AB939 goals. If for any reason the City does not
feel the final contract is appropriate, you can always choose to solicit other providers.
We would propose to meet with your staff as soon as possible to develop an outline of proposed
service options and related schedules. We thank you for your consideration of this request. We
look forward to working hand in hand with Council and Staff to resolve these issues, and allow
your Honorable Council to move on and tackle other important challenges.
Sinc -1y
Chuck Dion
Districr Manager
cc: The Honorable Wen Chang, Mayor Pro -Tem
- The Honorable Bob Huff, Councilmember
The Honorable Eileen Ansari, Councilmenber
The Honorable Debby O'Connor, Councilmember
Mr. Terrence Belanger, City Manager
Mr. David Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works
Mr. Michael Huls, Principal, J. Michael Huls, REA
1/3/98 2 ANDRSN.DOC
Waste S
Waste Management of San Gabriel/Pomona Valley
13940 E. Live Oak Avenue
Baldwin Park. Calitomia 91706
November 3, 1998
Mr. Michael Huls
Principal
J. Michael Huls, REA
568 East Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, CA 91702
Dear Michael,
Phone 626.960.7551 • 909599.1274
Fax 626.336.5262
Spadra Landfill, owner/operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District is
scheduled to close next June. As the City of Diamond Bar's residential hauler,
Waste Management currently utilizes Spadra and the Puente Hills Landfills as our
primary disposal sites. Due to the fact that Puente Hills closes by late morning or
early afternoon, it is imperative we establish our routing and pickups to incorporate
these factors. One method to address this dilemma is to continue our current practice
of five days per week pickup for residential customers.
This schedule allows us to mirror local landfill operation schedules and help
maintain the lowest rates possible for Diamond Bar residents.
There are also a number of additional Benefits to five day schedules:
• Reduces the concentration of large trucks in the community.
• Allows for a dedicated fleet of refuse vehicles to service Diamond Bar.
• Provides for a full time supervisor available to City staff and residents.
• Requires that only 20% of the community adjust their current pickup day since
we are currently operating a five day a week program.
• Helps keep disposal costs at current levels.
While there has been some interest on the solid waste task force and the Council to
consider a one or two day a week schedule, we believe the above factors provide
powerful incentives for the City to maintain our existing schedule.
11 /3/98 Waste Management Collection and Recycling. Inc. 1 ANDRSN2.DOC h—d —•evcw pew
Thank you for your review of this information. Your thoughts on this issue would be
greatly appreciated.
Sincerel ,
Chuck Dion
District Manager
cc: Mr. Terrence Belanger, City Manager
Mr. David Liu,'Deputy Director of Public Works
11/3198 2 ANDRSN2.DOC
The Honorable Carol Herrera
Mayor
City of Diamond Bar
r
Accepted
• All Aluminum and steel cans
•" All colors of glass bottles & jars
• Clear, colored and white plastic containers if labeled O, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, O on the
bottom
• Newspaper and inserts
• Junk mail
• White ledger paper
• Corrugated cardboard
• Magazines
• Colored and construction paper
• Cereal boxes (with liners removed)
• Telephone books
We Cannot Accept:
• Aluminum foil
• Scrap metal
• Window or safety glass
• Mirrors
• Light bulbs
• Styrofoam
• Wax Paper
• Ceramics
• Drinking glasses
• Plastic bags
• Plastic wrap
• Food waste
• Packaging Material
Dis spo al Capacity
Waste Management owns and operates several Southern California disposal facilities,
including, Bradley, Landcaster, Chiquita Canyon and El Sobrante landfills. These facilities
allow us to guarantee long term (15 years + ) disposal capacity for the City of Diamond
Bar.
11/13/98 3 ANDRSNIDOC
OQN Waste Managenx"V
%Cl
Waste Management of San Gabriel/Pornona Valley
13940 E. live Oak Avenue
Baldwin Park. California 91706
September 13, 1998
Mr. k Michael Huls
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Dear Mr. Huls:
Phone 626.960.7551 •909.599- 74—
Fax 626.338.5262 /,
Regarding the specifications provided for the City's anticipated green waste program please consider the
following.
Your report recommends a 64 -gallon wheeled cart with odor control venting and lid. We strongly agree
that this slightly more expensive cart is worth the investment. The venting provided by air ports in the lid
and on the body of the container, along with the raised floor provided in some models will eliminate the
unpleasant odors created by decomposing green waste when stored in a nonvented container. We agree also
with the materials and restrictions proposed in the program.
A rebate program is proposed for residents who attend a compost workshop and receive a compost unit.
The rebate suggested would be funded by the avoided capital cost of the barrel and the associated collection
fee. This approach presents a few problems. Education and compost unit ownership don't necessarily
translate into elimination of green waste from the resident's waste stream. The resident must use the
compost unit effectively and regularly to acheive the desired result. If green waste is set at the curb for
collection as trash, not only is the advantage of reduced collection costs lost, the material will be handled by
the landfill at the more expensive solid waste rates.
Incentives are most effective when linked directly to the desired outcome, which in this case is a significant
reduction in the amount of green waste being set out for collection as trash to be carried to a landfill. A
resident who dilligently composts green waste is producing the desired result and helping the City reach
their AB 939 goals and so should be the beneficiary of the incentive program.
We recommend that the City establish a monitoring program that provides for a spot check of the waste
presented for collection by registered composters (those who attended the class) on their regular collection
day. The presence of compostable green waste at the curb will disqualify that resident for the rebate.
Monitoring can be done on a quarterly or trimester basis in cooperation with supervisory personnel from the
City's haulers and the City's Public Works Department.
Thank you for the ongoing opportunity to participate in formulating the City of Diamond Bar's solid waste
and recycling programs.
.Sincerely,
/ikeZStephan
District Manager
cc: David Liu
Dean Ruffridge
Waste Management Collection and Recyarig. Inc PMedO""" Md OW
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 29, 1999
TO: Terrence L Belanger, City Manager
- FROM: David G. Liu, Deputy Director of Public WorksV')
J. Michael Huls, REA, Integrated Environmental Services Coordinator
CC: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
SOBJECT: STAFF REPORT ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DIAMOND BAR
SOLID WASTE STANDARDS TASK FORCE — MULTI -FAMILY
RESIDENCES RECYCLING
Executive Summary
This report represents the fourth of five reports on recommendations made by the
Diamond Bar Solid Waste Standards Task Force. This report presents the findings of
staff regarding extending mandatory recycling service to multi -family residence
OWFI) housing. In this report you will find rate impacts, implementation issues,
information about equipment, diversion potential, and scheduling resulting from such
programs, if enacted.
This report finds that few MFR complexes have curbside recycling for paper, cans, and
bottles. Even fewer recycle their landscape trimmings. It was found by the Solid Waste
Standards Task Force (Task Force) that the existing system of refuse collection and
recycling for MFRS yields a relatively low level of diversion. While there is some
economic incentive to reduce or prevent waste on the part of some MF residents, not all
MF residents share in the collection opportunity. In addition, there is the unintended
consequence of open competition; pricing is so low at some complexes that there is no
potential to discount costs through recycling. Spacing is also very limited at all
complexes, making separation difficult and inconvenient
Due in part to the difficulty of collecting recyclables at MFRs in the City, it is a principal
finding of this report that the City needs to enact changes to the existing solid waste
ordinance that would make MFR recycling mandatory. However, rather than specify a
method, the City Code could require the hauler(s) and the owners/managers (O/Ms) to
offer recycling services. O/Ms can determine with the assistance of the hauler(s) what
system is best for their complexes. However, all MFR complexes as defined within this
document should be required to implement recycling by the end of the year 2000. The
basis of this requirement is the existing state law requiring implementation of diversion
programs by each and every jurisdiction in California by the statutory deadline of
January 1, 2000.
It is recommended that the City Council review this staff report on the findings of the
investigation performed by J. Michael Huls, REA (JMH), the City's Integrated
Environmental Services Coordinator, concerning MFR recycling provisions. However, it
M -also suggested that Council delay any final decision pending completion of all five
reports by staff. At such time as appropriate, nonetheless, it is the recommendation of
- staff that City Council approve extending mandatory provisions of recycling service to all
MFR housing in the City, thereafter requiring implementation of recycling by December
31, 2000.
Purpose
As per the instructions of City Council:
'JMH will prepare the report of findings. JMH will formulate recommendations based on
the results ... This report will contain the specifications of the program, issues of
implementation and design, and their resolution, identification of incentive actions that
reward waste prevention and recycling, documentation of probable costs, presentation of
a timetable for implementation, and provision of text for adoption of the program, if
warranted, in the City Code.' [In addition, JMH offered to test pilot programs at one or
more complexes.]
Background
It is known that multi -family residences (MFRs) compose about 30% of all household
residences in the City.' MFRs generate about 1.5 tons per year of refuse which is less
than that generated by single-family residences (about 2 tons per year). This differential
is normally created by the lack of yards in MFRs which means less green waste.
- Consequently, the MFR sector is estimated to generate about 25% of all residential
waste in the City.
MFRs in the City can be split about evenly into two types: bin -served and barrel -served
complexes. Those MFRs complexes that have 3 -cubic yard bins require residents to
share such storage units for refuse storage. Bins are then emptied from one to six times
' Based on the SRRE published in 1992 and approved by the CIWMB in 1994.
Page 2 On emending mandatory recycling to multi -family residences 1/29/99
per week depending on a number of factors including complex size, number of
- containers, and number of residents. Often, these complexes were designed for optimal
space utilization, maximizing parking, living quarters and other services (including
landscaping, roadway access, mail, storage, and refuse) into a minimum of space. The
bins are normally placed strategically so that as many MFR units can be served by one
bin as feasible. This often means that no additional space is available for separate bins
for recycling, since recycling was usually never considered in the initial design of the
complex. Only recently has there been a legal requirement mandating space for
recycling at multi -tenant buildings (a state law).2
Barrel -served MFRs are typically designed along the lines of single family residences
(SFRs). Each unit has its own one or two barrels for trash. These are set out on a
single day in the complex, and the hauler sends in a truck to collect the containers'
contents. It is known that SFR -like complexes are the only MFRs in Diamond Bar to
have curbside recycling service since the program is easily added to the existing SFR
recycling collection service. Also, it has been reported that some complexes have
instructed their gardeners to recycle the trimmings from grounds and landscaping as part
_ of contractual arrangements.
As opposed to SFR and barrel -served MFRs refuse and recycling programs, bin -served
complexes have an incentive to recycle. At present, there is no limit to the amount of
waste that can be disposed at SFRs and like MFRs, and collection occurs weekly. At
bin -served MFRs, however, conditions are different. The less often bins are emptied,
theoretically, the less the complex pays for refuse. If residents can reduce their waste
by recycling, then there is less need for bin collection. Since there is a minimum
requirement for sanitation purposes of once a week collection, this cost reduction has a
limit. It is also important to note that recycling service costs less per bin than .refuse, so
replacing refuse bins with recycling bins also could potentially reduce cost.3
- However, it is known that MFR complexes already pay lower than established rates (see
attachment 1) for service due to competition, based on 1996 and 1997 solid waste audits
performed by JMH for the City of Diamond Bar. Prices have been slashed to bare
minimums (e.g., to levels barely able to provide the hauler a profit), and because of this,
2 Caffomia established a law in 1988 that mandated that all new developments and modification projects on mufti -tenant
buildings of greater than 10,000 sq. feat, and amounting to more than $50,000 value must provide space for recycling
containers.
3 Hauler rates for recycling bins are about 75% of the cost of refuse bins.
Page 3 On extending mandatory recycling to multi -family residences 1129199
there is little if any room for the hauler to discount prices at present to encourage
recycling. This is the principal reason why JMH efforts to introduce voluntary recycling
at MFRs in 1996 and 1997 failed to produce any significant recycling. There are other
reasons cited by owners and managers such as space limitations.
It is estimated as a result that about 90 to 95% of MFR wastes are disposed in local
landfills. This fact has significance to the City in terms of future costs, since it is already
known that Spadra Landfill will close in June 1999, requiring City refuse to be carted
further at greater cost.
Analysis
There were four sub tasks performed to clearly identify the scope and impact of
extending recycling to the MFR sector. These included: 1) meet with the Permittee, 2)
analyze data, 3) establish a pilot program, and 4) prepare a report of findings. These
sub tasks are discussed below with the exception of sub task 3 that is the subject of this
report and sub task 4 that is discussed below.
The pilot program was discussed with some representatives of MFRs, however, pilot
testing was postponed. This was due to four circumstances: 1) timing was not the best
to set up the program and have viable results given the tardiness of information received
from the haulers; 2) the issue of fairness given who among the 20 complexes in the City
would be given this preferential treatment; and 3) the hauler situation was not yet
resolved with respect to the merger of Waste Management and USA Waste; and 4)
given the above and partly in retrospect, it was felt that a pilot test would not yield
sufficient data to warrant the expenditure. As a result, the pilot program testing was
postponed to a later date.
Meet with the Permittee
The City and JMH met with Waste Management (the merged hauler) in August 1998 to
discuss the potential program. Another meeting was held in December 1998 to discuss
additional details. The hauler agreed to work with the City on development of a
program.
Page 4 On extending mandatory recycling to muftl4amily residences 1/29/99
Analyze the Data
Data previously disclosed in the Task Force were evaluated by JMH. Five factors were
considered in the evaluation: diversion impact, cost, equipment, waste prevention
incentives, and institutional impacts.
T9 aid in this evaluation, a review was performed of solid waste and recycling services in
cities similar to Diamond Bar, especially in the East San Gabriel Valley, and throughout
Los Angeles County. It was found that no published information readily exists
documenting services for MFRs in the immediate area. Recent published studies such
as by Hilton Famkopf & Hobson (HFH) lack any information about MFR recycling.
However, there are some programs that JMH is familiar with and that are identified and
discussed below. It is noted that these programs are atypical and not the norm within
the County. MFR programs are the most difficult to implement and maintain among
municipal recycling activities according to many experts for the reasons cited above.
In Azusa, the hauler was required by contract to set up and service recycling at a select
number of MFR complexes. Azusa has a residential sector that is comprised of 50%
apartments. That makes a MFR program very important. As a result, the City specified
MFR recycling in its 1995 amended contract with its franchise hauler. The complexes
were chosen by the City staff, and were implemented in 1996. The programs still
operate and are quite successful according to building owners participating in the
project According to City officials, refuse bins were replaced one for one by recycling
bins and the existing cost of service was not changed. Cost savings are taken by the
hauler to offset its processing costs for the mixed paper collected in the bins. The
diversion rate is estimated to range between 10% to 20%. for this program at the
participating complexes.
In Covina, the City of Covina engaged the services of a consultant to perform waste
audits and to technically assist MFR complexes to implement the findings. There were
over a dozen complexes implemented including barrel -served units and bin -served units.
The programs operated successfully in part for over two years but the hauler later
abandoned the projects since they were not required to continue them by Covina.
Complexes that contained lower per capita income tenants fared poorly compared to
those involving higher per capita income residents. It might be deduced that income
level equates with higher education and less transience among tenants, hence there is a
higher potential for program participation.
Page 5 On extending mandatory recycling to multi -family residences 1/29/99
In Lakewood, the City worked with its local hauler to undertake a pilot program for
MFRs. About 2,000 of the estimated 4,000 MFR units in the City participated in the
effort. Again, low income MFRs fared poorly in terms of participation than high income
MFRs. In addition, the City's effort was highly instrumental in establishing the programs
as a success. When the staff supervised the collection route, the diversion level was
high, the routing was efficient, and the contamination was less than 5%. However, when
the hauler conducted the program unsupervised, contamination rose to a high level,
routing became highly inefficient, and the diversion level dropped to a low level. Since it
was too costly to pay for staff assistance on the level required to maintain the program,
the effort was terminated with the exception of two complexes who continue the program
to this day. The mixed paper is now collected as part of a materials recovery facility
program involving semasorted waste paper for recycling.
In Torrance, the City of Torrance used a system similar to that in Covina. However, the
system is open in Torrance for MFRs and commercial waste, so it was fairly easy to
acquire a competitor to handle refuse and recycling at a discounted price for any MFR
complex targeted. This program reportedly continues successfully to this day.
In Redondo Beach, the hauler was required to provide recycling services and the
residents required to pay a two dollar surcharge per complex unit. The hauler placed 90
gallon barrels conveniently throughout participating complexes, and the mixed
recyclables were collected. The program reportedly continues to this day.
Based on the above, there is ample anecdotal evidence that MFR recycling using
separate collection methods can be implemented successfully especially in high income
areas such as Diamond Bar, depending upon situation, pricing, and competition.
However, there is at least one other technical option that could be considered. That is
processing all MFR refuse at a materials recovery facility or MRF. As noted above, this
is how the two complexes in Lakewood now recycle their waste paper.
To participate in a MRF program, residents need not conduct any separation since the
refuse is processed at a centralized facility. Tenants place recyclables and trash in the
same container. At the MRF, recyclables are sorted out. This latter option is attractive
in that it solves the space issue (no extra bins needed), allows any complex to
participate, does not interfere with any existing recycling effort (tenants can still recycle
their own cans and bottles if they like), and probably costs less than separate collection
given the circumstances in Diamond Bar.
Page 6 On extending mandatory recycling to multi-tamily residences 1/29199
In fact, at one MFR complex that has bins, a representative stated that rates per unit
were about $4 per month, which is of course much lower than for SFR collection and
recycling. Representatives of area MRFs state that the cost of MRFing will increase
collection costs by no more than 40%. If this is so, then the likely increase per unit of
about $1.60 (based on our above example) would be less than the expected cost of
implementing separate bins which cost about $2 per unit per month in SFRs 4 This does
not include the added benefit of convenience.
With respect to diversion rate, it can be expected that from 10% to 25% of MFR waste
can be recovered through effective implementation of any combination of MRFing and
separate collection. This means that full implementation of these programs should divert
at least 2.5% of residential waste, equating to less than 2% diversion, to a probable
maximum of 4% of residential waste, equating to about 3% diversions This implies that
any attempt to divert MFR waste will not be very significant to the City's diversion rate;
but, the impact will be felt positively by all the public since SFRs already are required to
recycle. The issue of fairness and sharing are important here and should not be
discounted in any discussion.
With respect to cost, the charge to recycle should vary from $1.60 to $2 per unit per
month. This is very much less than the potential negative cost to the City if -the State
were to find the City noncompliant in recycling since the SRRE specifies that MFR
recycling would be implemented. The state can levy a fine of up to $10,000 per day per
each day the City is out of compliance with the law.
With respect to implementation issues, the greatest difficulty will be getting all MFR
owners and managers (O&Ms) on the same page. This means that the City will need to
work closely with O&Ms to set up quality and consistent programs, and to devise the
best mechanism that assures that all O&Ms cooperate so that no complex receives
some unfair advantage or benefit.
The probable approach to getting all O&Ms on the same page is to conduct a workshop
(one or more) among them so that the specifics of the program can be explained and
promoted. This workshop would act to unify MFR complexes toward the desired
4 Currently. SFR* pay $2 per month for the curbside recycling program whether they use the program or not. Recycling Is
not Itemized In the billing.
5 The diversion rate is actually based on disposal quantity and can be obtained by muttiplying 70% of the
entire waste stream by the percentage of waste in MFRS (25%) by the expected diversion rates (10% and
25%), and then adjusted for the existing diversion rate of 38% as calculated by the City.
Page 7 On extending mandatory recycling to muld4amily residences 1129199
pathway, namely that the City would enact ordinance changes that would require a level
of service similar to SFRs. While the provisions would not need to specify the actual
program, there would be a need to identify a deadline and standard for all to comply
with.
The probable options that would be available to MFRs include: 1) send their wastes to a
MRF; 2) set up a separate collection program for mixed recyclables; 3) set up yard
waste recycling; 4) set up a junk mail recycling program; and 5) any combination of the
above. Complexes would have to provide tenants with educational information about
household hazardous wastes and waste prevention. City or hauler brochures could be
used in lieu of their own information.
It is expected that any effort to set up mandatory recycling will be met with some
resistance. MFR recycling is among the most difficult to implement, and past experience
shows that voluntary efforts failed in 1996. However, SFRs all pay equally for the
opportunity to recycle, so it is a question of fairness that MFRs also participate in
recycling. Allowing MFRs the option of choosing what is best for them is perhaps the
best answer so long as they do choose an approach. It will be up to the City and to the
haulers to enforce any new code requirements in this area.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the City Council instruct staff to initiate development of a
common set of programs, to meet with O&Ms of MFRs in the City, and to draft language
for modifying the existing solid waste and recycling ordinance to mandate extending
recycling service to the MFR sector. The essential circumstance in recommending this
is that there is less than two years left to meet the 50% diversion mandate. While the
City's apparent diversion rate is 38%, this is still 12% short of the mandate. Full
implementation of the system should yield up to 3% diversion. It is not clear as to the
extent of rate impact from implementation of this program. However, some estimates
place the impact of implementing MFR collection ranging from a $1.60 to about $2 per
household per month, depending upon the specific configuration of refuse and recycling
at each complex and the existing refuse rate paid by the consumer.
On the other hand, if the mandate is not met and this program is not implemented, there
could be a fine imposed by the CIWMB that could result in a maximum penalty of
$10,000 per day, or a net cost to each MFR unit of $26 per month. This penalty would
Page 8 On extending mandatory recycling to multi -family residences 1/29/99
greatly exceed the cost of the recommended program. In addition, there is the matter of
the impending closure of Spadra Landfill and other nearby sites, which would negatively
impact the cost of refuse collection if the program were not implemented.
However, prior to implementation, the City Council should carefully consider the
aforementioned issues and extend mandatory MFR recycling collection as part of an
overall strategic plan for refuse and diversion. While there is no absolute need to award
an exclusive arrangement to a single hauler to implement the programs, keeping the
system open would require a greater effort on the part of the City to "police" the system
of haulers, and to change the solid waste ordinance to more closely regulate activities.
This would assure the City that the program was being implemented properly by all of
the service providers without giving any competitive advantage to any one.
-- Consequently, City Council should delay final decision on the matter until completion of
all of the five studies.
Schedule
The program will require at least two months of advance study and development to work
out the details and probable menu of options for the City's MFR O&Ms. Then, another
two months would be necessary to draft and approve ordinance changes. Finally, if the
program is acceptable to the City and the MFRs, then two months prior to the new
program, the hauler(s) would send out a mailer to each individual tenant about the new
program. This will be followed up with intensive publicity and a final notice to be sent out
one month in advance. The mailers will explain the program as well as to instruct
tenants as to any type of actions they might be required to undertake.
At least two weeks prior to start-up, advertisements will be placed in all newspapers and
on the local cable channel informing the residents about the new program.
-- At least two weeks prior to start-up, new containers will be delivered to each individual
complex if necessary. Attached to the containers will be color signage, if required,
explaining the new program and how to take care of the new containers, if any. This
information will also contain details about rates.
During the early development of the program, the City should expect to host one or more
meetings with groups of MFR OBMs to explain the new program and solicit input into its
design.
Page 9 On extending mandatory recycling to multi4amiiy residences 1/29/99
The entire program could be set up and implemented within an eight-month period once
approval is voted by the City Council. This will allow the hauler and MFR O&Ms time to
make any necessary purchases. The text for any code changes will. be developed later.
Page 10 On extending mandatory recycling to multi -family residences 1/29/99
I i........._.....i .. . . ...: 4
SCHEDULE OF MAXIMUM CHARGES
Permittee Billing
1. Residential Collection, Disposal and Recycling Services:
A. Single Family Residences: $ 16.40 per month.
y B. Special Services per Single Family Residence:
Senior Discount 15% off services rendered
2. Commercial/Multi-Family Bin Rates (Selected Bins - Monthly Rate)'
3. Recycling Services:
A. Commercial/Multi-Family (one 3 cubic yard bin - Monthly Rate)
1 x week „S 45.00
2 x week $ 80.00
® wwo wnrpwnsw of sin Gob w cny of D&Wnd eu
First in
2 Cubic Yard 1 x week
$ 55.00
First in
Each Additional Bin
3 Cubic Yard 1 x week
$ 75.00
$ 65.00
2 x week
$120.00
$110.00
3 x week
$ 165.00
$ 155.00
4 x week
S210.00
$ 200.00
5 x week
S 255.Q
$ 245.00
6.x week
,$ 320.00
$ 300.00
First Bin
Each Additional gin
& Cubic Yard 1 x week
100.00
$ 90.00
2 x week
-$160,00
$ 150.00
3 x week
$ 230.00
$ 220.00
4 x week
,$ 300.00
$ 290.00
5 x week
$ 370.00
$ 360.00
6 x week
S 460.00
$ 450.00
3. Recycling Services:
A. Commercial/Multi-Family (one 3 cubic yard bin - Monthly Rate)
1 x week „S 45.00
2 x week $ 80.00
® wwo wnrpwnsw of sin Gob w cny of D&Wnd eu
I B. Industrial/Roll-off 40. 10 cubic yard container
(Designated Items - Per Drop -Off)
i
` ,S200.00 Per Haul
S 50.00 Delivery
4. 40 Cubic Yard Roll -Off Container S440.00
.5. 10 Cubic Yard Roll-OfffLow Boy Box $440.00
6. Temporary Service (3 cubic yard/1 pick-up) 90.0
7. Re -Delivery and Re-Instat--ment Charge S 25-00
In each case, lower rates may be charged depending on the actual cost of
providing service.
®
Waste
ast a ,t ,.g mHu or San a~ CRY ofMi rnond 2V
r
—2—
+
ATTACMMNT 1 PAGE 3 OF 4
USA WASTE
City of Diamond Bir
1998 Rate Schedule
Current
Proposed
Residential Rates:
Monthly Rate
Rate 5/1/98
Single-family residential includes 1-95 gallon
=f`tash cart and 1-18 gallon recycle basket
$ 13.33/month
$13.60/month
Each additional trash carts (up to 4 carts)
$ 2.00/month
$2.00/month
Each additional recycle basket
No Charge
No Charge
Senior/Disabled Rate
$ 11.33/month
$11.55/month
(15% off services rendered)
Commercial Multi -Family Rates:
Tg=gM Bin Rates:
1- 3 Cubic Yard Bin, 3 days
$ 60.95
$ 62.05
1- 3 Cubic Yard Bin, One month (4 weeks)
$106.70
$108.60
Permanent Bin Rates:
(Maximum amount presented)
1 - 2 Cubic Yard 1 x per week
$ 42.00
$ 42.75
1- 3 Cubic Yard 1 x per week
$ 57.15
$ 58.20
1 - 3 Cubic Yard 2 x per week
$ 93.50
$ 95.20
1- 3 Cubic Yard 3 x per week
$129.85
5132.20
1- 3 Cubic Yard 4 x per week
$171.45
$174.55
1- 3 Cubic Yard 5 x per week
5207.80
$211.55
1- 3 Cubic Yard 6 x per week
$311.75
$317.35
1- 6 Cubic Yard 1 x per week
$114.30
$116.40
1- 6 Cubic Yard 2 x per week
$187.00
$190.40
1- 6 Cubic Yard 3 x per week
5259.70
$264.40
1- 6 Cubic Yard 4 x per week
$342.90
$349.10
1- 6 Cubic Yard 5 x per week
$415.60
$423.10
1- 6 Cubic Yard 6 x per week
$623.50
$634.70
ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE 4 pF 4
City of Diamond Bar
Rate Schedule
Page 2
Current
- Proposed
Commercial R nc Wa sl —
Monthly Rate
Mate 5/1/98
(Cardboard or Commingled)
1— 3 Cubic Yard 1 x per week
S 30.00
$ 30.00
1— 3 Cubic Yard 2 x per week
S 60.00
$ 60.00
1— 6 Cubic Yard 1 x per week
S 50.00
$ 50.00
Temvorary Roll OffRates•
(10, 25 and 40 Cubic Yard Containers for up to
7 days)
Refuse price per pull (up to 5 tons)
$295.00
$300.30
Recycle price per pull plus any recycle fee
$180.00
$180.00
Permanent Roll OffRates:
Per pull rate plus dump fee
$125.-$180.
S 125.-$180.
(Price depends on distance from landfill)
FAUMILE
To: David G. Liu, P.E.
Of. City of Diamond Bar
Fax: (909) 861-3117
Phone: (909) 396-5671
Pages: 1, including this cover sheet.
Date: August 18, 1998
Herein I provide the specifications of the solid waste and recycling program for the
residential sector. I plan to forward these to Mike Stephan by Wednesday, August 19'1,1998
with your permission. .
Green Waste Collection
All single-family homes will be included in a green waste collection system that will be
based on each home receiving a single, 64 -gallon wheeled cart complete with odor control
venting and lid. This cart will be filled by residents and collected weekly by the hauler on
the regular trash collection day. The automated cart can contain yard debris including grass
clippings, weeds, and trimmings, but no plastic bags, wood stumps, cacti, or palm fronds,
wood and roofing materials, nor sticks/brush longer than three feet or of greater diameter
than 3 inches. Since single-family homes generate 90% of all yard waste, this should divert
about 10 to 15% of the City's waste stream. It is noted that any homeowner who attends a
compost workshop and receives a compost unit, will be eligible for a rebate by the hauler
in the amount of the standard green waste charge which could be set based on the avoided
capital cost of the barrel and the associated collection and disposal fee.
Automated Collection
All single-family homes will be included in an automated collection program based on a
three barrel system. The three barrels that will be provided to each include the above-
mentioned green waste container, a 96 -gallon refuse wheeled cart with lid, and a 64 -gallon
wheeled can with lid for mixed recyclables. All three containers must be set out on the
appropriate trash day alongside the curb.
From the desk of...
J. NO" Huls, R.E.A
588 E. FoO&M Bkl&, Suit 107
AMMi. CA 91702
(628) NO -7818
Foc (828) 989-7854
Fax to David Liu
Page 2
Variable Rate System
August 17, 1998
The variable rate system will be based on the three barrel system described above. A set
charge should be developed for all three barrels, based on the 96-64-64 gallon volume ratio.
Any additional refuse containers would be charged at no more than $5 each, while additional
recycling and green waste barrels would be complimentary. As an incentive, homeowners
who reduce their waste and require a smaller barrel, should be able to obtain a 64 -gallon
refuse container, at a specified discount. This discount could be 10% to 20% of the refuse
rate.
Recycling Collection
The recycling container is described above, and recyclables will include all items of paper,
glass, metals, and specific plastics. Materials must be devoid of food waste and organic
debris. No grass clippings will be accepted..
Cost Specifications
Pricing systems must be specified on two year, five year, and 10 year periods. Costs should
be identified for each barrel and level of service, additional barrels, and any additional
services to be provided including set out service. Discounts for home composting and waste
prevention should also be identified
Additional Specifications
The City desires to continue certain aspects of the existing permit system, including the four
bulky item pick-ups, used oil collection, complimentary city facilities collection, and others
specified in the permit terms.
Carol Herrera
Mayor
Wen Chang
Mayor Pro Tem
Eileen R. Ansari
Council Member
Robert S. Huff
Council Member
Deborah H. O'Connor
Council Member
Recvded papas
vccovor ,<5, 1998
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 • Diamond Bar, CA 917654177
(909) 860-2489 • Fax (909) 861-3117
Intemet http://www.ci.dianwnd-bar.ca.us • Cit Online MS (909) 860-5463
Ms. Esther Barry
2040 Chestnut Creek
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Ms. Barry:
We are in receipt of your letter dated September 11, 1998. On behalf of the
City of Diamond Bar, thank you very much for your comments regarding the
reoommendations of the Solid Waste Standards Task Forex. The City shares your
concern about any change in the existing services for solid waste, especially as it
might impact the City's senior citizens. As you surmised, considerable discussion
has occurred, the purpose of which was to help identify potential solid waste
management and recycling options available to the City to comply with
environmental regulations and maintain legally required disposal capacity for our
solid waste.
As you may be aware, the Stair of California enacted a law in 1990 that requires
the City to reduce waste disposal by 50 % by the year 2000. To meet this
mandate requires considerable change in how refuse is collected and prevented on
the part of businesses and residents. Coupled with this unfunded mandate is the
looming landfill issue whereby close -by and inexpensive disposal sites will no
longer be available. We need to plan for the time where we will be required to
send our waste to remote sites. Most likely, we will be forced to change our
existing system in some way to reduce collection and transfer costs to the
minimum, or be forced to pay very high rates.
Please be assured that the City will deliberate any proposais/recommendations to
change the solid waste and recycling system carefully, with particular attention paid
to the impacts upon our senior citizens, our disabled residents, and others for
whom any change might prove a challenge. The City will weigh all factors and
if changes are indicated for the purpose of meeting unfunded environmental
mandates by the State of California, it will work closely with the service providers
to assure a minimum of inconvenience.
At this time the City Council has directed staff to study each of the Solid Waste
Standards Task Force r000mmendatio>s and to report the results of the study. The
reports will not be completed until February 1999.
41T,f'eW, fVT .3
Area Refuse Rates --
Sorted
Sorted Lowest to Hinhest with Diversion Proorams and Rates 1995
PMM {A.Aft"CwmringdtiAv r 1M=WdS�
At pceaatA, our pwnned ha krs divert less titan 10% of lite waste dtey haW. This means that more than 2n of
the City of Dismaod Bar's &vanon comes from private sector and City efforts to divert materials.
Costs ace dcffak to ideadiy for dcvmion pmams inasmuch as they are tied directly to other factors including
whether services are artamated, the dist som to disposal sites, lite ]p m —Dee of transfer facilities the aumba of
served households, and more. In geaaat, we can estimate such Dost: as follows:
■
Green waste collection manual
■
Gram waste collection automated
■
curbside collection manual
■
N«w�As
WA
am
1
11Ai
■
33%
Le wMM+
10 a7
+Jl
am
12M
Variable rates
uMS"n
La VMM
10i3
8A0
1.sa
1211
M
2l%
Aa
us
0.00
1.73
12.23
VagM no
12%
oaMs
a"
ail
a"
12A
M
23%
s@MWM h
11.81
1.18
aw
M GMWWto
23%
Wstnut
"As
am
ago
1324
no
20%
n"e" s
10.18
an
am
13i
M no
30%
am MM"
1114
2M
am
law
MVes M &Gufs
38%
WestarA
1224
tis
0.14
047
no
33%
'eme
14.74
am
Lao
14.74
unknown
obeesn
11.08
oil
i.1a
14.79
no
27%
G MWA
law
GA01
20a
11.71
20%
PMM {A.Aft"CwmringdtiAv r 1M=WdS�
At pceaatA, our pwnned ha krs divert less titan 10% of lite waste dtey haW. This means that more than 2n of
the City of Dismaod Bar's &vanon comes from private sector and City efforts to divert materials.
Costs ace dcffak to ideadiy for dcvmion pmams inasmuch as they are tied directly to other factors including
whether services are artamated, the dist som to disposal sites, lite ]p m —Dee of transfer facilities the aumba of
served households, and more. In geaaat, we can estimate such Dost: as follows:
■
Green waste collection manual
■
Gram waste collection automated
■
curbside collection manual
■
Cmbi& collection automated
■
Campodfaiity tippin coat
■
Transfer fsctl'ty tipping Goat
■
MRF ting cost
■
Iaodfill ADC
■
LandfiII rate
■
Variable rates
Probable Costs by Option
$1.75 per month per household
52.45 to $4.00 per month per household
$1.00 to 52.00 per month per botndwId
52.00 to 53.00 per month per household
525 to 535 per ton
S 10 to S20 per ton
S35 to S50 per ton
% gate rate or -01.50 per ton at Puente Hills
-817 per ton at Puente Hills
loaeases of S2 per can or mere per mouth
■ Option 1 could increase refuse rates from Sl to 52.00 per month*
■ Option 2 could incrum refuse rates from 52.00 to 53.00 per month'
■ Option 3 could increase refuse rata 53:00 or more per mouth*
Mese colts include considumna of avoided dupood colts sod maassed collection afftamota from automated
- collection and namsliratm of collection prubms. Acetal ousts will be dw muwd by sav= provider bid.
3
2040 Chestnut Cheek
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
11 September 1998
Dave Reynolds
Diamond Bar Solid Waste Task Force
Members of Diamond Bar City Council:
�Y
A174'0ffAI1,evT 4
After reading the recommendations of the Solid W
speak for anv other little (99 lb.), old (75+ este Task Force, I feel the need to
may also be living alone in their ownsingle Tamil S o� Citizens of Diamond Bar who
who see a few problems with the Proposals ay (not in property) and
s published
Windmill. I am sure a lot of discussion has ha in the current issue of The
but was there anyone in my category ed and the ieport.is very well worded,
to admit to being a "minority of one "ho had input into the proposals, or am I about
These are my concerns:
l My driveway is rather steep and I would be
unable to wheel
container up and down the drive. a larger, filled trash
2. Would I have to pay someone to
3. Should I just hope some friend or perform
neighbor wo ask°T me every week?
4. Would I have to move out of m happen along to help me?
MY home, the only p]� 1 have where my husband
and I were together before he died, and move into some place with managed
care and no property of my own?
5. 1 can manage my own 33 -gallon containers with
6. I can keep the cans lined with the help of a hand cart.
7. Some of us older ladies do our own card oto keep them reasonably c]�,
y �, which means we do have `'grecs"
waste in our containers
and no one to haul it away except the trash hauler.
Do the majority of Diamond Bar homeowners
services that we pay for? Granted that really
trash is want to lose freedom of choice for
sake
to be regimented for the not particularly attractive, do we need
Of aesthetics on collection day?
Do the citizens of neighboring cities like Brea like having been f
trash containers, too large for small forced to have gigantic
People to handle, fences moved in order to "hide" the
containers, gates rebuilt so the
large containers would go through?
Thank you for your attention.
i
a
Letter to Ms. Barry
October 15, 1998
Page 2
If you have further questions or comments, Please feel free to contact me at (909) 396-5671
or our Integrated Environmental Services Coordinator, J. Michael Huls, at (626) 969-7816.
Sincerely,
David G. Liu, P.E.
Deputy Director of Public Works
DGL:Is
c: City Council
Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
David Reynold, DBIA
;/J. Michael Huls, Integrated Environmental Services Coordinator
0'*T" L NUkA"T%WANTA- =AUY1.d14
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 29, 1999
TO: Terrence L Belanger, City Manager
FROM: David G. Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works
J. Michael Huls, REA, Integrated Environmental Services Coordinator
CC: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DIAMOND BAR
SOLID WASTE STANDARDS TASK FORCE — SINGLE SERVICE
PROVIDER FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
Executive Summary
This report represents the fifth of five reports on recommendations made by the
Diamond Bar Solid Waste Standards Task Force. This report presents the findings of
staff regarding a single service provider for refuse and recycling for the residential
sector. In this report you will find rate impacts, implementation issues, information
about equipment, diversion potential, and scheduling resulting from such programs, if
enacted.
It was found by the Solid Waste Standards Task Force (Task Force) that the existing
system of refuse collection and recycling for the residential sector yields a relatively low
level of diversion. In addition, the open -style system is found only among recently
incorporated cities. Nearly all cities in Los Angeles County have closed systems for the
collection of refuse and recyclables in the residential sector. Does that mean that the
City should follow the path taken by these cities, or should it stay the course?
This report recommends that the City should implement a system that complements the
recommendations of the previous four reports. This system can be either open or
closed. However, in order to maximum the benefits to the residents, it is recommended
that the following items be done:
1. A minimum length of term beset for a permit or contract of about 10 years or less;
2. The City specify the minimum diversion and programmatic requirements under which
hauler(s) will perform duties; and
Page 1 On selecting a single service provider for refuse and recycling 1129199
3. The City negotiate an arrangement in which permittees or contractees compensate
the City for the °right to collect residential refuse and recyclables (a gross receipts
fee, for instance).
The basis for this is the existing state law requiring implementation of diversion
programs by each and every jurisdiction in California meet a goal of 50% diversion by
tha statutory deadline of January 1, 2000.
It is expected that a single service provider system could be implemented at a rate
competitive with that enjoyed by adjoining cities, with significant compensation to the
City for its costs of street maintenance and other activities. While rate setting authority is
not absolutely necessary to the system, it is recommended that the City acquire that
authority.
It is recommended that City Council review this staff report on the findings of the study
performed by J. Michael Huls, REA, the City's Integrated Environmental Services
Coordinator. At this time, City Council should consider this report in the context of all
five reports.
Purpose
As per the instructions of City Council:
'JMH will prepare the report of findings. JMH will formulate recommendations based on
the results ... This report will contain the specifications of the program, issues of
implementation and design, and their resolution, identification of incentive actions that
reward waste prevention and recycling, documentation of probable costs, presentation of
a timetable for implementation, and provision of text for adoption of the program, if
warranted, in the City Code.'
Background
It is known that residential waste represents the majority of refuse collected and
disposed in Diamond Bar. Residential waste is substantively different from commercial
waste in that each discrete generator, i.e., the household, produces waste that is
collected normally each week. As identified in earlier reports, residential waste in
divided into two groups: single family residences (SFRs) and multifamily residences
(MFRs). SFRs are most often detached homes and each household has one or more
Page 2 On selecting a single service provider for refuse and recycling 1/29199
containers ranging in size up to 90 gallons capacity that are filled with trash and taken to
the curb to be collected by the hauler on the designated trash day. SFRs are also
afforded the opportunity of curbside collection of recyclables and used oil, both of which
are included in the monthly SFR rate, and complimentary home composting units.
Multi -family housing is divided into two types: those with barrels (i.e., services is similar
to•SFRs since units are detached and semi-detached condos and town homes), and
those with bins instead of individual containers. Bin -served accounts can be picked up
daily but no less than once per week.
Residential waste is the single largest sector of generation in the City. It is known that at
least 38,000 tons of waste based on the 1997 AB 939 Annual Report are collected and
disposed annually from residential sources. As a consequence, residential waste
diversion is the City's best hope for complying with AB 939.
As noted in earlier reports, the City does not control rates or collection, but it does
regulate collectors. Rate setting authority is most often contained in city ordinances. In
Diamond Bar, prospective haulers must obtain permits, and are held accountable to
various code standards, many of which are derived from County and State code
provisions and regulations, and accepted industry sanitary and safety practices. At
present, thea are three firms who have permits or are in some phase of application.
Waste Management is the newly merged corporation consisting of USA Waste and
Waste Management, Inc. Waste Management now collects about 70% of all waste
disposed from Diamond Bar sources based on the aforementioned Attachment 1.
Waste Management also collects about 99% of all SFR waste and recyclables set out at
the curb.
Two firms, Modem Services Company and Valley Vista Disposal, have operated for
several years, and collect an estimated combined 11% of the waste stream based on
Attachment 1. Modem Services is the larger of the two in Diamond Bar and it collects
waste from a few businesses, schools, and MFR accounts. Valley Vista collects
principally from a few businesses near the 60 freeway.
The remaining 19% is hauled by self -haulers or illegally by companies not permitted to
do so in Diamond Bar. Self -haulers include landscapers, gardeners, roofers, residents
and businesses doing an occasional load of debris, and construction and demolition
companies. They probably collect about 80% of this 19% segment of the market share.
Page 3 On selecting a single service provider for refuse and recycling 1/29/99
The small segment collected by illegal operators is difficult to control and remains an
ongoing effort since operators change constantly, and inadequate resources exist to
catch and prosecute these offenders.
Since Diamond Bar is essentially an open competition jurisdiction with regards to refuse,
is this the norm or a significant variation from the norm? In Los Angeles County, there
are 88 jurisdictions. Of these, it is known that six, including Diamond Bar, feature some
level of open competition. Interestingly, these six (Diamond Bar, Malibu, La Habra
Heights, Westlake Village, Agoura Hills, and La Canada Flintridge) have all incorporated
within the last few years with the exception of La Habra Heights. That City just
celebrated its 201' anniversary of incorporation.
Therefore, the norm for cities in LA County is to limit to one or two haulers who collect
refuse from all residential accounts. Diamond Bar has three haulers, but could have
more since competition is not limited except that each hauler must be permitted by the
City. In terms of commercial waste, there is no norm for franchising, and in fact, many
cities maintain dual systems in which the residential sector is franchised and the
commercial sector is not.
Does a single service provider system create some benefit or tangible asset to the City
or its residents? We can review what benefits or tangible assets cities that franchise or
contract services receive, and then compare that to Diamond Bar. We do this in the
section below.
Analysis
There were three sub tasks performed to clearly identify the scope and desirability of
establishing a single provider system. These included: 1) meet with the Permittee, 2)
analyze data, and 3) prepare a report of findings. These sub tasks are discussed below
with the exception of sub task 3 that is the subject of this report.
Meet with the Permittee
The City and JMH met with Waste Management (the merged hauler) to discuss the
potential program. After this meeting, JMH forwarded a specification of the desired
program (see Attachment 1). The hauler was to use this specification as the basis for
design and cost development. The hauler sent the City its reply in a letter to the Mayor
dated November 13, 1998 (see Attachment 2).
Page 4 On selectlng a single service provider for refuse and recycling 1129199
Analyze the Data
Based on Attachment 3 and other data previously disclosed in the Task Force, an
evaluation was conducted by JMH. Five factors were considered in the evaluation:
diversion impact, cost and benefits, equipment, waste prevention incentives, and
institutional impacts.
Diversion impacts — Cities opt for single provider systems because of a variety of
reasons, but diversion is one that can have impact. In some cases, haulers have argued
for a city to establish a franchise or contract especially for the commercial sector (which
tends to be less restricted than residential) so that all waste generated in a jurisdiction
could be directed to a mass processing facility. Obviously, economy -of -scale
considerations apply here, and the argument goes that with the greater tonnage it is
more economical to process the waste. Such centralized facilities promise high
diversion rates from mixed refuse, although there is little supporting documentation of
the claim.
For curbside recycling, there is no documented evidence that single service provider
sponsored programs achieve higher diversion' than openly competitive systems.
However, there is no evidence that openly competitive systems achieve higher rates
either. The conventional wisdom is that fewer haulers means less monitoring effort on
the part of the jurisdiction with regards to their diversion activities. And, there may be
some benefits to ease of implementation of programs since collection routing is
standardized.
Cost and benefits — A review was performed of single service provider efforts in cities
similar to Diamond Bar, especially in the East San Gabriel Valley. The intent was to
study what benefits accrue to the so-called "closed" cities and what advantages might
exist for "open" cities to remain open. We have selected below at random a few cities to
examine in detail their nate structures in comparison to Diamond Bar. These are
identified in the table that is shown on the next page.
Page 5 On selecting a single service provider for refuse and recycling 1/29/99
City Rates Comments
Monrovia:
$10.13 base rate (BR)
No franchise fee (FF) but some funds
franchise with
(w/ yard waste and recycling)
rebated to city monthly ($12,000). City is
Newco.
$1 other fees
automated with yard waste and curbside
$11.13 total rate TR
chn .
La Pua ft:
$10.87 BR (w/ recycling and yard
Automated with yard waste and curbside
recently
waste)
recycling.
franchised refuse
$1.20 FF
to Valley Vista.
$12.07 TR
Walnut Waste
$8.71 BR
FF set at 15%. Currently manual collection
Management
$1.53 FF
with intent to go automated with yard waste
$1.08 w/ recycling
and curbside recycling. If new program
$1.71 w/ yard waste
accepted, then TR will raise to $16.06 per
W/ A8939 fee: $0.23
month, with FF set at $1.50.
(new rate: $9.13 BR + $1.50 FF +
$2.30 recycle + 293 yard waste +
$0.20 A8939 fee = $16.08
Baldwin Park:
$10.51 BR
Hauler has not taken cost of living
Waste
$1.30 FF
adjustment for last two years.
Management
$1.16 w/ recycling
$12.97 TR
West Covina:
$12.34 BR (w/ yard waste collection)
Automated collection with two barrels, one
Athens Disposal
$1.39 FF
for greens and the other for refuse.
$0.14 other fees
Resident can choose between 60 gal and
$13.87 TR
90 gal container, with increase in rate for
larger container. Form of variable rate.
Diamond Bar:
$14.08 BR (w/ recycling)
City gets no FF. Semi-automatic system of
Open, permit
$0.35 w/ AB939 fee
collection only. Recycling cost not itemized
system.
$14.43 TR (WMI)
on billing to residents. Free compost
containers to residents not offered in any
$13.25 BR (w/ recycling)
other city at cost of $40 ea.
$0.35 w/ AB939 fee
$13.60 TR USA
It can be seen in this random selection that Diamond Bays system is less beneficial to
the City in terms of service levels to residents and revenue. Plus, Diamond Bars rates
are higher comparatively in this sample.
We can compare Diamond Bar to all cities in Los Angeles County. Using the Hilton
Famknopf & Hobson (HFH) report from September 1997 (see Attachment 3 for an
excerpt of this report on solid waste management in all 88 county jurisdictions), the
average base rate (exclusive of various city fees) throughout the county of Los Angeles
is about $12.27 per month. This includes both private and public collection, and such
expensive route as Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes, Avalon (the island
of Catalina), and Rancho Palos Verdes, where rates are double the cost in other
jurisdictions. This somewhat skews the results to the high end. Additionally, the base
rate in all of the reporting cities includes recycling and yard waste collection, many of
whom now offer automated, three -barrel systems.
Page 6 On selecting a single service provider for refuse and recycling 1/29/99
Diamond Bar does not regulate rates. Its base rates range from $13.25 to $14.08 per
month or an average of $13.66. The five other cities not regulating rates include Agoura
Hills, La Canada Flintridge, Westlake Village, La Habra Heights, and Malibu.
Unfortunately, rate information was not available for these cities. Nonetheless, it can be
stated that collection cost is a function of the number of stops. The larger the number of
stops the more costs can be distributed to reduce the per unit price. This is simple
economics. Therefore, in Diamond Bar, our rates should be higher than adjoining
jurisdictions since haulers have to apportion costs among a smaller segment of the
market.'
For those cities that have reported rates in the HFH study (about 70 out of 88
jurisdictions), 29 or 41 %, charge greater than the average base rate, but only 17 or 24%
report charging greater than the average base rate of Diamond Bar. This includes six
cities offering public collection of refuse and recycling. All six charge greater than both
the average monthly base rate and Diamond Bar's average rate.
Based on this, it would appear that Diamond Bar's average base rate may not be
competitive with rates currently charged in all other cities reporting in the County. If we
were to compare with all other reporting privately hauled 2cities, then the average base
rate of $12.23 still compares unfavorably with the base rate average in Diamond Bar of
$13.66. It is noteworthy that the comparison is between Diamond Bar, an open city, with
64 other closed systems. However, this seems to confirm the view that economy -of -
scale influences rates.
In those cities with more than one permitted or franchised hauler, the base rate and total
rates are standardized. If more than one hauler is present, then the service is distributed
geographically to eliminate multiple haulers on single streets. Therefore this is not an
aspect that can be compared with Diamond Bar.
Diamond Bar's average total rate of $14.01 would rank it at 44"' out of 70 reporting cities
today. If Diamond Bar were to institute a franchise fee, say the average fee of $0.50 per
household per month, then its refuse rate would be about $14.51 which would rank it
about 49"' of the 70 reporting cities today. Please be advised that this is an extremely
rough analysis of cost since there are many discrepancies in the data reported by the
' Please note that this pricing occurred prior to the merger of the two firms. Separated, each firm controlled about 35% of
the total waste load in Diamond Bar, and about 50% of the SFR waste.
2 Cities' residential waste is normally hauled municipally p.e., city vehicles) or prl Wy V.e., private contractor or
franchisee).
Page 7 On selecting a single service provider for refuse and recycling 1/18/99
cities, and the costs reported may or may not be accurate. In addition, there are many
variables as to why costs differ among cities including geography, population,
demographics, collection characteristics, and distance to landfills. In addition, costs
have changed slightly since 1997.
However, it can be stated that if the free enterprise system were operating exactly as
theory would indicate, Diamond Bar's rates should be among the lowest in the County.
This is not the case. In addition, the City is losing the potential for significant revenues
that could be derived from a franchise system for residential wastes. Again, it must be
stated in fairness that the smaller market segment afforded to each hauler precludes
offering a lesser price due to economy -of -scale considerations. That may no longer be
the case in Diamond Bar since only one hauler now collects the preponderance of
residential waste. In fact, conversations with the hauler, Waste Management, indicate
that all residents may soon receive the current lowest monthly rate. Please note that the
rate would still be higher than the noun.
Equipment — There is the claim that setting up automated refuse and recycling
systems, especially those that provide incentives, requires communities to award single
service provider contracts. It would seem logical that setting up standardized systems
for waste diversion as well as disposal requires a uniform level of participation and all
households to make it economical. For example, a hauler might have to make a
sizeable purchase of new containers and vehicles, necessitating some minimum service
level. However, some very small cities such as Bradbury have recently implemented
automated, 3 -barrel systems at less than 600 households, and the pricing structure there
is among the lowest in Los Angeles County (101" among 70 reporting jurisdictions).
This might indicate that there is no hard and fast rule with respect to anticipating the
costs of equipment It is known that in Diamond Bar, already significant numbers of
residents have automated equipment for refuse. This might lessen the cost impact on
the residential sector if collection were standardized and awarded to the existing service
provider currently handling 99% of all residential waste in the City.
Waste prevention incentives — If the City were to let a permit for refuse and recycling
services, it could specify that any service provider meet standard conditions of the permit
system. This would include any incentives. Incentives in previous reports has included
variable rates, where a SFR could pay less if they generate less waste. However, it
could also imply that the City might have to take on the position of regulating rates,
something it heretofore has not taken. The alternative to regulating rates is to stipulate
Page s on selecting a single service provider for refuse and recycling 1/29/99
by permit exactly the programs that could be offered and to require similar incentives.
For a small company in an open, competitive market, that might be difficult to comply
with. On the other hand, the open system might allow an unscrupulous operator to offer
lower rates than existing hauler(s), then curtail programs, saying residents would not
participate. It would be extremely difficult for the City to prove its case and terminate its
operating permit without a lengthy legal battle.
Institutional impacts — Given that the residential sector's refuse is now collected by a
single hauler (about 99%), then the overall impact of going to one hauler seems
relatively minor. It could be argued that in the absence of any other considerations, the
existing system is fine and need not be changed. However, the existing level of the rate
begs some adjustment and there is the matter of compliance with AB 939. In a single
hauler system it would be far easier and probably less expensive to implement
standardized programs as identified in the previous four reports. Also, and importantly,
the existing system most likely will not achieve the goal of 50% diversion as mandated
by AB 939 (our current rate is 37%).
This could be handled in two ways. One, the City could go out to bid. Second, the City
could negotiate with the existing residential hauler to set up a single price including the
permitting costs and other City fees. In either case, it would seem logical that the hauler
or haulers selected for the permit would desire a longer term arrangement. Both
approaches would provide cost stability for the City and its residents, a long term
location for disposal, and standardization of program elements. In the latter approach,
we can add minimization of disruption since there would be no noticing requirements of
other haulers and already the existing hauler handles about 70% of all waste.
A key consideration is that the City may need to take steps such as enacting a fee
ordinance to acquire rate setting authority in order to negotiate an acceptable rate.
Otherwise it has no authority to require the hauler to accept lower rates. A fee ordinance
- can also provide the City with the right to collect any surcharges from the hauler.
Recommendations
The primary recommendation is that the City Council instruct staff to initiate development
of a single service provider system. There may be a need at this juncture to modify the
existing solid waste and recycling ordinance to give the City authority to set rates,
Page 9 on selecting a single service provider for refuse and recycling 1129199
although the code already gives authority to the City Manager to extend permits of any
duration to haulers in the context of public need and safety.
A key factor to this recommendation is that already only one hauler currently services
the single family residential sector, and the majority of multi -family residences as well A
critical constraint is the monthly rate that would need to be negotiated and the possible
need for the City to develop rate setting authority.
The essential circumstance in recommending this is that there is only one year left to
meet the 50% diversion mandate, although we have until December 31, 2000 to
demonstrate compliance. The City's diversion rate is still only 38%, and this is 12%
short of the mandate. . Implementation of this system will not necessarily raise the
potential diversion rate, but it will simplify and help to rationalize implementation of
automated systems, curbside recycling, yard waste collection, and multi -family residence
recycling.
On the other hand, if the mandate is not met and this program is not implemented, there
could be a fine imposed by the CIWMB that could result in a maximum penalty of
$10,000 per day, or a net cost to each resdiential unit of $26 per month. This penalty
would greatly exceed the cost of the recommended program. In addition, there is the
matter of the impending closure of Spadra Landfill and other nearby sites, which would
negatively impact the cost of refuse collection if the program were not implemented.
Please be advised that the State will soon announce that three cities in Los Angeles
County will be put under enforcement action for non-compliance with AB 939. The cities
were evaluated for compliance with their SRREs, and placed on a compliance schedule.
If the targets under the compliance order are not met, then fines would be instituted.
The CIWMB reiterates its intent to fully discharge its responsibilities under the law.
However, prior to implementation, the City Council should carefully consider the
aforementioned issues to develop a single service provider system as part of an overall
strategic plan for refuse and diversion. While there is no absolute need to award an
exclusive arrangement to a single hauler to implement the programs, keeping the
system open would require a greater effort on the part of the City to "police" the system
of haulers, and to change the solid waste ordinance to more closely regulate activities.
- This would assure the City that the program was being implemented properly by all of
the service providers without giving any competitive advantage to any one.
Page 10 On selecting a single service provider for ratuse and recycling 1/29/99
Consequently, City Council should delay final decision on the matter until it has
completed its review and consideration of all five studies.
Schedule
The schedule for this program would consist of three parts. First, the City must decide
ort whether it wants a multiple or single hauler environment for the residential sector.
The probable best way of approaching this is to initiate contact with the hauler currently
providing the bulk of residential sector collection, and to conduct negotiations to
establish a maximum monthly rate for residences. If an acceptable rate can be
developed, then the City may want to accept the premise of a single service provider for
the residential sector and to award a term permit of no more than 10 years. This would
require some modification of the existing City Code to implement as discussed earlier. A
period of one to two months would be needed to conduct negotiations. Thereafter, it
would take an estimated four months to implement the system excluding any scheduling
required for any specific component of the overall system. These were covered in
earlier reports. Code changes would be conducted during the same time period, but
would need to include rate setting authority and the enactment of a funding resolution.
If the pricing is unacceptable, then it will be necessary for the City to undergo a bidding
process for one or more service providers. At that point, firms would be invited to submit
qualification statements, from which at least three would be selected to submit detailed
bids. The bidding package would need to be detailed and specify the exact programs
desired by the City. Once received, the City would then choose one to three service
providers who could offer their services to residents. Permits would be standardized and
fees would be. submitted to the City on a gross receipts basis. This type of system would
take about three months to process including any requests for bids. Implementation
could take another four to six months to implement depending on the degree of
modifications required to bring the City Code into conformity.
The net impact is that this process would insure the City a competitive rate for residential
refuse and recycling services. The rate would probably be in line with adjoining cities'
rates.
Pape 11 On selecting a single service provider for refuse and recycling 1/29/99
ACSIMILE
To: David G. Liu, P.E.
Of: City of Diamond Bar
Fax: (909) 861-3117
Phone: (909) 396-5671
Pages: 1, including this cover sheet.
Date: August 18, 1998
Herein I provide the specifications of the solid waste and recycling program for the
residential sector. I plan to forward these to Mike Stephan by Wednesday. August 196, 1998
with your permission
Green Waste Collection
All single-family homes will be included in a green waste collection system that will be
based on each home receiving a single, 6410on wheeled cart complete with odor control
venting and lid This cart will be filled by residents and collected weekly by the hauler on
the regular trash collection day. The automated can can contain yard debris including grass
clippings, weeds, and trimmings, but no plastic bags, wood stumps, cacti, or palm fronds,
wood and roofing materials, nor sticks/brush longer than three feet or of greater diameter
than 3 inches. Since single-family homes generate 90% of all yard waste, this should divert
about lo to 15% of the City's waste stream. It is noted that any homeowner who attends a
compost workshop and receives a compost unit, will be eligible for a rebate by the hauler
in the amount of the standard green waste charge which could be set based on the avoided
capital cost of the barrel and the associated collection and disposal fee.
Automated Collection
All single-family homes will be included in an automated collection program based on a
three barrel sya m. The three barrels that will be provided to each include the above-
mentioned groes waste container, a 96 -gallon refuse wheeled art with lid, and a 64 -gallon.
wheeled cart with lid for mixed re cyclables. All three containers must be set out on the
appropriate trash day alongside the curb.
From the desk of...
J. MW" HuNk R.EA
566 E FoWN OW., auks 107
Asad, t".A 91702
(826) 09-7818
Fuc (CM) 968-7854
Fax to David Liu
Page 2
Variable Rate System
August 17, 1998
The variable rate system will be based on the three barrel system described above. A set
charge should be developed for all three barrels, based on the 96-64-64 gallon volume ratio.
Any additional refuse containers would be charged at no more than $5 each, while additional
recycling and groan waste barrels would be complimentary. As an incentive, homeowners
who reduce their waste and require a smaller barrel, should be able to obtain a 64 -gallon
refuse container, at a specified discount. This discount could be 10% to 20% of the refuse
rate.
Recycling Collection
The recycling container is described above, and recyclables will include all items of paper,
glass, metals, and specific plastics. Materials must be devoid of food waste and organic
debris. No grass clippings will be accepted.
Coat Specifications
Pricing systems must be specified on two year, five year, and 10 year periods. Costs should
be identified for each barrel and level of service, additional barrels, and any additional
services to be provided including set out service. Discounts for home composting and waste
prevention should also be identified
Additional Specifications
The City desires to continue certain aspects of the existing permit system, including the four
bulky item pick-ups, used oil collection, complimentary city facilities collection, and others
specified in the permit terms.
WASTE MANAGEMENT
San Gabriel /
Pomona Vallev District
13940 E. Live Oak Ave.
Baldwin Park, CA 91706
(626) %0-7551
(626) 814.1955 Fax
Ift
November 13, 1998
The Honorable Carol Herrera
Mayor
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Dear Mayor Herrera:
Thank you for the opportunity to address the City of Diamond Bar's Waste Collection and
Recycling program. To elaborate on Mike Stephan's September 13, 1998 letter responding
to Michael Hul's August 18, 1998 memo, in order for the City of Diamond Bar to meet it's
AB939 and AB 1820 goals, a number of key services and programs need to be
implemented. The City's Solid Waste and Recycling Task force identified these service
options in their final report. Based on those recommendations and our operational
experience, we would offer the following recommendations designated to assist the City in
meeting your State mandated recycling and diversion requirements.
Automated Green Waste Collection
Based on the City's solid waste composition analysis, the implementation of a uniform and
effective green waste program is the key element toward meeting your 50% diversion
mandate. We recommend an automated green waste program which would include a 64
gallon container with odor control venting and lid. Further, residents who choose a home
composting program would be supplied with a compost unit and could receive a rebate
based on avoided capital costs and disposal fees. Home compost programs require
significant education efforts and a specific time requirement. While we applaud and
encourage this effort, we believe the overwhelmipg number of residents will utilize the
green waste collection option.
As it relates to disposal of green waste, we would encourage the City to continue to utilize
the L.A. County Sanitation District's facilities at Puente Hills and Spadra. The County's
program offers diversion credit at the lowest possible cost.
A Division of USA Waste of California, Inc.
The Honorable Carol Herrera
Mayor
City of Diamond Bar
Even with the pending closure of Spadra, capacity at Puente Hills should continue to be
available. At such time as the City chooses to move in a new direction, Waste
Management offers cut and cover options at El Sobrante, Landcaster, and Chiquita Canyon
Landfills. We also operate numerous compost facilities and have recently received
approvals to establish a state of the art compost facility in the Antelope Valley.
We concur with the Solid Waste Committee and your consultant on the implementation of
an automated collection.system. This recommendation contemplates a 96 gallon wheeled
refuse container and two 64 gallon wheeled containers for recyclables and green waste.
Since our automated system can accommodate both 96 and 64 gallon containers, this ratio
is flexible and can be customized to meet an individual homeowner's requirements.
Variable Rates Structures
Waste Management concurs with Mr. Huls in his August 18, 1998 memo when he states:
"The variable rate system will be based on the three barrel system described above. A set
charge should be developed for all three barrels, based on the 96-64-64 gallon volume
ratio. Any additional refuse containers would be charged at no more than $S each, while
additional recycling and green waste barrels would be complimentary. As an incentive,
homeowners who reduce their waste and require a smaller barrel, should be able to obtain a
64 -gallon refuse container, at a specified discount. This discount could be 10% to 20% of
the -refuse rate."
Our only concern is that prior to making a large capital commitment regarding new
automated containers, we would work with Staff in developing a sample survey to
determine the vgriable ratio and options residents desire. This will allow us to order
containers which closely meet the needs of the community. .
Recycling Collection
We concur with the Solid Waste Committee and Mr. Huls on this proposal:
The recycling container described above, will more then double the capacity for recyclable
collection per household. The current list of acceptable and non -acceptable recyclable
materials is listed below. Once collected, the recyclables will be transported to a state of
the art recycling facility for processing. All collected material will count toward Diamond
Bar's overall AB939 recycling diversion percentage.
11/13/99 2 ANDRSN3.DOC
The Honorable Carol Herrera
Mayor
City of Diamond Bar
Accepted
• All Aluminum and steel cans
All colors of glass bottles & jars
• Clear, colored and white plastic containers if labeled O, 0, O, ®, A, ®, O on the
bottom
• Newspaper and inserts
• Junk mail
• White ledger paper
• Corrugated cardboard
• Magazines
• Colored and construction paper
• Cereal boxes (with liners removed)
• Telephone books
We Cannot Accept:
• Aluminum foil
• Scrap metal
• Window or safety glass
• Mirrors
• Light bulbs
• Styrofoam
• Wax -Paper
• Ceramics
• Drinking glasses
• Plastic bagi
• Plastic wrap
• Food waste
• Packaging Material
Disposal Capacity
Waste Management owns and operates several Southern California disposal facilities,
including, Bradley, Landcaster, Chiquita Canyon and El Sobrante landfills. These facilities
allow us to guarantee long term (15 years + ) disposal capacity for the City of Diamond
Bar.
11/13/98 3 ANDRSN3.DOC
The Honorable Carol Herrera
Mayor
City of Diamond Bar
Further, we have re-established and are currently operating a material recycling facility at
Azusa landfill. This facility allows us to process greenwaste and curbside recyclables.
�. 1
The Executive Summary of the Solid Waste Standards Task Force attachment identified a
range of costs for the implementation of these and other potential diversion programs.
These costs accurately reflect the current market place. While current rates are relatively
stable, there are two factors which could dramatically influence these costs.
1. Closure of Spadra Landfill in June of 1999.
2. Length of permit or franchise agreement.
When Spadra Landfill closes in June of next year, the City disposal cost will increase due
to the fact that haulers will have to travel further and pay higher tipping fees for disposal.
Since Waste Management currently services all single family residences and we own and
operate several regional disposal facilities, increases in residential disposal rates can be
softened and kept to a minimum.
However, commercial haulers which solely rely on access to Puente Hills and Spadra will
be required to travel further for disposal and/or pay significantly higher disposal rates at
local transfer facilities.
Secondly, the length of time the City allows us to operate, be it under a permit or exclusive
franchise agreement. will directly affect our amortization of new equipment. Standard
industry practices identifies a 7-10 amortization schedule for trucks, containers and other
related equipment. The longer the amortization schedule the lower the cost of providing
solid waste and recycling services to your constituents and our customers. We believe a
ten year timeframe falls within the industry standards and will keep price increases to a
minimum.
Seryice Schedule and Routing
Spadra Landfill, operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District is scheduled to
close next June. As the City of Diamond Bar's residential hauler, Waste Management
currently utilizes Spadra and the Puente Hills Landfills as our primary disposal sites. Due
to the fact that Puente Hills closes by late morning or early afternoon, it is imperative we
establish our routing and pickups to incorporate these factors. One method to address this
dilemma is to continue our current practice of five days per week pickup for residential
customers.
11/13/98 4 ANDRSN3.DOC
The Honorable Carol Herrera
Mayor
City of Diamond Bar
This schedule allows us to mirror local landfill operation schedules and help maintain the
lowest rates possible for Diamond Bar residents.
There are also a number of additional Benefits to five day schedules:
• Reduces the concentration of large trucks in the community.
• Allows for a dedicated fleet of refuse vehicles to service Diamond Bar.
• Provides for a full time supervisor available to City staff and residents.
• Requires that only 20% of the community adjust their current pickup day since we are
currently operating a five day a week program.
• Helps keep disposal costs at current levels.
• Allows continuity with street sweeping services.
While there has been some interest on the solid waste task force and the Council to
consider a one or two day a week schedule, we believe the above factors provide powerful
incentives for the City to maintain our existing schedule.
Outreach Programs
Waste Management will utilize as many means of media necessary in order to educate the
citizens of Diamond Bar of the new waste and recycling programs. Some 'of the programs
that Waste Management has utilized in the past but is not limited to are the following:
• 1/month prior to the new program a mailer will go out to each individual resident about
the new program. In this mailer it will briefly explain the new program as well as when
to expect the new containers.
• 2/weeks prior an advertisement will be placed in any and all of the local newspapers
informing the residents of the new program. In conjunction with the advertisements in
the local paper we can place a commercial on the local Cable Channel outlining the
new program.
• 2/weeks prior the new containers will be delivered to each individual house. Attached
to the containers will be two full color brochures explaining the new program and how
to take care of the new containers.
Along with the these efforts we plan to meet with various community groups and
organizations to discuss any and all improvements to the City's current solid waste and
recycling program.
11/13/98
ANDRSN].DOC
The Honorable Carol Herrera
Mayor
City of Diamond Bar
VVe concur with the City's desire to continue a bulky item pickup, used oil collection,
complimentary City facilities collection and other specified permit terms. As it relates to
bulky item pickup service, we currently provide this opportunity as part of our weekly
service or by special request.
Under an automated system, this program would require specific days and/or a special
request process. Automated vehicles are only capable of servicing standardized containers.
As always, we will work closely with the City to develop an appropriate program.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the City's Solid Waste and Recycling
programs. We look forward to working closely with your Honorable Council and City
Staff to insure the City meets the State mandate in recycling and diversion goals.
Si core
Chuck Dion
District Manager
cc: The Honorable Wen Chang, Mayor Pro -Tem
The Honorable Bob Huff, Councilmember
The Honorable Eileen Ansari, Councilmenber
The Honorable Debby O'Connor, Councilmember
Mr. Terrence Belanger, City Manager
Mr. David Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works
Mr. Michael Huls, Principal, J. Michael Huls, REA
11/13/98 6 ANDR5NIDOC
l�1 Waste Management
Waste Manayemem of San Gannet Pomona Viler P"cne5Z6.960755; • °09.5jp'it 4
13940 E. live Oar avenue Fax 626._38.5267
Baldwin Part, Caidomia 91706
November 3, 1998
�Y
The Honorable Carol Herrera
Mayor
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Dear Mayor Herrera:
Thank you for inviting Waste Management of San Gabriel/Pomona Valley and USA Waste to
participate in the City's Solid Waste and Recycling task force. Due to the active involvement of
the Council Staff and Residents, the process was comprehensive and productive. As the process
began, your two residential haulers, Waste Management and USA Waste were competitors, and
even though the task force was aware of the potential merger, due to federal rules and
regulations, our two companies were required to operate as competitors.
Since then, the merger has been completed and we are one company - Waste Management. 'This
merger has not only produced a stronger more viable business entity, but more importantly,
allows as to provide significant new services for our customers.
Along with traditional solid waste and recycling services, we have added new local transfer and
disposal capabilities. For the City of Diamond Bar, these new services can play a critical role in
guaranteeing the City will meet it's state mandated AB939 and AB 1820 goals.
We believe these recent developments provide the City with a unique and positive opportunity to
move forward in the establishment of a uniform solid waste and recycling program. Your solid
waste task force has identified and forwarded a set of recommendations for Council's review.
These recommendations include consideration and possible implementation of the following
programs:
• Automated Green Waste Program
• Automated Solid Waste Program
• Automated Recycling Program
• Variable Rate Structure
• Long Term Transfer and Disposal Options
• Multi -Family Recycling Option
11/3/98 Waste Management Collection and Recycling. Inc. I ANDRSN.DOC ►,."wwm"Ww"W
Comprehensive Public Education Program
Single Residential Franchise Hauler
Waste Management has the capability and is prepared to provide these services to the City of
Diamond Bar. Currently we provide many of these same services to our local franchise cities.
As you know, Waste Management and USA Waste have been involved in the community of
Diamond Bar for many years. Currently we service all residential customers and the vast
majority of businesses. Further, we have and will continue to support a variety of community
activities and organizations. The positive relationship between the community and Waste
Management is important and we will continue to- build on that relationship.
In light of all these factors, we believe it is in the best interest of the City and Waste Management
to begin negotiations on a Residential Franchise Contract. A Franchise Contract will assist the
City in meeting your AB939 requirements, provide for a reduction of local truck traffic, bring
conformity and certainty of pickup day(s), and provide for better coordination of your Solid
Waste and Recycling Programs.
Since Waste Management now services all residential customers, any transition to new programs
and services can be accomplished in a productive and orderly fashion. We strongly believe we
can negotiate the terms of a franchise contract with the City Staff, which will provide
competitive rates, unsurpassed service options, and a smooth transition. Under this type of
contract, we will guarantee the City meets it's AB939 goals. If for any reason the City does not
feel the final contract is appropriate, you can always choose to solicit other providers.
We would propose to meet with your staff as soon as possible to develop an outline of proposed
service options and related schedules. We thank you for your consideration of this request. We
look forward to working hand in hand with Council and Staff to resolve these issues, and allow
your Honorable Council to move on and tackle other important challenges.
Sinc qy
y
Chuck Dion
District, Manager
cc: The Honorable Wen Chang, Mayor Pro -Tem
— The Honorable Bob Huff, Councilmember
The Honorable Eileen Ansari, Councilmenber
The Honorable Debby O'Connor, Councilmember
— Mr. Terrence Belanger, City Manager
Mr. David Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works
Mr. Michael Huls, Principal, J. Michael Huls, REA
1113/98 ANDRSN.DOC
A2k Waste Managenlentw
NV
Waste Management of San Gabriel/Pomona Valley
13940 E. live Oak Avenue
Baldwin Park. California 91706
w
November 3, 1998
-- Mr. Michael Huls
Principal
J. Michael Huls, REA
568 East Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, CA 91702
Dear Michael,
Phone 626 960.7551 •909.599.1274
fax 626.338.5262
Spadra Landfill, owner/operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District is
scheduled to close next June. As the City of Diamond Bar's residential hauler,
Waste Management currently utilizes Spadra and the Puente Hills Landfills as our
primary disposal sites. Due to the fact that Puente Hills closes by late morning or
early afternoon, it is imperative we establish our routing and pickups to incorporate
these factors. One method to address this dilemma is to continue our current practice
of five days per week pickup for residential customers.
This schedule allows us to mirror local landfill operation schedules and help
maintain the lowest rates possible for Diamond Bar residents.
There are also a number of additional Benefits to five day schedules:
• Reduces the concentration of large trucks in the community.
• Allows for a dedicated fleet of refuse vehicles to service Diamond Bar.
• Provides for a full time supervisor available to City staff and residents.
• Requires that only 20% of the community adjust their current pickup day since
we are currently operating a five day a week program.
• Helps keep disposal costs at current levels.
While there has been some interest on the solid waste task force and the Council to
consider a one or two day a week schedule, we believe the above factors provide
powerful incentives for the City to maintain our existing schedule.
11/3/98 Waste Management Collection and Recyclmg, Inc. 1 ANDRSN2.DOC ft-w-recroraPow
Thank you for your review of this information. Your thoughts on this issue would be
greatly appreciated.
Sincere ,
Chuck Dion
District Manager
cc: Mr. Terrence Belanger, City Manager
Mr. David Liu; Deputy Director of Public Works
11/3/98 2 ANDRSN2.DOC
IQ Waste Management"
SCJ
Waste Management of San Galorfel/Pomona Valley
13900 E. live oat Avenue
Baldwin Park Cafitornw 91706
September 13, 1998
Mr: J- Michael Huls
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Dear Mr. Huls:
Phone 626.960.7551 •909.599,1270 --
Fax 626.338.5262 ,
Regarding the specifications provided for the City's anticipated green waste program please consider the
following.
Your report recommends a 64 -gallon wheeled cart with odor control venting and lid. We strongly agree
that this slightly more expensive cart is worth the investment. The venting provided by air ports in the lid
and on the body of the container, along with the raised floor provided in some models will eliminate the
unpleasant odors created by decomposing green waste when stored in a nonvented container. We agree also
with the materials and restrictions proposed in the program.
A rebate program is proposed for residents who attend a compost workshop and receive a compost unit.
The rebate suggested would be funded by the avoided capital cost of the barrel and the associated collection
fee. This approach presents a few problems. Education and compost unit ownership don't necessarily
translate into elimination of green waste from the resident's waste stream. The resident must use the
compost unit effectively and regularly to acheive the desired result. If green waste is set at the curb for
collection as trash, not only is the advantage of reduced collection costs lost, the material will be handled by
the landfill at the more expensive solid waste rates.
Incentives are most effective when linked directly to the desired outcome, which in this case is a significant
reduction in the amount of green waste being set out for collection as trash to be carried to a landfill. A
resident who dilligently composts green waste is producing the desired result and helping the City reach
their AB 939 goals and so should be the beneficiary of the incentive program.
We recommend that the City establish a monitoring program that provides for a spot check of the waste
presented for collection by registered composters (those who attended the class) on their regular collection
day. The presence of compostable green waste at the curb will disqualify that resident for the rebate.
Monitoring can be done on a quarterly or trimester basis in cooperation with supervisory personnel from the
City's haulers and the City's Public Works Department.
Thank you for the ongoing opportunity to participate in formulating the City of Diamond Bar's solid waste
and recycling programs.
SincdStepphanC;:::��
tke
District Manager
cc: David Liu
Dean Ruffridge
Waste Management Collection and Recyctmg. Inc. F"Id W `$wtM°ON-
I
Los ANGELES COUNTY
Survey of Solid Waste Rates and Services
TOTAL MOMMY RATES EN SEPTEMBER 11997
serhod %r raw...t s.. rr•
loft
12W97
For Dimunion Pnpom Only
IRM
O,
..
:..
.
-� -
1
2
Ball Gardens
$0
56.25
3
Paramount
ser
59.49
4
Rosemead
�.
50.7
$9.61
5
c2andale
S10.1c
510.10
6
Hunfir"ort Park
$9.99
s0.
$0.1
$10.16
7
La Mirada
59.%
50.08
$1025
8
Arcadia
$934
ser
$1-M
$10.421
9
Redondo Beach
$6.
ser
$4.
$10.50
10
Hermon Bach
$9
$1.
w
$1055
11
Signal Hill
$10
Woo
so.
$10.65
Bradbury
$10.
$0.7
s0.
$10.89
13
Dcta
$10
(1)
so.
$10.89
14
Lakewood
$11$0.
S0.
$11.07
15
Monrovia
Sla
(2)
$1.
$11.13
16
Cerritos
$10.71
SD
s0.
$11.16
17
Manhattan Beach
$8.81
$2.,,'38
$0.00
$11.19
18
South E Monte
$11.42
$0.00
$0.00
511.42
19
Artesia
$11.57
20
West Hollywood
611.66
$0.
50
$11.66
21
Inglewood
$20.41
$0
$1
$11.78
22
Santa Fe Springs
$11.
$0.
$11.78
23
La Puente
$1
$1
$0.
$12.07
24
Pico Rivera
$10.
$1
$0.
512.14
25
La Vertu
$10.
$0.
$1.35
$12.18
26
Azusa,$10
$1.73
$1223
27
HawaiiaGardens
$
$ono
$12.50
28
Vernon
$12
so.
$1230
29
Compton
$11
$0
$1238
30
Lynwood
$10
51.1
$0.
$12.66
31
CAmina
58.64
so
$3.
SLL66
32
Norwalk
$1
$0
$12.68
33
Alhambra
$1221
5031
so
$12.72
35
$
$12.75.
35
Bellflower
so
Sm
so
slz.es
36
Baldwin Park
$11.81
(1
$1.1
$12,97
37
Walnut
$lo.
ser
$13.24
38
Gardena
$1L
$1
$13.401
39
Diamond Bar
s13.sa
40
Torrance
$
s0.
so
513.50
41
Downey
$
S0.
$0.
613.63
42
San Dimas
$it
so
$13.63
43
H Monte
$11
$1
50.
$13-81
44
West Covina
S
$1
$0.14
$13.87
45
Whittier
513
$0
$0.
$14.14
46 Burbank
s0
$5
$14.16
1 47 Carson
514.2
sQ
$14.46
loft
12W97
For Dimunion Pnpom Only
f
12/12/97
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Survey of Solid Waste Rates and Services
TOTAL MONTHLY RATE_ LN EFFECT S OF QFPTEM IRR 1997
So►!wr Ff LO~40 twat
49
Ponnona
$14,7
$14.74
50
Glendora
$11
$3.
$14.79
51
Sate Fernando
$11
s3.
$14.90
52
Lawrdate
$1
$0.7
so
$15.15
53
Mo lebdlo
$13
$Z1
$1531
54
MontKay► Park
$13-31
$0.
$1.1
$15.40
55
Pasadena
S15.
$0.
$0.
$15.63
56
Pairndak
514
$1
S0.
$15.40
57
Lancaster
$14.
$0.
S0
516.08
58
Howdwnw
$1014
$3.41
$2.62$16.27
59
Long Bomb
$13&
$0.
$16.41
1 60
Culver City
$17.61
S0.
50.00
$17.61
6161
Calabasas
$15
$0
$1825
62
Claremont
$1
$2.
$18.71
63
Rolling Hips Estates
$16.
$1.
$1
S19.36
64
Raricho Palos Verdes
$19
SO
SO
$20.66
65
Sena Monica
$22.07
S0.
S0.
$21.07
66
Sana Clatia
$19
$2.1
$0.
$21.72
67
Palos Verdes Estates
$2937
$0•
$3.1
$22.76
68
Avalon
S23
$0
S23M
69
South Pasadena
$23.08
S2
$2.
$27.44
70
Roping Hills
SO.
$53.75
71
Beverly Hills
$304120 Sl
S0.
SO -W
S30 - S120
72
Agoura Hills
Uty does not A
73
Coaunarce
General Fund
74
ElSegundo
Business Tax
75
ynclustry
No charge to residents
76
Irwindale
General Fund
77
LCanada/Flintridge
City don not regulate
78
La Habra Heights
City don not regulate
�- 79
Malibu
City does not ngulale
-80
Wesdalce Village
Open ccmpetilion
-
F;
81
Ball
82
Cudahy
83
Hidden Hips
GYIIa iii Trot trwaide sells irk join `
84
1.oaia
85
San Gabriel
1 _
86
San Marino
-•
a
"
87
88
Sierra Madre
South Gale
(1) Hauler pays annually on Gross Revenue
512,000 per month
2ei2
Far Dimmsiaw Prrpawj; Owty
LEINFELDER
nj
16, 8
t8-8405-01/001
(44�
7�t-,a/r
` -favid Liu
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Subject: Limited Geologic Reconnaissance and Evaluation of Reported Common
Slope Failures Adjacent to 23837 Minnequa Drive/Sunset Crossing Road,
City of Diamond Bar, California
Dear Mr. Liu:
Kleinfelder, Inc. is pleased to present this letter summarizing the findings from our limited
reconnaissance and evaluation of the common slope failure(s) adjacent to 23837 Minnequa
Drive, and, 23722 and 23724 Sunset Crossing Road in the City of Diamond Bar. These address
are respectively Lots 43, 90 and 91 of Tract 27539. The purpose of our reconnaissance and
evaluation was to observe the existing condition of the reported failures and immediately
adjacent slope area, to formulate generalized options to repair the slope to its pre -failure
configuration and restore stability to the affected slope and lots.
To perform this limited evaluation of the slope area, Kleinfelder conducted a preliminary
background review of available documents on file with the City of Diamond Bar relating to
initial grading of the tract development in general, and the subject slope area in particular. This
literature review was supplemented with a reconnaissance of the slope area by an engineering
geologist to observe the current condition(s) of the slope area and reported failures.
BACKGROUND REVIEW
Kleinfelder's review of the literature indicated the following:
Tract 27539 was developed during 1965-1967 as a single family residential tract by the
Deane Brothers, Developers and Builders. Grading plans were prepared by Tri-State
Engineering Company.
Preliminary geologic reports were prepared for the development by James Slossen in1962,
1963 and later by Hood and Schmidt in 1964, 1965. Preliminary soil reports were reportedly
prepared by H. V. Lawmaster, Inc., but were unavailable for review.
The lots and slope area were initially rough graded as a part of Tract 27539 between August
3, 1965 and March 12, 1966. Grading was done in general accordance with approved plans,
under County of Los Angeles Permit No. 2720, and grading codes in effect at the time of
grading. Hood and Schmidt, Inc. provided geologic observation and H. V. Lawmaster, Inc.
provided soils testing services during grading operations.
58840501/58188209
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 1 of 3
December 16, 1998
KLEINFELDER 1370 Vallev Vista Drive; Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 (909) 396-0335 (909) 396-1324 fax
The subject slope area was graded as a combination canyon fill and stabilization fill slope at a
1 /2:1 (Horizontal to Vertical) inclination. The 80- foot high fill slope contained two mid -
slope ten -ace drains as per plan. The upper lot and both lower lots were graded as fill lots.
Numerous shallow failures or slumps occurred on several of the fill slopes within the graded
tract during December of 1966. These slumps were reportedly the -result of heavy rains (7
inches) over a two-day period of December 5-6, 1%6. The slope slump failures were
reportedly repaired by and replacing the soils with an admix of quick lime and compacting
back into the slope face. Straw was then grid -rolled onto the finished slope surface. Repairs
which were reported included that portion of the slope above the 1 • bench on Lots 90 and
91.
RECONNAISSANCE
A reconnaissance of the slope area occurred on Tuesday, December 15, 1998 by an Engineering
Geologist to observe the current condition(s) of the slope area and reported failures. Our
observations noted the following conditions:
• The entire slope area is affected by several generations of relatively shallow (3 ft. to 5 ft.
deep) slope failures, surficial slumps and erosion scars. Both of the mid -slope terrace drains
were locally blocked with slump debris, causing drainage water to be diverted and allowed to
flow over the slope face at the points of blockage. This diverted flow caused additional
erosion and failures to the lower slopes. It was noted that the upper terrace drain had been
recently maintained and locally cleared of blocking debris, thus allowing free flow of runoff
water, as intended.
• The observed slumps affected all segments of the subject slope to various degrees. Locally,
the slump debris had deflected or destroyed the fences on the slope. Evidence of long term
down slope creep (i.e., bent trees) was also observed.
• Generally the fill soils observed on the slope appeared to consist predominantly of sandy silt
with siltstone and sandstone rock fragments. The originally compacted surface of the slope
has deteriorated and become loosen allowing an increased susceptibility to shallow failure.
• The observed slopes indicated a general lack of maintenance and repair. This includes the
slope face, vegetation, fences, and terrace drains.
• An initial reconnaissance of the slope area for the purposes of proposal preparation occurred
on November 3, 1998. At this time both Ms. Abernathy and Ms. Conner, the respective
residences of Lot 90 and 91, indicated that several segments of the slope had failed (slumps)
during past winter's El Nino rain event. Additionally, Ms. Conner reported that a previous
failure had occurred to the lower portion of her (Lot 91) slope in the past years. A debris
lobe was observed on the side yard of the lot and slump scar was observed on the slope.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Several shallow failures and surficial slumps were observed on the subject slope area. The
failures do not appear to be deep-seated, and are probably limited to the upper 3 — 8 feet in
thickness. The observed failures may be due to various reasons, several of which include, but are
not limited to:
• Lack of homeowner maintenance of their respective portions of the common slope area and
terrace drains.
• Seasonally heavy or locally intense rain fall.
58840501/58188209 Page 2 of 3
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. December 16, 1998
),I CIVF[ DFh 1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 (90913(46-0335 (909) 396-1 ;24 tax
• Irrigation practices on the slope by the homeowners.
• The general weathering of the slope over the 30 years since the slope was graded.
• Activity of borrowing rodents.
• Types of vegetation planted or allowed to grow on the slope. -
• Outward relaxation and settlement of the fill and slope face.
• The 1 %z: l slope inclination and the type of soil materials comprising the fill slope.
• Grading codes and practices in effect at the time the slope was graded.
To repair and restore the slope to its original as graded condition and stability, it will be
necessary to remove all loose or disturbed soils to a firm, compacted fill surface. The slope may
then be rebuilt by replacing the removed soils (free of any vegetation or debris) as a newly
compacted fill -blanket. The terrace bench drains, if disturbed, will also have to be repaired or
replaced. Each homeowner should take responsibility for the landscaping revegetation, irrigation
and maintenance of their respective portion of the common slope. The cooperative efforts of all
homeowners interested in the slope will facilitate its restoration and repair.
Even if the slope is repaired and restored to its "As -graded" prefailure condition its stability or
future performance cannot be ensured. Changes in grading codes and practices have occurred
over the 30 years since the tract, lots and slope were graded to help mitigate the potential or
continued, occurrence of this type of fill slope failure (1'/z: l fill slopes are generally not
currently constructed as a part of recent code conformance or design practice).
In the event that the slope is repaired and restored to pre -failure " As -graded" configuration,
additional slumps and shallow failures should be anticipated since it is a relatively steep slope.
However, the future occurrence and extent of these types of failures can be reduced by active
homeowner maintenance of their portion of the common slope, re -vegetation of the slope with
drought resistant landscaping, and proper irrigation techniques.
A more detailed geotechnical investigation of the slope is required to completely address the
conditions of the slope and make appropriate recommendations and specifications for the repair
of the slope.
We at Kleinfelder appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service to the City of Diamond
Bar. Please do not hesitate to contact us at (909) 396-0335 if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
KLEINFELDER, INC.
o L
K. Douglas Cook, C.E.G.
Senior Engineering Geologh
�G i.L�i..• V' r
No 01
ohn S. L P.E., G
Area Manager
S. L
k GEOUY10
t EXP• 3
58840501158188209 Page 3 of 3 December 16, 1998
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder. Inc.
t.LLI\ULDER 1 370 Vallev Vista Dri%c, Suit(- 150. Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 19091 396-03:35 (909) 396-1324 fax
{"-
Lam
�0
0 eD
CENTERUNE OF STREET
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
v♦ I �
I
� r �
I Z
Z
I s
1
REFERENCE: GRADING PIAN FOR TRACT N0. 27539 SHEET 2 OF 4 1
BY, TRI—STATE ENGINEERING COMPANY, DATED AUGUST 1965 \
i
I \ �
PLATE
MNNEpuA PROJECT 0
Diamond Bar, California SITE MN
Project 58-8405-01 January 1999
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OF
SLOPE FAILURE COMMON TO
LOTS 51, 52, 77, 78 AND 79, TRACT 27539,
ADJACENT TO MINNEQUA DRIVE AND
SUNSET CROSSING ROAD
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
January 18, 1999
This document was prepared for use only by the client, only for the purposes stated, and within a reasonable time from issuance. Non-
commercial, educational and scientific use of this report by regulatory agencies is regarded as a 'fair use" and not a violation of
copyright. Regulatory agencies may make additional copies of this document for internal use. Copies may also be made available to
the public as required by law. The reprint must acknowledge the copyright and indicate that permission to reprint has been received.
58840501/5819RO04 Page i of iii January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
kn KLEINFELDER
irr rnrylrnr ua nrr! i nnp.un
January 18, 1999
Project No. 58-8405-01/003
Mr. David Liu
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Subject: Report of Geotechnical Investigation of Slope Failure Common to Lots 51, 52,
77, 78, and 79, Tract 27539, Adjacent to Minnequa Drive and Sunset Crossing
Road, City of Diamond Bar, California
Dear Mr. Liu:
Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) is pleased to present this report summarizing our geotechnical
investigation of the slope failure common to Lots 51, 52, 77, 78, and 79, Tract 27539 in the City of
Diamond Bar. The respective street addresses of the five lots impacted by the slope failure are
23885 and 23891 Minnequa Drive, and 23840, 23834, and 23826 Sunset Crossing Road. The
purpose of our investigation was to determine the existing geotechnical and geologic condition(s)
of the subject slope failure and immediate vicinity, to provide available options for iepair of the
slope to its pre -failure profile, and restore that level of stability to the affected lots.
The findings and conclusions of this geotechnical investigation along with our recommendations
for geotechnical design and repair grading of the slope are presented in the following attached
report. Though simple repair of the slope will restore it to its original pre -failure configuration and
stability, the restored slope and lots will not meet currently required calculated stability criteria or
grading code. Our authorized scope of work was limited to evaluation and analyses associated
with repair of the slope to its pre -failure profile and level of stability.
Kleinfelder appreciates this opportunity to be of continued service to the City of Diamond Bar.
Please do not hesitate to contact our office at (909) 396-0335 if you have any questions,
comments, or require additional information on this project.
Respectfully submitted, ED G
_ SER FO
KLEINFELDER, INC Q0,�GLASC, l�G�
No. EG 1391 x
* CcR? r
G"�L^t;IST
K. Douglas Cook, C.E.G.CAI.�`�J
Senior Engineering Geologis
ohn S. , P.E., G.E.
Area Manager
us In a pt , P.E., G.E.
Project Engineer
``.��� 1. KFMA�O�yi
4311 U.11
No. 2385 Z
°C Exp.94MI
CF
0A1.��y/
58840501/5819RO04 Page ii of iii January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER 1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 (909) 396-0335 (909) 396-1324 fax
k'q KLEINFELDER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
2 DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................2
3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK..............................................................................3
4 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................5
4.1 Literature Review.....................................................................................................5
4.2 Site Reconnaissance.................................................................................................6
4.3 Subsurface Conditions.............................................................................................7
4.4 Geotechnical Analysis.............................................................................................8
4.4.1 General.........................................................................................................8
4.4.2 Soil Strength Parameters..............................................................................8
5 CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................10
6 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................11
6.1 General...................................................................................................................11
6.2 Additional/Alternative Measures to Increase the Slope Factor of Safety..............12
6.3 Earthwork...............................................................................................................13
6.4 Construction Considerations..................................................................................16
6.5 Slope Monitoring Program....................................................................................17
7 ADDITIONAL SERVICES .....................
8 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................19
PLATES
Plate 1
— Site Location Map (2000 scale)
Plate 2
-Site Plan and Geologic Map (20 scale)
Plate 3 —
Geologic Cross -Section (20 scale)
APPENDICES
Appendix A — References
Appendix B — Field Exploration
Appendix C — Laboratory Testing
Appendix D — Stability Analysis
Appendix E — Typical Earthwork Details
58840501/5819RO04 Page Hi of Hi January 18 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k'■ KLEINFELDER
1 INTRODUCTION
This report present the results of Kleinfelder's geotechnical investigation of the slope failure
common to Lots 51, 52, 77, 78, and 79, Tract 27539, located in the City of Diamond Bar,
California. The investigation was conducted in accordance with our proposal entitled "Proposal
to Conduct a Geotechnical Investigation of Slope Failure, Common to Lots 51, 52, 77 78, and
79, on Minnequa Drive/Sunset Crossing Road, Diamond Bar, California", dated October 29,
1998, as authorized by the City of Diamond Bar. The fmdings and conclusions of this
geotechnical investigation along with our recommendations for geotechnical design and repair
grading of the slope are presented in this report.
- The site location is as depicted on Plate 1, Site Location Map. Street addresses for the five lots
impacted by the subject slope failure are as listed below:
• Lot 51 - 23885 Minnequa Drive;
• Lot 52 — 23891 Minnequa Drive;
• Lot 77 — 23840 Sunset Crossing Road;
• Lot 78 — 23834 Sunset Crossing Road; and,
• Lot 79 - 23826 Sunset Crossing Road.
58840501/5819RO04 Page 1 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k%J KLEIN FELDER
2 DESCRIPTION
The slope common to the subject five lots reportedly failed in early morning hours of February
24, 1998. Initial response by City of Diamond Bar Building Officials later that morning resulted
in each of the five affected homes being "Yellow Tagged" for the hazardous conditions created
by the landslide and potential effects to the residential structures should additional movement
occur. Although four of the five houses have remained continuously occupied by the
homeowner(s) since the date of the slide, each house still remains "Yellow Tagged" as of the
date of this report.
Initial observations from a preliminary geologic reconnaissance of the failure on the afternoon of
the 24th indicated that a rotational failure had occurred to a north facing, 1'/2:1 (horizontal to
vertical) fill slope, with two mid slope bench terrace drains. The slope is approximately 75 feet
high. Preliminary estimates indicated that the failure was 90 feet wide by 110 feet in down slope
length.
Approximately, the upper third of the slope had failed with the debris lobe extending through the
middle slope segment, down to the midpoint of the lower third slope segment. The head scarp
appeared to extend up to five feet into the pad area of Lot 51 (23885 Minnequa Drive), and was
estimated to be 20 feet high. The upper terrace drain was broken with segments displaced
laterally approximately 20 feet and dropped 5 to 8 feet down. The debris lobe appeared to over
ride lower slope terrace drain, with the debris toe at the midpoint of the lower slope segment on
Lot 78 (23834 Sunset Crossing Road).
The slope failure exposed the pipe column. foundation supporting a wooden deck cantilevered out
over the slope on Lot 52 (23891 Minnequa Drive). Ground water seepage was observed to be
flowing from the fill as exposed at the base of the head scarp with a small pond forming in the
adjacent graben (the down -dropped "pull apart" portion of the slope failure). Additional
seepage and a small mudflow were also observed from near the toe of the slide debris just above
the lower terrace drain. Water was also observed to be seeping from the pad and toe of slope on
Lot 78 (23834 Sunset Crossing Road).
58840501/58198004 Page 2 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k'■ KLEINFELDER
3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK
The purpose of this investigation was to determine the existing geotechnical and geologic
condition(s) of the subject slope failure and immediate vicinity, to provide available options for
repair of the slope to its pre -failure profile, and restore that level of stability to both the slope and
affected lots. Accordingly, the scope of our investigation consisted of the following tasks: A
literature review, site reconnaissance, subsurface investigation, laboratory testing, geotechnical
analysis, and the preparation of this report. A more detailed discussion of each task is presented
below.
Task 1 - Literature Review. A preliminary background review of available documents
pertaining to the grading development of the tract was initially completed as a part of
Kleinfelder's initial response in late February 1998. The documents reviewed were contained in
the files of the City of Diamond Bar. An additional review of the same documents was
undertaken to ascertain the reported as graded conditions of the area. A listing of the reviewed
documents is presented in Appendix A - References. In addition a cursory review of the geologic
maps for the area, and discussions with, and disclosure by the homeowners within the area were
conducted.
Task 2 - Site Reconnaissance. An initial reconnaissance of the failed slope area and affected
lots was conducted by the geologist on the afternoon of the failure to observe existink conditions.
Subsequent observations of the area were made over the period of the subsurface exploration of
this investigation.
Task 3 - Subsurface Exploration. Three large diameter test borings were drilled over a four
day period between December 7-10, 1998 utilizing a specialty, light weight, hillside bucket
auger drilling rig at selected locations on the lots and slope, to evaluate the current subsurface
conditions of the failed slope. Each boring ranged in depth from 12 to 42 feet and was
terminated at effective refusal conditions. Effective refusal is achieved when the drilling
equipment cannot effectively or efficiently advance the boring deeper due to hard drilling
conditions. A geologist from our staff supervised the field operations and logged the borings.
Both relatively undisturbed ring samples utilizing a modified California sampler and bulk
samples were obtained from each boring. The samples were then transported to our lab for
further evaluation and testing.
58840501/5819R004 Page 3 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k'q KLEINFELDER
Each boring was then entered and down hole logged by the geologist to observe the local
geologic structure and conditions. After exiting the boring, each excavation was loosely
backfilled with the excavated material. Excess material unable to be replaced into the borings as
backfill was mounded over the respective bore hole or wasted on site. The locations of the
borings are presented on Plate -2, Geologic Map, and the logs are presented as Appendix B —
Field Exploration.
Task 4 - Laboratory Testing. Selected laboratory tests were preformed on various samples
obtained from the borings to evaluate the characteristics and physical properties of the
encountered materials. Tests conducted included in situ moisture and density, Maximum Dry
Density, Atterberg Limits, Direct Shear, Remolded Shear, and Sieve Analysis. Details of the
laboratory testing program and test results are presented in Appendix C.
Task 5 - Geotechnical Analysis. The obtained field and laboratory data were compiled and
evaluated. A geologic map and cross-section were then drawn to depict the encountered
conditions of the slope. An analysis of the slope was conducted to evaluate the stability
conditions of the failure, temporary conditions during repair construction, and restored finished
slope. Details and results of these analyses are presented as Appendix D.
Task 6 - Report Preparation. This report was then prepared to summarize the findings and
present the conclusions of our investigation along with making recommendations for repair and
restoration of the slope.
58840501/5819RO04 Page 4 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k'q KLEINFELDER
4 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
4.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Kleinfelder's review of the background literature indicated the following history for the subject
lots:
• Tract 27539 was developed during 1965-1967 as a single-family residential tract by the
Deane Brothers, Developers and Builders. Grading plans for the development were prepared
by Tri-State Engineering Company (1966).
• Preliminary geologic reports were prepared for the development by Dr. James Slossen in
1962, 1963 and later by Hood and Schmidt, Inc. (1964, 1965). The preliminary soil reports
were reportedly prepared by H. V. Lawmaster, Inc., and were unavailable for review during
this investigation. The Lawmaster, Inc. reports were not available for review because they
were not included in the archived files provided to us by the City of Diamond Bar.
(Lawmaster, Inc. has been out of business for more than 10 years.)
• The lots and slope area were initially rough graded as a part of Tract 27539 between
August 3, 1965 and March 12, 1966. Grading was done in general accordance with approved
plans, under County of Los Angeles Permit No. 2720, and grading codes in effect at the time
of grading. Hood and Schmidt, Inc. provided geologic observation and H. V. Lawmaster,
Inc. provided soils testing services during grading operations.
• The approximate 75—foot high slope area was graded at a 1'/2:1 (horizontal to vertical)
inclination with two mid -slope terrace drains as per plan. The planned cut slope was
converted to a replacement blanket fill slope during grading due to the overexcavation and
removal of pre-existing slumps on the natural slope. The upper lots and lower lots were
reportedly graded as fill lots due to pad overexeavation from both the replacement fill slope
blanket and side slope stabilization fills on each lot. (It was noted from the recent survey that
the Lots 51 (23885 Minnequa Drive) and 78 (23834 Sunset Crossing Road) were graded as
split pad and not the flat pads as depicted on the reviewed grading plan. Additionally the
survey indicated that the lots were graded from one to six feet higher and the subject slope
three feet higher (78 feet) than reported or indicated on the grading plans).
58840501/58198004 Page 5 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER
• Numerous shallow failures or slumps occurred on several of the graded fill slopes within
Tract 27539 during December of 1966. These slumps were reportedly the result of heavy
rains (7 inches) over a two-day period of December 5-6, 1966. The slope slump failures were
reportedly repaired by and replacing the soils with an admixture of quick lime and
compacting the soils back into the slope face. Straw was then grid -rolled onto the finished,
slope surface. Repairs were reported included that portion of the subject slope above Lots 77
(23 840 Sunset Crossing Road) and 79 (23 826 Sunset Crossing Road).
• Long term residents within the vicinity of the subject slope failure reported during a public
forum of the Diamond Point Homeowners Association, that an upper portion of the subject
slope on Lot 51 (23885 Minnequa Drive) above the upper terrace has previously experienced
failure during the early 1980's. The slope was repaired by means of two rows of timbers
walls near the top of slope and the soils replaced behind the timber walls to create two
narrow level terraces.
4.2 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
An initial reconnaissance of the failed slope area was initially conducted on the afternoon of
February 24, 1998 to observe existing conditions. At that time it was estimated that a rotational
type failure had occurred at the top of the fill slope. The slope is approximately 75 feet high at a
1'/2:1 (horizontal to vertical) inclination with two gunite terrace drains equally spaced on the
slope.
At that time, the failure was estimated to be 90 feet wide by 110 feet along the slope, with a 20 -
foot high near vertical head scarp, that extended 3 to 5 feet behind the original top of slope. A
foundation for a pipe column supporting the cantilever deck on Lot 52 (23891 Minnequa Drive)
was partially exposed in the headscarp. The exposed foundation did not appear to be in
immediate danger from loss of support; however, additional relaxation or creeping of the
- exposed scarp could result in future movement and/or distress to the foundation supporting the
deck. The rotational movement of the failure displaced the upper terrace drain approximately 20
to 25 feet laterally and approximately 5 to 8 feet vertically. The debris lobe overrode the lower
terrace to a mid point on the lower slope segment. Two rows of railroad tie type timbers were
observed within the graben portion of the debris lobe.
58840501/5819RO04 Page 6 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k'■ K L E I N F E L D E R
Moderate seepage of water was observed from near the toe of the headscarp, forming a small
pond in the graben area of the slide. Additional seepage from several locations near the toe was
also noted. Artisan seepage was observed to flow from the pad and toe of slope on Lot 78
(23834 Sunset Crossing Road).
Other portions of the slope in the vicinity of the failure appear to have been subjected several
previous episodes of shallow surficial failure and slumping since the tract has been developed.
Observations of the slope area and slide made during our subsurface investigation have indicated
little change in the status or extent of the failure, slope or lots since the slide occurred. The
exceptions of note were that the slope and slide area had been covered with visqueen plastic
sheeting, and previously observed seepages and ponding appeared to have stopped or dried up.
4.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The three borings excavated for the subsurface exploration portion of this investigation
encountered landslide debris, artificial fills and bedrock units within the respective boring. The
Landslide Debris (symbol Qls) for the slope failure consisted predominately of a mixture of
clayey silts and silty sands with bedrock fragments. The slide debris appeared to be derived from
the fill soils on the slope. Organic material was locally observed in the boring where the failure
debris over rode the slope face. The slide debris appeared to be surficially loose and increased in
consistency to medium dense/stiff with depth, and was moist, the debris having dried since
initially failing.
The Artificial Fill (symbol Af) are those soil materials placed on the slope as fill during the
initial grading of the tract back in 1966. These soils appeared to be locally derived from the
bedrock and were composed of a mixture of clayey silts and silty sands with bedrock fragments.
The fills were generally moist and had a medium dense consistency.
Bedrock of the region are the Siltstones (symbol Slts) and Sandstones (symbol Ss) of the Puente
Formation. Locally the siltstones are assigned to the Yorba Member (Tpy) and the Sandstones to
the Soquel Member (Tpsq) of the Puente Formation. A contact between these two members has
been regionally mapped on the slope, underlying the fill. Preliminary mapping for tract
development (Hood and Schmidt, 1964) and regional mapping (Tan, 1998) indicates that the
general geologic structure (bedding) for the slope area is into the slope.
58840501/58198004 Page 7 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
lk" KLEIN FELDER
Siltstones of the Yorba Member consisted of thin to massively bedded materials with local
_ internal shearing generally subparalell to bedding. Local folding has resulted in random
fracturing of the siltstone and bedding with out of slope dip components as indicated on the
Geologic Cross Section.
The sandstone of the Soquel Member consists of thick to massively bedded materials. Generally
the observed bedding was dipping into the slope similar to the regional structure.
4.4 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS
4.4.1 General
Our authorized scope of work included an evaluation of the stability of the existing configuration
of the failed area of the slope and the configuration of this portion of the slope rebuilt to original
design grades. Our authorized scope of work consisted of evaluation and analyses associated
with the purpose of repairing the slope to its pre -failure profile and level of stability.
4.4.2 Soil Strength Parameters
The soil strength parameters used in the slope stability analyses are presented in the following
table, Strength Parameters for Slope Stability Analyses. The shear strength parameters for the
stability analyses are based on interpreted direct shear test data for the fill materials and assumed
appropriate strength characteristics of the bedrock materials. We note that some of the results of
direct shear testing as part of this investigation yielded results that were considered
inappropriately high. The results of the direct shear testing appear to have been impacted by the
presence of gravel -sized particles and sample disturbance. The parameters used in our analyses
were reviewed and, in our judgment, appear to be applicable for the materials encountered in our
borings, and correlate well with typical strengths known to exist within these geologic materials
in this area.. Effective strength parameters were used for the slope stability analyses. All slope
stability analyses were performed using the computer program XSTABL 5M. The evaluated
profile is shown in Geologic Section A -A', shown on Plate 3.
58840501/5819R004 Page 8 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k'■ KLEINFELDER
Strength Parameters for Slope Stability Analyses
Soil Type
Total Unit .
Weight
(Def)
Adopted
Friction
Angle (0)
Adopted
Cohesion
(Psfl
Engineered Fill
120
28
200
Bedrock
- Along Continuous Bedding*
110
12
150
- Across Bedding*
110
26
300
*Note: Along Continuous Bedding indicates the shear strength parameters assumea along planar
contacts within the layers of bedrock. Across Bedding indicates the shear strength that crosses
the planar contacts within the bedrock.
Geotechnical stability analyses is based on evaluating the driving forces (the forces which cause
the failure) of the slope relative to the shear strength or resistance (the forces which resist failure)
of the materials that make up the slope. The stability of the slope is rated with a calculated factor
of safety, which equals the Resistance Force divided by the Driving force. Based on the results of
our analyses, the slope, rebuilt to its pre -failure condition has a computed factor of safety of 1.3
to 1.4 under static conditions using the strengths shown in the above table. Circular failure
surfaces through the toe and benches were evaluated as well as translational surfaces along
potential bedding surfaces. The minimum required factor of safety under static conditions to
meet current grading code standards is 1.5. The minimum required factor of safety under
pseudostatic conditions is I.I. The factor of safety under pseudostatic analysis is anticipated to
be on the order of 1.0. The minimum required factor of safety under pseudostatic conditions is
1.1.
The temporary slope condition of the existing scarp and the recommended removals were also
evaluated, to assess the stability of the slope during repair. The temporary slope condition of the
recommended removals refers to the anticipated backcut condition that will be required prior to
placement of the new engineered fill on the slope. A factor of safety of approximately 1.2 to 1.3
was calculated for the temporary slope conditions for the proposed repair. The minimum required
factor of safety under temporary conditions is typically 1.2.
Printouts of the slope stability analysis runs are included in Appendix D.
58840501/5819RO04 Page 9 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
In KLEINFELDER
5 CONCLUSIONS
The subject slope and grading of the tract was in substantial conformance with applicable
grading codes and practices in effect at the time they were developed and constructed in the mid
1960's. However, changes have since been made in the grading codes that would preclude the
slope from being built by 1998 standards at its height and inclination without additional
reinforcement and subdrainage at the fill/bedrock contact under the slope.
The observed failure appears to be in the fill materials. The bedrock does not appear to be
involved with the failure of the slope. The observed failure may be due to various reasons;
several contributing factors may include, but are not limited to:
• Seasonally heavy or locally intense rain fall leading to saturation of the slope face and fill.
• Irrigation practices on the slope by the homeowners maintaining elevated soil moisture
conditions.
• The movement of perched groundwater through the bedrock.
• Lack of subdrainage under the fill blanket at the bedrock contact.
• The general weathering of the slope over the 30 years since it was graded.
• The relatively steep 1 %: l slope inclination and the type of soil materials comprising the fill
slope.
• Grading codes and practices in effect at the time the slope was graded.
• Types of vegetation planted or allowed to grow on the slope.
• Outward relaxation and settlement of the fill and slope face.
• Methods and repair of the previous episodes of slope failures.
• Lack of homeowner maintenance of their respective portions of the common slope area and
terrace drains.
• Activity of burrowing rodents.
58840501/5819RO04 Page 10 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k'■ KLEINFELDER
6 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 GENERAL
Fill slopes constructed using the existing site materials at a gradient (1.5:1, horizontal:vertical)
equivalent to the pre -failure condition are anticipated to have a factor of safety of 1.3 to 1.4,
which is less than the current grading ordinance requirement of a minimum of 1.5. If the slope is
repaired and restored to the "As -graded" pre -failure condition, the expected stability and future
performance of the slope will be similar to that in the past and of adjacent areas. Changes in
grading codes and practices have occurred over the 30 years since the tract, lots and slope were
graded to help mitigate the potential or continued occurrence of this type of fill slope failure. In
general, 1 V2:1 (horizontal to vertical) fill slopes are not currently constructed as a part of recent
code conformance or design practice.
However, the future occurrence and extent of these types of failures can be reduced by active
homeowner maintenance of their portion of the common slope, re -vegetation of the slope with
drought resistant landscaping, and proper irrigation techniques.
The intent of the recommendations presented in this report is to reconstruct the slope to its pre -
failure condition. The recommendations presented in this report include an improvement of a
subsurface drainage system along the backcut and in the keyway to direct seepage water out of
the slope. The subsurface drainage system is typically installed within fill slopes to improve
stability of the slope. Whereas the additional subdrain system is anticipated to improve the
stability of the slope, the rebuilt slope is still anticipated to have a factor of safety less than 1.5.
Additional recommendations for items that could be incorporated into design to rebuild the slope
to satisfy current grading codes are presented at the end of this section.
To repair and restore the slope to its original as graded condition and stability, it will be
necessary to remove all vegetation, landslide debris, disturbed soils and fill soils to firm,
compacted fill or bedrock surface. The excavated soils, less any debris or organics, may be
stockpiled and moisture conditioned as necessary for use in rebuilding the slope. The vegetation
or organic material should be properly disposed off site. A fill key, measuring 20 feet wide and 3
feet deep should be excavated at the toe of slope on Lot 78 (23834 Sunset Crossing Road). The
slope may then be rebuilt by replacing the removed soils (free of any vegetation or debris) as a
58840501/5819R004 Page 11 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Klcinfelder, Inc.
k`■ KLEINFELDER
newly compacted fill blanket. The replacement fill blanket shall maintain the 20 -foot width up
the slope face and a minimum effective depth of 5 feet. The fill shall be benched into the bedrock
exposed in the backcut and existing fills of the lateral margins as the slope is rebuilt. Subdrains
will be constructed at the heal of the fill key and at 20 -foot vertical intervals on the backcut.
6.2 ADDITIONAL/ALTERNATIVE MEASURES TO INCREASE THE SLOPE FACTOR
OF SAFETY
To rebuild the slope to satisfy current grading codes (i.e. a factor of safety of at least 1.5), the
slope construction would need to be modified to include one or more of the following items;
• Rebuild the slope at a flatter gradient such as 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). This would include
extending the slope into the upper and lower residential pads since approximately 40 lineal
feet (20 feet each) of land would be required from the lots.
• Incorporate one or more retaining walls into the design that extends to the underlying
bedrock to provide additional resistance to slope movements and allow for a flatter
inclination of the slope surface. A vertical separation of approximately 20 feet would be
required to flatten the slope to a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope gradient. The walls would
be required to extend through the new fills and into the underlying bedrock. The 20 feet
vertical separation refers to grades at the ground surface. Tie -back anchors would most likely
be required to provide sufficient resistance to the downward driving forces.
• Treat the fill materials with additives to increase the strength or resistance of the soils to the
downward driving forces. Treating the fill with additives would also reduce the erosion
potential of the fill; and/or
• Rebuild the fill slope utilizing geotextile (geogrid) reinforcement. Incorporating the geogrid
reinforcement into the design would improve the resistance to failures that occur entirely in
the fill materials. The geogrid reinforcement would not necessarily improve the resistance of
slope failures that occur at the interface of the fillfbedrock contact or in the bedrock.
• Shear pins or soil nails, which are typically used to improve the stability of bedrock cut
slopes, are not typically used for improving the stability of similar fill slopes.
58840501/58198004 Page 12 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kieinfelder, Inc.
MK L E I N F E L D E R
Each of the above items has an impact on the stability of the slope with an associated cost.
Retaining walls, tie -back anchors, property acquisition, and shear pins are considered to be very
expensive. Treating the fill with additives and/or adding geogrid reinforcement to the repair are
generally less costly than the other options, but will still incur additional costs.
6.3 EARTHWORK
All site preparation and earthwork operations should be performed in accordance with applicable
codes, safety regulations and other local, state or federal specifications. All references to
maximum dry densities are established in accordance with the latest version of ASTM Standard
Test Method D 1557.
Grading operations during the wet season or in areas where the soils are saturated may require
- provisions for drying of soils prior to compaction. If the project necessitates fill placement and
compaction in wet conditions, we could provide alternatives for drying the soil. Conversely,
additional moisture may be required during the dry months. A sufficient water source should be
available to provide adequate water during compaction. During dry months, moisture
conditioning of the subgrade soils will be required if left exposed for greater than a few days.
All site preparation and fill placement should be observed by Kleinfelder. It is important that
during the stripping and scarification process, a representative of Kleinfelder be present to
observe whether undesirable material is encountered in the construction area and whether
exposed soils are similar to those encountered during the geotechnical site exploration.
After clearing the site, stripping to remove vegetation and organic surficial soils will be required.
Stripping should be performed at the start of earthwork. Stripped topsoil should be removed from
the site. After clearing and stripping the site, the existing fill and any disturbed or unsuitable
native soils should be excavated. The presence of soft, loose, wet or otherwise unsuitable soils
may dictate the need for additional overexcavation. This should be evaluated in the field during
grading.
Keyways and benches should be cut into the exposed ground surface to provide support for the
fill. The keyways should be constructed along the toe of the fill slope. Horizontal benches
should be excavated into the competent embankment and native materials as the fill progresses
up the slope to develop good bond between the foundation material and the fill. The keyways and
benches should extend into competent natural soil or bedrock below weak or creep -susceptible
58840501/5819R004 Page 13 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k" KLEINFEL1)ER
overburden soils. Typically, keyways should be excavated at least 3 feet into competent
material. Subsurface drainage should be installed in keyways. Benches should be excavated on
the order of 4 feet in height. All fill slopes should be overbuilt and cutback to design grades,
where possible, in order to achieve sufficient compaction at the surface. A detail of typical fill
slope construction is presented on Plate E.1, Typical Engineered Fill Slope, in Appendix E.
Subdrains are required to be installed on excavated benches and keyways prior to placing fill on
prepared slopes. Subdrains should be installed at 20 -foot vertical intervals or less, as determined
by the engineering geologist based on observations during grading. These drains will need to be
daylighted and drained to the slope face. Drainage outlets should be direct drainage to the terrace
drains. Details of subdrain construction are presented on Plate E.2, Typical Subdrain Detail, in
Appendix E.
After excavating as recommended and prior to placement of compacted fills, the exposed
overexcavated subgrade should be scarified to a depth of approximately 6 to 8 inches, moisture
conditioned within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of
90 percent relative compaction. The recommended overexcavation and recompaction should be
performed prior to the placement of fill needed to obtain final subgrade elevations.
We recommend that temporary cut slopes needed to achieve the proposed subgrade elevations be
constructed at inclinations no steeper than 1.5:1 in the existing and newly placed fill soils. In
favorably bedded bedrock materials, temporary cut slopes may be made at inclinations of 1:1 or
steeper based on geologic review during construction. Heavy construction loads, such as those
resulting from stockpiles and heavy machinery, should be kept back from the top of the
excavation a distance equal to the depth of the excavation, and all surface water should be
diverted away from the excavation.
The borings drilled at the site were advanced using a truck -mounted, bucket auger drill rig. The
materials encountered in the borings consisted of fill, siltstone, and sandstone materials.
Conventional earth moving equipment is expected to be capable of performing the excavations in
these bedrock units required for site development.
All required fill should be placed in loose lifts not more than 8 inches in thickness and
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of ASTM D1557-91 maximum dry density at a moisture
content 1 to 3 percent above the optimum. Moisture content is considered very important and,
therefore, both relative compaction and moisture content should evaluate compaction acceptance.
58840501/5819RO04 Page 14 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k'9 KLEINFELDER
If either criteria is not within the specified tolerances, the compaction of the fill should not be
accepted, and the contractor should rework the material until the fill is placed. within the
specified tolerances as confirmed by acceptable test results.
The fill slope face shall be over filled and trimmed back to a compacted core exposed at finished
grade of the slope or the fill slope shall be backrolled with a sheeps foot roller as the fill is
advanced. The finished slope face shall then be grid rolled and tested for compaction.
Except for organic -laden topsoil, on-site soils and bedrock derived materials are considered
suitable for use in general engineered fill. Depending on the time of year grading occurs, drying
or wetting of the native soils may be needed prior to their use. The maximum particle size for fill
material should be limited to 3 inches, with at least 90 percent by weight less than 1 inch, and it
should be free of deleterious material.
Imported fill should be free of organics and also meet the following minimum criteria:
Plasticity Index
Liquid Limit
Passing #200 Sieve
15 or less
less than 30%
between 10 and 40%
In addition to the above, highly pervious materials are not recommended because they would
permit transmission of water to the underlying expansive materials. Import soils should be
relatively non -corrosive or have a low corrosive potential to concrete and metals. We
recommend that representative samples of the material proposed for use as fill be submitted to
Kleinfelder for testing and approval at least one week prior to the start of grading and importing
of material, if needed.
Proper site drainage is important for the long-term performance of the planned improvements.
Good surface drainage is essential to intercept and control surface water runoff to minimize slope
erosion and subsurface infiltration. Effective erosion control is also considered important. Cut
slopes should be protected from surface erosion by using line V-shaped ditches or berms.
Grading the top of the slope to drain away from the slope face should protect fill slopes.
Fresh cut and fill slopes should be planted as soon as possible with appropriate ground cover
vegetation to minimize future erosion and possible slope deterioration. If planting is
unsuccessful, other mitigating measures might be necessary, depending upon the susceptibility of
58840501/58198004 Page 15 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 KicinkIder, Inc.
M KLEINFELDER
the exposed materials to erosion. Placing jute mesh and/or hydroseeding the slope reduces the
potential erosion of the slope.
A representative of our firm should observe and test the earthwork construction operations for
the project. The geotechnical engineering technician and field geologist should have at least the
following duties during grading operations;
• Observation during the clearing and grubbing operation for proper removals of all
unsuitable materials;
• Observation of exposed subgrade conditions in areas to receive fill and in areas where
excavation has results in the desired finished subgrade;
• Visual observation to evaluate suitability of on-site and import soils for fill placement,
including collection and submittal of soil samples for required or recommended
laboratory testing where necessary;
• Observation of the fill and backfill for uniformity of placement;
• Field density testing and compaction testing to evaluate the percentage of compaction
achieved during fill placement;
• Observation of cut slopes for geologic features that may impact stability of the slope;
The terrace bench drains, if disturbed, will also have to be repaired or replaced. Each
homeowner should take responsibility for the landscaping revegetation, irrigation and
maintenance of their respective portion of the common slope. The cooperative efforts of all
homeowners interested in the slope will facilitate its restoration and repair.
6.4 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Items that are anticipated to impact construction are listed below. These items should be
considered in costing and scheduling the proposed repair.
-- • Access to the site is limited to the space between the homes. An existing air conditioning
unit along the west side of Lot 78 (23834 Sunset Crossing Road) may be required to be
58840501/58198004 Page 16 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k'■ KLEINFELDER
temporarily relocated. It is probable that only small, limited access equipment may be
capable of accessing the work area.
• We recommend that repair of the slope be performed after the rainy season (April 1) and
that measures be taken to protect the slope during the remaining period until then.
• There is little to no space available in the back yards of the impacted residences for
stockpiling of soils. Stockpiling and processing of soils will be required in front of the
homes, in the streets, or off-site as determined by the City of Diamond Bar.
• Earthwork operations during the rainy season should anticipate delays due to rain.
Saturation of incomplete and unprotected slopes may cause local instabilities and excessive
erosion slopes. Wet and saturated soils will be required to be dried back to near optimum
moisture in order to facilitate compaction of the soils.
• Removals of debris and vegetation. Prior to failure, the slope surface was covered with
grass, shrubs and trees. The vegetation above the midpoint of the slope is mixed in with the
slope debris and the vegetation below the midpoint of the slope is underlying the slope
debris. The vegetation is required to be removed from the existing soils in order to use the
existing soils in the proposed fills.
• The volume of slope debris materials has been preliminarily estimated to be approximately
2,500 cubic yards. The estimated quantity of fill required to reconstruct the slope to its pre -
failure condition is approximately 4,500 cubic yards of material. This includes the removal
of a portion of the soils underlying the slide.
6.5 SLOPE MONITORING PROGRAM
It is very important that a monitoring program of the slope and adjacent properties is
implemented to assess and evaluate the conditions before, during, and after construction. An
assessment and survey of the adjacent homes should be conducted prior to and after construction
to establish a "benchmark" of the conditions prior to and after grading. During grading, the
upslope head scarp and the area just above the top of slope should be monitored for creep
movement. Slope inclinometers should be installed to periodically record the lateral location or
movement of the slopes. The inclinometers could also be utilized to monitor future performance
of the slope after construction. Periodic monitoring can be made throughout the construction and
the lifetime of the slope inclinometer casing which should be installed for permanent usage. An
engineering geologist should periodically assess the conditions of the slope and exposed backcut
during construction.
58840501/5819R004 Page 17 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k4 KLEINFELDER
7 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
We recommend that a general review of the project plans and specifications be conducted before
they are finalized to verify that our geotechnical recommendations have been properly
interpreted and implemented during design. If we are not accorded the privilege of performing
this review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations
The construction process is an integral design component with respect to the geotechnical aspects
of a project. Because geotechnical engineering is an inexact science due to the variability of
natural processes and because we sample only a small portion of the soils affecting the
performance of the proposed structure, unanticipated or changed conditions can be disclosed
during grading. Proper geotechnical observation and testing during construction is imperative to
allow the geotechnical engineer the opportunity to verify assumptions made during the design
process. Therefore, we recommend that Kleinfelder be kept apprised of design modifications and
construction schedule of the proposed slope construction to observe compliance with the design
concepts and geotechnical recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that
subsurface conditions or methods of construction differ from those assumed while completing
this study.
58840501/58198004 Page 18 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k'■ KLEINFELDER
8 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Diamond Bar and their agents
for specific application to the project discussed in this report. The findings, conclusions and
recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practice. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations
provided in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and
observations will be conducted by our firm during the construction phase in order to evaluate the
compliance with our recommendations. If the scope of the proposed construction changes from
that described in this report, our recommendations should also be reviewed.
The scope of our geotechnical services did not include any environmental site assessment for the
presence or absence of hazardous/toxic materials in the soil, surface water, ground water or
atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands. Any statements in this report, or on any of the boring
logs, regarding odors noted or unusual or suspicious items or conditions observed are strictly for
descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey engineering judgment regarding potential
hazardous/toxic assessment.
The client has the responsibility to see that all parties to the project, including the designer,
contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. We understand the
report may be included in the project specifications.
This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, within a reasonable
time from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both on-site and off-site) or other factors may
change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any party
other than the client who wishes to use this report for an adjacent or nearby project shall notify
Kleinfelder of such intended use. Based on the intended use of this report and the nature of the
new project, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated
report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else
will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any
unauthorized party.
58840501/58198004 Page 19 of 19 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Fire S 1 i
b 8M 676
+ —
)/
i'
%I
%i.
,r ;• ., I .o r
I — o
/ . � 766 • '
�: ��� -_ _ _ - - - .tiro'-">;,S'-�� _ - =a •�; -�-- _ t
SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 7.5' topographic series, San Dimas, California
quadrangle, dated 1966, photorevised 1981.
AN PRE
Diamonandd Ba Bar,PRIM= California
KLEINFELDER Project: 58-8405-01/003 January 1999
Q
N
PLATE
WE LOCATION MAP '1
tee` >C� -��;✓: ? . _ _
�� ..,
0 FEET 4.000
PLATE
WE LOCATION MAP '1
1
1
j
� I
,
I
1
j
�
8
0
/ N
I
Q
]C
m
/ Y
m
o
m
_
0
�
J
tu
aD
DJ
W
�
Ul)
!
W
F—
/
?
O
/
C6
>
CL
J
O
/
4
�
Y
/
I
u0i
3
3
I
I
0
k
/
O
0
2
2 r
W
W
2
4
1
S t
/
3hima vnO3NNIM1
I
1
/
CR
bkd
a
A T S D
1
aVOH SNISSOVO 13SNns
I
� I
V I
I
I
I I
i -
I
r
1 i
1
1
r � I
r m
r
I
r
I I
I
i
/
r
1 / I
00
0
ce
Z
El
k`■ KLEINIFELDER
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
County of Los Angeles, 1966, Geologic Review Sheet, Engineering Geology Section Department
of County Engineer, Final Geologic Report Approval (March 11, 1966 - Final Geologic Report),
Lots 1 - 132 (Tract 27539) for building permits from the geologic standpoint, Dated 5/16/66.
County of Los Angeles, 1967a, Supervised Grading Inspection Certificate, Supervised Grading
Engineer, Tr. 27539, approved April 28, 1967. ( All Lots)
County of Los Angeles, 1967b, Supervised Grading Inspection Certificate, Rough Grading
Certification by Soils Engineer, Tr. 27539, approved April 28, 1967. ( All Lots)
County of Los Angeles, 1967c, Supervised Grading Inspection Certificate, Final Grading
Certification, Tr. 27539, approved June 14, 1967. (Lot 79)
County of Los Angeles, 1967d, Supervised Grading Inspection Certificate, Final Grading
Certification, Tr. 27539, approved June 14, 1967. (Lots 74-78)
County of Los Angeles, 1967e, Supervised Grading Inspection Certificate, Final Grading
Certification, Tr. 27539, approved June 14, 1967. (Lots 79-83)
County of Los Angeles, 1967f, Supervised Grading Inspection Certificate, Slope repair work Tr.
27539, approved June 27, 1967. (Lot 79)
County of Los Angeles, 1967g, Supervised Grading Inspection Certificate, Final Grading
Certification, Tr. 27539, approved September 27, 1967. (Lots 47-53)
Hood & Schmidt, Inc. 1965x, Geologic Investigation of a Portion of Tract 27539, Sunset Crossing
Road and Brea Canyon Road, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California, File No. 65004,
dated April 29, 1965.
Hood & Schmidt, Inc., 1965b, Restricted Use Areas, Tract 27539, Job 65004-A, dated August 24,
1965.
Hood & Schmidt, Inc. 1966 final Report of Geologic Inspection, Tract 27539, Diamond Bar,
County of Los Angeles, California, File No. 65004-A, dated March 11, 1966.
58840501/5819RO04 Page A-1 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k'■ KLEINFELDER
Hood & Schmidt, Inc., Partial copy of a letter re: slides and stability fills, Job No. 63425, undated.
H. V. Lawmaster, Inc., 1965, Buttress Fill Design, Lots 97 - 107, Tract 27539, Sunset Crossing
Road and Brea Canyon Road, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California, File No. 65 -1209 -
AB -1, dated October 1, 1965.
H. V. Lawmaster, Inc., 1966a, Soil Compaction Tests, Final Report, Lots 1 - 132 Inclusive Tract
27539, Sunset Crossing Road and Brea Canyon Road, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles,
California, File No. 65-1209, dated March 28, 1966.
H. V. Lawmaster, Inc., 1966b, Inspection of Slope Failures, of Tracts 27533 and 27539, Sunset
Crossing Road and Brea Canyon Road, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California, File No.
65 -1209 -SP -1, dated December 12, 1966.
H. V. Lawmaster, Inc., 1966c, Buttress Fill Design, Lots 100 - 102, Tract 27539; File No 65-
1209 -AB, undated cross section.
H. V. Lawmaster, Inc., 1966d, Revised Buttress Design, Lots 100 - 102, Tract 27539, File No 65-
1209 -AB, undated cross section.
H. V. Lawmaster, Inc., 1966e, Buttress fill design, Lots 100 - 102, Tract 27539, File No 65 -1209 -
AB -1B, undated cross section.
H. V. Lawmaster, Inc., 1966f, Buttress fill design, Lots 100 - 102, Tract 27539, File No 65 -1209 -
AB -1C, undated cross section.
H. V. Lawmaster, Inc., 1967, Slope Repair Work, Tracts 27530, 27533 and 27539, Sunset
Crossing Road and Brea Canyon Road, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California, File No.
67 -1209 -SP -21, dated June 19, 1967.
Tan, Siang, in press, Southern California Areal Mapping Project, Digital Geologic Map of the San
Dimas Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, a portion of a preliminary draft print of a
future DMG Open File Map.
Tri-State Engineering, 1966, Grading Plan for Tract 27539 (40 -scale, sheets 2 and 3 of 4), revised,
date stamped April 4, 1966.
58840501/5819R004 Page A-2 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k" KI FINFEL1)ER
APPENDIX B
FIELD EXPLORATION
The subsurface exploration program for the proposed site included the excavation and logging of
three (3) bucket auger borings utilizing a lightweight hillside drill rig provided by Hillside Repair
& Drilling, Inc. of Placentia, California. The borings ranged in depth from 14.0 to 42 feet below
existing ground surface. The boring locations are presented on Plate 2, Geologic Map for the site
area.
An Explanation to Logs is presented as Plate B-1 and the Logs of Borings are presented as Plates
B-2 through B-3he Logs of Borings describe the earth materials encountered, samples obtained
and show field and laboratory tests performed. The logs also show the location, boring number,
drilling date and the name of the logger and drilling subcontractor. The borings were logged by a
staff geologist using the Unified Soil Classification System as the boring was excavated. Upon
completion of drilling each boring was entered and downhole logged by the geologist to observe
the geologic conditions and structures exposed in the boring. The boundaries between soil and
rock types shown on the logs are approximate because the transition between different layers may
be locally transitional or gradual. Bulk and intact samples of representative earth materials were
obtained from each boring at various intervals to typify the materials encountered.
A California sampler was used to obtain relatively undisturbed samples of the soil encountered.
This sampler consists of a 3 -inch O.D., 2.4 -inch I.D. split barrel shaft that is pushed or driven a
total of 12 inches into the soil at the bottom of the boring. The soil was retained in twelve 1 -inch -
long brass rings for laboratory testing. An additional 2 inches of soil from each drive remained in
the cutting shoe and was usually discarded after visually classifying the soil. The sampler was
driven using the kelly bar as the drive hammer falling 12 inches. The drive weight of the kelly bar
varied with depth. The total number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the 12 inches
is termed the blow count and is recorded on the Logs of Borings.
Bulk samples of the fill soils or bedrock materials were retrieved as composite samples from the
excavated spoil pile and exposed face in the head scarp area.
58840501/5819RO04 Page B -I January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Date Drilled:
Drilled By:
Drilling Method:
Logged By:
Water Depth:
Date Measured:
Reference Elevation:
Datum:
U
_I I I ' I NOTES ON FIELD INVESTIGATION
I . SAMPLE - Graphical epresentatioe of somple type as shown below.
Split Spoon - Standard Penetration Test Sample (SPT)
Drive Sample - California Samrpb (Cal) ■
Bulk Sample - Obtained by ooMctkg cuttings in o plestic bag
Tube Sample - Sheft/Piteher Tube Sample
2. SAMPLE NO. - Sample Number
3. BLOWS/FT - Number of blows required to advance sompler 1 foot (unless a lesser distance it specified).
Samplers in general were driven into the sol at Ms bottom of the hole with a standard (160 !) bommer dropping o standard 30 inches.
Drive samples collected in bucl d auger bwkW may be obtained by dropping non- tondo weight from variable heights.
When a SPT sampler is used the blow count cordores to ASTM D-1586.
SCR/ROD - Sample Cors Recovery (SCR) in percent (S) and Rock Ouabty Designation (ROD) in percent (7t). ROD is defined as the
percentage of core in each run which the spacing between natural fractures is greater than 6 inches. Mechanical brooks of the core
are not considarsd
4. GRAPHIC LOG - Standard symbols for soil and rock types, as shown on plate A -1b.
S. CEOTEC1t11IGl DESCRIPTION
j5d - Sol classification a1 based an the United Sol Classification System per ASTM D-2987. and deignations include consistency. moisture.
color and other modifiers. Field descriptions have been modified to re(W results of laboratory onolysse where dee- appropriate.
Rik - Rock classifications goiwm* include a rock type. color. meistum A— eonsOhrrNs. degree of weadmii . alteration. and
the medmnieal properties of the rock. Fabric, lineations, bedd'iq spooinq, foliations, end degree of ansrtfation ea also presented
where appropriate.
Description err soil origin or rock formation is placed in brackets at the beginning of the dsscrip w where applicable. for example. Residual Soil.
6. DRY DENSITY, MOISTURE CONTENT: As estimated by laboratory or field testing.
7. AOOMONAL TESTS - (Indicates sample tested for properties other than the above):
MAX - Maximton Dry Density SG - Specific Crovity PP - Pocket Penetrometer
GS - Gran Size Distribution HA - Hydrowster Analysis WA - Wash Analysis
SE - Sand Equivalent AL - Atts" tirAs 05 - Direct Sheor
El - Enpension fides RV - R-Vokus CP - Cok pee Potential
04t11 - Sulfate and Chloride Content pN, Resistivity CN - Casofdelion UC - tfnconfrsd Compassion
PM - Pei wobity CU - Co soidolion Undrairsd Trio" T - Torvps
W - Unconsolidated Undrained Trissiol CD - Coneoidsted N rod Tdosid
fl. ATTRUOfS - Onentotiom of rock dWcwdkp.* obwned a bucket auger boring or rock cors, expressed in strike/dip and dip angle.
respectively. proceeded by a one -letter symbol denoting nature of 4scontinuity as shown below.
e: & .1 fir r 9 Plan J. Jointing C: Contact F: Feed S. firer
KLEINFELDERPL4H
EXPLANATION OF LOGS 0-18
_
c�
Cn
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
c
v
U N
AND
v
v
° °
c°
0
CL
a
; o
a
O
CLASSIFICATION
��
U
" c
H
W:_z
(n
N
lam
tan
MU
QIT
1
6
108
10
DS, SE
2
12
GS
5"
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(7)
U
_I I I ' I NOTES ON FIELD INVESTIGATION
I . SAMPLE - Graphical epresentatioe of somple type as shown below.
Split Spoon - Standard Penetration Test Sample (SPT)
Drive Sample - California Samrpb (Cal) ■
Bulk Sample - Obtained by ooMctkg cuttings in o plestic bag
Tube Sample - Sheft/Piteher Tube Sample
2. SAMPLE NO. - Sample Number
3. BLOWS/FT - Number of blows required to advance sompler 1 foot (unless a lesser distance it specified).
Samplers in general were driven into the sol at Ms bottom of the hole with a standard (160 !) bommer dropping o standard 30 inches.
Drive samples collected in bucl d auger bwkW may be obtained by dropping non- tondo weight from variable heights.
When a SPT sampler is used the blow count cordores to ASTM D-1586.
SCR/ROD - Sample Cors Recovery (SCR) in percent (S) and Rock Ouabty Designation (ROD) in percent (7t). ROD is defined as the
percentage of core in each run which the spacing between natural fractures is greater than 6 inches. Mechanical brooks of the core
are not considarsd
4. GRAPHIC LOG - Standard symbols for soil and rock types, as shown on plate A -1b.
S. CEOTEC1t11IGl DESCRIPTION
j5d - Sol classification a1 based an the United Sol Classification System per ASTM D-2987. and deignations include consistency. moisture.
color and other modifiers. Field descriptions have been modified to re(W results of laboratory onolysse where dee- appropriate.
Rik - Rock classifications goiwm* include a rock type. color. meistum A— eonsOhrrNs. degree of weadmii . alteration. and
the medmnieal properties of the rock. Fabric, lineations, bedd'iq spooinq, foliations, end degree of ansrtfation ea also presented
where appropriate.
Description err soil origin or rock formation is placed in brackets at the beginning of the dsscrip w where applicable. for example. Residual Soil.
6. DRY DENSITY, MOISTURE CONTENT: As estimated by laboratory or field testing.
7. AOOMONAL TESTS - (Indicates sample tested for properties other than the above):
MAX - Maximton Dry Density SG - Specific Crovity PP - Pocket Penetrometer
GS - Gran Size Distribution HA - Hydrowster Analysis WA - Wash Analysis
SE - Sand Equivalent AL - Atts" tirAs 05 - Direct Sheor
El - Enpension fides RV - R-Vokus CP - Cok pee Potential
04t11 - Sulfate and Chloride Content pN, Resistivity CN - Casofdelion UC - tfnconfrsd Compassion
PM - Pei wobity CU - Co soidolion Undrairsd Trio" T - Torvps
W - Unconsolidated Undrained Trissiol CD - Coneoidsted N rod Tdosid
fl. ATTRUOfS - Onentotiom of rock dWcwdkp.* obwned a bucket auger boring or rock cors, expressed in strike/dip and dip angle.
respectively. proceeded by a one -letter symbol denoting nature of 4scontinuity as shown below.
e: & .1 fir r 9 Plan J. Jointing C: Contact F: Feed S. firer
KLEINFELDERPL4H
EXPLANATION OF LOGS 0-18
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2487)
PRIMARY DMSIONS GROUP SYMBOLS SECONDARY DMSIONS
CLQ GW o NEIL GRAOtD GRAVELS. GRAVEL-S"rUr1URQ UTTIE OR NO f1r[s
j ; (AM w • • • POORLY WtAM GRA%EIS OR GRAVEL -SAND WWURM U rhl 00 NO :1fS
i GRAVEL GY $LTV GRAWLS. GRAVEL -SMO -AT Mulu S
8 j i Fla GC Cum MAVO3. GRAVEL—SONO—CLAY UWLWcs
W
SOP= SM WCL GRADED SANM GRAVELLY SANDS. UR1LE OR N0 «FS
( P:Ks) SP POORLY GRAOLD SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS. U7.1LE OR NO FLET
iy = soca SM j=j SLTY SM M SAND -SILT YDf AES
FNES
se CLAM SAIO6, sANa-Cur wmJncs
bdL Noswsc SILTS. VOW FINE SAHM Roar n,aNt. SLTY OR
10 aCLAY11 Low 70 MDRIM PPLASTICRY, GRAVELLY GUYS.
218W CLAM 9 a d a I I t LAM LZAN CLAYS_
0011460 SLTS AND 0ROAf6c W -CLAYS or Low PLAsna r
IIt T Alla fb OR OMTOYACMA FNE SM= OR
at NO610MW CLAYS OF MW PL48" fY. FAT CLAYS
am ErAft c CLAYS or MWI N 10 NON R#Snc ffY, aROMac an
NIOILY DRUM SOLI PT PIAT. MUCK AND OTMEQ HWLY ONOOM SOLS
SMO6IOIES SS
x1S701ES SH
CwtvTONES CS
LIMCS fame LS
SHALE SL
I CONSISTENCY CRITERIA BASED ON FIELD TESTS
FELO E OQt9TY - owl= - QwM sm
MOISTURE CONTENT
CONS I'vacy-
Flw-4~4 SOL
7MME
PENCPOiw iEioe
V«y Loa"
<4
0 - 1s
Loa"
4 — 10
is — 35
McAYfrn Owe
10 - 30
35 - 65
Don"
30 - 50
65 - as
Very Dery>50
0.5 - 1.0
65 - 100
MOISTURE CONTENT
CONS I'vacy-
Flw-4~4 SOL
7MME
PENCPOiw iEioe
SR
corestisT>?reY efr.vaa..�
UNDPA D
VM (KPa)00s
UNCOPEvm
'TI�W�+'��` �
Very Son <2
<0.13
<0.ffi
son 2-4
0.13-0.23
0.23-0.3
Medium Stiff 4 - 6
0.25 - 0.5
0.3 - 1.0
Stiff 6 - is
0.5 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.0
Very Stiff 15 - 30
1.0 - 2.0
2.0 - 4.0
Hard >30
>2.0
>4.0
OETatllloN
FIELD TEST
Dry
AtleenCe of tnewun, a+ety. dry to ewe touch
Mow
DoMV Cwt no AWNS Water
Mel
vie" free Water. V«NnY foil Is Wow eater tO DM
CEMENTATION
Grp
DOW
760�n 70
lAIKL tDSA UVO
UTr
STIi1101N N
0% F"
FROM POCW
rOETR01ETOt
oEx,tplloN FWD TEST
Wookfy (nimble or bre" vith ta+q as SW F&W Pie
Moaerot* Cngabi.e or ereofv oft mnefeeraefe fv4w wu nwe
Stror4y WW not crumbW or N eofc with ►-+ver Pr..M.•
RAn
KLEIN F E L D E R EXPLANATION OF LOGS B —1 b
Drilled By: Hillside Repair Date Measured: 12/08/98
Drilling Method: 24" Bucket Auger Reference Elevation: 949.0 ft
Logged Bv: JLH/KDC Datum: Survey
W
OGP v
L
W
O
T 7
►- z
a s
f1
CMED p.
C
o\
a o
m
J
U
a
U
GEOTECHMCAL DESCRIP'T'ION
AND
CLASSIFICATION
-
C
o 4-
T U
i
L+
N }
•- C
E
o
N
Q FW -
8
FRL
Y SILT (ML): gray brown, moist, stiff to very
light brown siltstone bedrock clasts
stiff, some grayish
-- scattered sandstone clasts
1
9
75
37.1
-945-
5
2
23
-- stiff
-940-
10
3
18
-- slight increase in moisture content
-- moist, slight increase in clay content
-935-
PLATE
k" KLEINFELDER
Minnequa Landslide
Diamond Bar, California
B -2a
PROJECT NO. 58-8405-01
LOG OF BORING B-1
Explanation To Logs On Plate B-1
ia } o o GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
C
_ V 4- J AND _
C
C L }
N U O�+. W 4- N
> d a s 3 o a CLASSIFICATION T u m v N
01W w m ro cIL -
Wv0 N N m� C� O ��V QH
(Continued From Previous Page)
a 26 = BEDROCK: Puente Formation-Yorba Member 69 51.8
=ig o f -brown , s ig y moss o moist,
-: medium dense, thin bedded, moderately weathered,
= moderately strong to strong
-- contact dippppin toward slope, is graded, irregular
15' B: N34W,NE
15'B: N30W, 24NE
_ -- Iron staining along bedding, cemented and fractured
siltstone, 3 to 4 inches thick
- = -- vertical fracture
030-
205 is - Cs? 20'B: N27W, 35NE, N20W, 24NE 77 45.0
_ -- increased moisture, polished surface subparallel to
= bedding, some limonite staining, well bedded, continuous
= around born
SILTSTONE: light gray to yellow brown, damp, weak,
= moderately fractured
59E, coated'oint surfaces
20' Shear zone, parallei'to bedding, tectonically
s eared siltstone unit
-- moist, some limonite coatings, some gypsum
_ coatins, slicks observed
_ 0 21%:N48W, 15NE
925_ — TSTONE: 4 inches thick, pinches and swells
-- InternalI sheared zone trace around borehole
Zs
23.9' S: N75E' 20NW�
— CLAYEY SANDSTONE: bedding loose (soft)
24' B:N53W, 24NE
— -- roots alon beddin cla zone arallel to beddin
— 25' CLAY BED: B:N48W 15NE
= 25' Joint: limonite stained clay lined, 1/4 inch thick
2'J: N1 IE 67SE
= 26' B: N25W, 22NE continuous, occasional moisture
=_ ong fractures and bedding
_ -seeppage heavy 28 to 28.8 feet
028 ' B: �132W -20NE -- well bedded
-- abundant polished surfaces, wetted, random
-920- = oriented, subparallel to bedding
_ -- internal sheared bed, minor seepage along joints and
bedding
30 6 25 = --bottom of shear zone at 29.0 feet 93 38.0
29' B: N32W, 30 NE -- heavy moisture
29' B: N48W, 18NE
_ -- well bedded shearing stops at this attitude
= 30' -- thin SANDSTONFinterbeds, minor healed
factures with limonite fillings, moist clay layers
Q 31.5'B: N41 W, 15NE
PLATE
K L E I N F E L D E R Minnequa Landslide
Diamond Bar, California B -2b
PROJECT NO. 58-8405-01 LOG OF BORING B-1
Explanation To Logs On Plate B-1
Explanation To Logs On Plate B-1
L
m
Explanation To Logs On Plate B-1
T
a
c c 0
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
C
o
1 -
z
-
U
AND _
C
W 3 °
oa
4- 4-
CLASSIFICATION
+ t+
>
'0
°L
T c W
IL
w.. o
m
m
m.. c9
.�¢►°�
oEvu
(Continued From Previous Page)
-
= �:
33' Shear contact with Tpsqq,, SANDSTONE
�ternally sheared polished surfaces, wetted, random
onented sheazs azound sandstone concretion
-915- -
34' J: N -S 45 E, projects up clay coated leaves boring
ANDSTONI�, �ine to medium grain,
yellow-brown,
cemented, massive to thickly bedded,
clayey, weakly
35-
9rades to cobbly sandstone at 37.0 feet
36'J: N22W, 73NE
__
-- 1 inch thick gouge, sandstone below, siltstone above,
—:
juxtaposes sandstone(west) and siltstone east),
feet
continuou in boring, leaves boring at 39 and enters
& at 13 feet on west side
-- cobbles to 3 to 4 inches, approximately 6 to 8 inches
boring bells ou at 39 feet
thick, massive,
910
SELTY SANDSTONE: light. yellow brown, moderately
cemented fine to coarse grain. slightly moist
40
7
ss
CLAYEY SANDSTONE: yellow -gray, moist, very dense,
110
19.3
some heavy limonite staining
Total depth of boring: 42.0 feet
KDC
Downhole to ed to 40.0 feet by JLH and
Boring backfil ed and tamped with soil cuttings
PLATE
K L E I N F E L D E R
Minnequa Landslide
Diamond Bar, California
B -2c
PROJECT NO. 58-8405-01
LOG OF BORING B-1
Explanation To Logs On Plate B-1
.-)ate ;-)n,..ec : 7 I , 4__ – _z- 1. .
Drilled By: Hillside Repair Date Measured: 12/09/98
Drilling Method: Bucket Auger 24" Reference Elevation: 922.0 ft
T naoPri Rv• JLH/KDC Datum: Survey
Explanation To Logs On Plate B-1
t
SOUL DESCRIPTION
W
O .-. L
a r
T–
o
C O
o
J
AND
3 ,�.�,�
c
– t+.
+ a a
H H
O't
v
CLASSIFICATION
c
c
> y
W vO
W WU3
E E
O
L
�v+W
T
N C
�~
Q
W
b b
U) N
.2
m�
A
L
U
O
r_
U
SLIDE DEBRA
II. CLAY (CIS: light olive brown, moist, some
cemented siltstone clasts of fine gravel size
-92a
mottled grayish brown, moist, soft to medium stiff
s
SILTY CLAY (CL): dark gray, moist, soft to medium
stiff, mottled
- from feet
CLAYEY SILT (NII,): gray brown, moist, soft to medium
-91s-
stiff, mottled with siltstone fragments
—
-- root,r xim t 1 1 inch diameter
-- roots along fill contact
feet SLIDE DEBRIS -(bedrock)
—
a7.5
LTSTOIYE: mottled grayish, medium stiff, weak to
_
ve weak moist abundant random caliche
09, 9.5' B: N45W, 26NE abundant polished surfaces on
to
bedding, discontinuous, highly weathered "clay -like".
—
Locally sheared, indistinct structure, caliche defined in
2
16
—
tures.
-91a
Q 12' Intenselyy weathered to a silty clay, zone of
— moisture and shearing,with roots.
35NW,
= Q 12' SHEAR PLAE: S: N30E, general
apparent dip: 23 NW
_ -- very soft, wet zone approximately 0.5 feet thick.
= Bedrock structure significantly more coherent below 12.5
eet
15 3 22 = BEDROCK: Puente Formation -Y rb Member
012.5' CLAYEY : light olive brown it
light ray, moist, medium dense, highly weathered, weak,
some h' fractures with limonite coatings, contact
905- appears severely weathered, bedrock moderately well
bedded
C�? 12.5' B: N75E 22SE
-- south side of boring, fracture enters boring,
xodized ti ht occasional root
14.2' 1 �56E, 52NW
— -- limonite staining along bedding common
PLATE
k" K L E I N F E L D E R Minnequa Landslide
Diamond Bar, California B -3a
PROJECT NO. 58-8405-01 LOG OF BORING B-2
Explanation To Logs On Plate B-1
SOIL DESCRIPTION
wi
.62 rn ^
C3^
O ...0
T
E
v N
C
C O -J AND t at', 01 O+
i0
- — N
0 U CLASSIFICATION - Ui L 4-
a',VC a
aaai
W
w
a
a
s
L)m .-
L)
o C (Continued From Previous Page)
W
ro b
O-0 L L E 0
(n
(n
m.. CD
-
_
-- minor seepage general weeping of bedrock
-- tight oxodiz2, abundant random fracturing
=
16.6' indistinct bedding although still dipping south,
dom fractures
—_
e Siltstone changes to CLAY. medium gray
17.0' B: N48E, 14NW, Joint: wet, tight J: N35W, vert.
-- Significant increased moisture, no actual real
17..6' Healed shear zone, 0.25 inch thick, S: N45E,
18.5' Polished slickensides, shear enters boring above
ss
h bed below, striated down dip, random orientation,
jeeppage
e 1YY dippping to flat.
7'Sh: N45E, 36NW common, varies to N30E,NW
895-
��STONE: white ash, 2 inches thick, wet, fine grain,
ite to light ray
18.7'B: NE 6SE
19.0' B: 11475E, 12SE on SILTSTONE
'oints
22' limonite staining, abundant intersecting
J: N72E, 30NW, J: )V S, 23W, J: N75E, ve.
22.4'J: N42E 68NW
30
4
43
@ 23.5' SANDSTONE: light gray, some iron oxide on
bottom of bed, 5 cm thick, continuous in 95% of boring,
weeping continuous
-- drier below sandstone
23.5'B:
6' B N15W 15SW
@ 27' changes to CLAYEY SANDSTONE, fine to
=j
edium rain
Total depth of boring: 31.0 feet, Refusal encountered
Seepage encountered at 15, 17 18.7 and 23.5 feet
Downhole logged by KDC and JLH
PLATE
KLEINFELDER
Minnequa Landslide
Diamond Bar, California
B -3b
PROJECT NO. 58-8405-01
LOG OF BORING B-2
Explanation To Logs On Plate B-1
Drilled By: Hillside Repair Date Measured: Q12/10/98
_•n' __ '+.�_.I--A. 'IA" a..-6-+ A. -r RPfPrP11CP FIP_vatlnn- 872.0 ft
Logged 13y: JLH/KDC Datum: Survey
a
L
'° e
+ o
o
GEOTECBMCAL DESCRIPTION
+
,�,�
ro
T
E-
7
:z
C O
o
J
AND
N
C
W
L c
C
o
•C +
°�
°'
.a
'� 3
L
CLASSIFICATION
a t
} t
t W
a
A
b
3 O
��
a
L
T U-
O
C
17 a
QF
uai�
C3
N
n
d]
AEU
-
'
II&SAND (SM): gra brown, moist, fine to medium
I.0 feet
sand roots common to
3 SAND (SM): ray brown, slightlymoist fill lifts
� feet
s�o
ry t rtermination at
BEDROCK: Puente Formation - uel Member.
TONE: li ht yellow brown, slightl moist, dense
dense, weathered, tgne to medium
to very moderately
`
rain, some gravel to 2 inch diameter, some clay content
4' Cemented sandstone clasts
4.5' cobbles, thickly bedded to massive, poorly
bedded, possible cross bedded
103
13.6
'446'
verryy dense
@6.6GB: N32W, 13SW
-865-
Q 7.3' brown, carbonaceous, irregular contact top and
bottom, breccia contact, fine to medium grain with
rounded sandstone clasts
8' changes to yellow brown SANDSTONE with some
clay
10
-- grades brown to dark _yellow brown, fine to coarse
rain scattered fine grave
fine to orange,
sandstone massive, yellow-brown
irregular contact, wea�y, cemented, no imbricated
structure in hole bentonitic rip -up clasts
9' hard layer, moderately to well cemented
860-
gravet
12 slight increase in moisture
6 inches
(g� 12.2' Cobble layer, clasts to
Total depth of boring: 14.5 feet, refusal encountered
No groundwater encountered
No seepage
Boring downhole logged by KDC and JLH to 12.0 feet
backfilled tamped with soil cuttings
Boring and
PLATE
K L E I N F E L D E R
Minnequa Landslide
Diamond Bar, California
B-4
PROJECT NO. 58-8405-01
LOG OF BORING B-3
Explanation To Logs On Plate B-1
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING
LABORATORY TESTING
k4 K L E I N F F L 1) E K
Laboratory tests were performed on selected bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples to
estimate engineering characteristics of the various earth materials encountered. Testing was
performed in accordance with one of the following references:
1) Lambe, T. William, (1951), Soil Testing for Engineers, Wiley, New York.
2) Laboratory Soils Testing, U.S. Army, (1970), Office of the Chief of Engineers, Engineering
Manual No. 1110-2-1906.
3) ASTM Standards for Soil Testing, latest revisions.
LABORATORY MOISTURE AND DENSITY DETERMINATIONS
Natural moisture content and dry density tests were performed on relatively undisturbed samples
collected. The moisture content was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D
2216. The results are presented on the Logs of Borings in Appendix B.
SIEVE ANALYSES
Sieve analyses was performed on two samples of the materials encountered at the site to evaluate
the grain size distribution characteristics of the soils and to aid in their classification. Tests were
performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 422. Results of these tests are
presented as Plates C-1.
PLASTICITY INDEX
Plasticity index testing was performed on samples of the on-site soils to determine plasticity
characteristics and to aid in the classification of the soils encountered. The tests were performed
in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D 4318. The results are presented on Plate C-2.
58840501/5819RO04 Page C-1 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
kn KLF.I,NFI L1)ER
DIRECT SHEAR
Direct shear testing was performed on one relatively undisturbed and two remolded samples
compacted to 90 percent relative compaction to evaluate the soil shear strength and cohesion
values in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D 3080. The results are presented in
Plates C-3.1 through C-3.3.
MAXIMUM DENSITY
Three maximum density tests was performed on selected bulk samples of the on-site soils to
determine compaction characteristics. The test was performed in accordance with ASTM Standard
Test Method D 1557-91. The test results are presented in the following table.
Maximum Densitv and Optimum Moisture
Boring Dc�p#big t%j
Cil im ensity:`': Optimu>Ep�Moisture
5,..
NO
B-1 1 to 5
93 25.5
B-2 1 to 5
77 41
58840501/5819R004 Page C-2 January 18, 1999
Copyright 1999 Kleinfelder, Inc.
100
90
80
70
z 60
H
N
N
a 50
z
w
L)
w 40
CL
J
Q
H
0 30
20
10
0
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3" 1.5" 314" 3/8" #4 #10 #16 #30 1160 /1100 #200
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
GRAVEL I SAND
SILT
CLAY
coarse tine—d
coarse medium fine
Symbol
Sample
Description
Classification
•
m
B-1 1-5'
B-2 1-5'
Silty Clay
Clayey Silt
CH
MH
k" KLEINFELDER
PROJECT NO. 58-8405-01
Minnequa Landslide
Minnequa and Sunset Crossing
Diamond Bar, California
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
PLATE
C -1
0
w
z
H
Q
H
w
z
w
U
M
a
J
Q
H
0
F-
60
50
N
d
v
x 40
W
z
H
N 30
U
H
H
N
Q
ii 20
10
0
CH
CL
MH
OH
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
LL - Liquid Limit
PL - Plasticity Limit
PI - Plasticity Index
LI - Liquidity Index
Unified Soil Classification
Fine Grained Soil Groups
LL < 50
Sample
Inorganic clayYey silts to very fine sands
of slight lasficit
LL (%)
PL (%)
PI (%)
LI (-)
Description
•
B-1 1-5'
70
32
38
Silty Clay
m
B-2 1-5'
80
45
35
Clayey Silt
LL - Liquid Limit
PL - Plasticity Limit
PI - Plasticity Index
LI - Liquidity Index
Unified Soil Classification
Fine Grained Soil Groups
k" KLEINFELDER
PROJECT NO. 58-8405-01
LL < 50
ML
Inorganic clayYey silts to very fine sands
of slight lasficit
CL
Inorganic clayYs of low to
medium plasticity
OL
Organic silts and organic silty clays of
low plasticit
k" KLEINFELDER
PROJECT NO. 58-8405-01
N innequa Landslide
Minnequa and Sunset Crossing
Diamond Bar, California
PLASTICITY CHART
PLATE
C-2
LL > 50
MH
Inor,ganic silts and clayey silts
of high plasticity
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity
OH
Organic clays of medium to
hi hplasticity, organic silts
N innequa Landslide
Minnequa and Sunset Crossing
Diamond Bar, California
PLASTICITY CHART
PLATE
C-2
4.0
3.5
3.0
O
1.0
0.5_
0.0 L
0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
NORMAL STRESS - ksf
Test type
controlled - strain test
Rate of shear - in/min
N/A
Normal Stress - psf
1000
1 2000
4000
Maximum Shear - psf
1325
2691
3281
Shear Strain - %
N/A
N/A
N/A
j.0 J.3
4.0
Sample
B -1R1-5'
Friction Angle - deg
31
Cohesion - ksf
1.03
Description
Silty Clay
Classification
Remolded to 90%
Minnequa Landslide PLATE
MinneK L E I N F E L D E R Diamond and Sunset Crossing
Diamond Bar, California
DIRECT SHEAR TEST C-3.2
PROJECT NO. 58-8405-01
4.0
3.5
3.0
'I�
1.0
0.5
0.0 L
0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
NORMAL STRESS - ksf
Test type
controlled - strain test
Rate of shear - in/min
N/A
Normal Stress - psf
1000
2000
4000
Maximum Shear - psf
988
1966
2534
Shear Strain - %
N/A
N/A
N/A
k" KLEINFELDER
PROJECT NO. 58-8405-01
Sample
B-2 1-5'
Friction Angle - deg
26
Cohesion - ksf
0.70
Description
Clayey Silt
Classification
Remolded to 90°k
Minnequa Landslide
Minnequa and Sunset Crossing
Diamond Bar, California
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
PLATE
C-3.3
s
00
rn
i
M
N
4'
X
N
Z
Z
►a
Ln
O
d'
I
O
M
O
O
M
O O O O O O
Ln O LO O LO
N N
G99j) SIXd-J.
O
O
O
LO
5-71
M
O
00
rn
I
M
N
1
N
X
M
z
z
9
M
c�
LO
9
O
M
O
O
M
O O O O O O
LO o Ln o LO
N N
09,91) SIXd—J,
O
O
O
LO
L
PLATE
PROJM TMAL We E-1
Diamond Bar, California FLL SLE
MJ3NMMM Project: 58-8405-01/003 January 1999
RLTER MATERIAL
9 CUBIC FEET PER FOOT
OR AS RECOMMENDED
BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
FILTER MATERIAL OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST
9 CUBIC FEET PER FOOT •
OR AS REOOMMDOED
BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
MIiAFT 140 OR OR EMOO93MM GEOLOGIST
APPROVED
EQUIVALENT
OVERLAP(SEE NOTE 1)
MINIMUM 12'
• •., : 6 MINNAUTA, .. ,
PERFORATED PPE
T` T r DIAMETER MNII UM,
' rm' �� -�
SCHEDULE 40 P.V.C. PPE
BEDDING 4" MMIpAUM ' (SEE NOTE 2)
PERFORATED PPE
6' DIAMETER MINIUM.
SCHEDULE 40 P.V.C. PPE 3� — MIW 140 OR
(SEE NOTE 2) APPROVED
EQUIVALENT
(SEE NOTE 1)
ALTERNATE 1A ALTERNATE 19
1) IF CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL ( PER SEXrI 65-1.025 CALTRANS STANDARD
SPECPICATI(M) E USED. THE GEOMITILE FETER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED.
2). MINIMUM 6" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE E TO BE USED WITH KWOPA710NS FACING
DOWHORD.
3) ALL PPE SHOULD BE P.V.C. (SCHEME 40) OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE WITH A
MINIMUM CRUSHING STRENGTH OF 1000 POUNDS PER SQUIRE INCH.
4) FOR CONTINUOUS RUN IN EXCESS OF 500 FEET USE B" DIAMETER PPE
5) TYPICAL TRENCH DMENSIONS AS SHOWN, OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
TECHNICAL
ENGINEER OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST.
6) P06I11VE CUT -0117 NECESSARY WHERE PERFORATED AND SOLID PIPES MEET.
7) SUBDRAW GRADIENT 90" BE A WM M OF 2% OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE
OODTEM*WAL ENGINEER OR ENGINEEidiO GEOLOGIST.
�) FOR BACK DRAW 4 CUBIC FEET IS SUITABLE
PLATE
IMINNNEMAA PROwlECT r=AL suss E-2
Diamond Bar, California DETAL
Project: 58-8405-01/003 January 1999