HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021.08.17 Agenda Packet - Regular MeetingCity Council Agenda
Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Closed Session 5:30 PM
Regular Meeting 6:30 PM
Diamond Bar City Hall – Windmill Community Room
21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PUBLIC ADVISORY:
Consistent with the Governor’s Executive Order, members of the public are encouraged to
participate and address the City Council during the public comment portion of the meeting via
teleconference.
Members of the City Council and limited staff may be physically present for this meeting. If you
would like to attend the meeting in person, please note that face coverings are required to be worn
at all times.
How to Observe the Meeting From Home:
Members of the public can observe the meeting by calling +1 (562) 247-8422, Access Code: 394-060-454
or visiting https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6033950905415469584.
How to Submit Public Comment:
Members of the public may provide public comment by sending written comments to the City Clerk by
email at cityclerk@DiamondBarCA.gov by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Please indicate in the
Subject Line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.” Written comments will be distributed to the Council Members
and noted for the record at the meeting.
Alternatively, public comment may be submitted by logging onto the meeting through this link:
https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6033950905415469584. Members of the public will be
called upon one at a time during the Public Comment portion of the agenda. Speakers are limited to five
minutes per agenda item, unless the Mayor determines otherwise.
American Disability Act Accommodations:
Pursuant to the Executive Order, and in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need
special assistance to participate in the Council Meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (909) 839-
7010 within 72 hours of the meeting. City Council video recordings with transcription will be available
upon request the day following the Council Meeting.
The City of Diamond Bar thanks you in advance for taking all precautions to prevent
spreading the COVID-19 virus.
ANDREW CHOU
Council Member
STAN LIU
Council Member
STEVE TYE
Council Member
NANCY A. LYONS
Mayor
RUTH M. LOW
Mayor Pro Tem
City Manager Dan Fox • City Attorney David DeBerry • City Clerk Kristina Santana
DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RULES
Welcome to the meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council. Meetings are open to the public and are
broadcast on Spectrum Cable Channel 3 and Frontier FiOS television Channel 47. You are in vited
to attend and participate. Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda
items are on file and available for public inspection by contacting the Office of the City Clerk. If
requested, the agenda will be made available in an alternative format to a person with disability as
required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. If you have questions
regarding an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (909) 839-7010 during regular business
hours.
PUBLIC INPUT
Members of the public may address the Council on any item of business on the agenda during the
time the item is taken up by the Council. In addition, members of the public may, during the Public
Comment period address the Council on any Consent Calendar item or any matter not on the
agenda and within the Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. Any material to be submitted to the City
Council at the meeting should be submitted through the City Clerk.
Speakers are limited to five minutes per agenda item, unless the Mayor determines otherwise. The
Mayor may adjust this time limit depending on the number of people wishing to speak, the
complexity of the matter, the length of the agenda, the hour and any other relevant consideration.
Speakers may address the Council only once on an agenda item, except during public hearing s,
when the applicant/appellant may be afforded a rebuttal.
Public comments must be directed to the City Council. Behavior that disrupts the orderly conduct of
the meeting may result in the speaker being removed from the meeting.
INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL
Agendas for regular City Council meetings are available 72 hours prior to the m eeting and are
posted in the City’s regular posting locations, on DBTV Channel 3, Spectrum Cable Channel 3,
Frontier FiOS television Channel 47 and on the City’s website at www.diamondbarca.gov. The City
Council may take action on any item listed on the agenda.
HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS
Copies of agendas, rules of the Council, Video of meetings: (909) 839-7010
Computer access to agendas: www.diamondbarca.gov
General information: (909) 839-7000
Written materials distributed to the City Council within 72 hours of the City Council meeting are
available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk’s Office at 21810 Copley
Dr., Diamond Bar, California, during normal business hours.
THIS MEETING IS BEING VIDEO RECORDED AND BY PARTICIPATING VIA
TELECONFERENCE, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED.
THIS MEETING WILL BE RE-BROADCAST EVERY SATURDAY AND SUNDAY AT
9:00 A.M. AND ALTERNATE TUESDAYS AT 8:00 P.M. AND IS ALSO AVAILABLE FOR
LIVE VIEWING AT
HTTPS://ATTENDEE.GOTOWEBINAR.COM/REGISTER/6033950905415469584 AND
ARCHIVED VIEWING ON THE CITY’S WEB SITE AT WWW.DIAMONDBARCA.GOV.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
August 17, 2021
CLOSED SESSION: 5:30 p.m., Windmill Room
Public Comments on Closed Session
Government Code Section 54957
Public Employee – City Manager
Performance Evaluation
CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor
ROLL CALL: Chou, Liu, Tye, Mayor Pro Tem Low,
Mayor Lyons
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
1. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
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 Council
on Consent Calendar items or other matters of interest not on the agenda that
are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. Although the City Council
values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, members of the City Council
or Staff may briefly respond to public comments if necessary, but no extended
discussion and no action on such matters may take place. There is a five-minute
maximum time limit when addressing the City Co uncil. Please complete a
Speaker Card and hand it to the City Manager (completion of this form is
voluntary). The City will call on in person speakers first and then teleconference
AUGUST 17, 2021 PAGE 2
callers, one at a time to give their name and if there is an agenda item nu mber
they wish to speak on before providing their comment. If you wish to speak on a
public hearing item or council consideration item, you will be called upon to
speak at that point in the agenda.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be
routine and will be acted on by a single motion unless a Council Member or
member of the public request otherwise, in which case, the item will be removed
for separate consideration.
3.1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 3, 2021 REGULAR
MEETING.
3.1.a August 3, 2021 City Council Minutes
Recommended Action:
Approve the August 3, 2021 Regular City Council meeting minutes.
Requested by: City Clerk
3.2 RATIFICATION OF CHECK REGISTER DATED JULY 29, 2021
THROUGH AUGUST 11, 2021 TOTALING $459,642.14.
Recommended Action:
Ratify the Check Register.
Requested by: Finance Department
3.3 CONSIDERATION TO EXTEND A LOCAL EMERGENCY REGARDING
NOVEL CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19).
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 2021-38 extending the Declared Local Emergency
regarding Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19).
Requested by: City Manager
3.4 CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FRJ & ASSOCIATES
("FRJ"), TO ADMINISTER THE CITY'S HOME IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (HIP) THROUGH JUNE 30, 2026.
Recommended Action:
Approve, and authorize the Mayor to sign, the Consulting Services
Agreement with FRJ & Associates for Hom e Improvement Program
Administration Services through June 30, 2026.
Requested by: Community Development Department
AUGUST 17, 2021 PAGE 3
3.5 HEALTH OFFICER ORDER OF FACE COVERINGS.
Recommended Action:
Remove the item from further consideration.
Requested by: City Manager
3.6 CANCELLATION OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Recommended Action:
Adjourn the August 17, 2021 City Council meeting to Se ptember 21, 2021.
Requested by: City Manager
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4.1 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 83371 (PLANNING CASE NO. PL2021 -
15) FOR A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 2335 S. DIAMOND BAR
BOULEVARD (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 8292-009-004).
Recommended Action:
Receive staff report; Open the Public Hearing to receive any testimony;
Close the Public Hearing; Discuss; and Adopt Resolution No. 2021 -39
Approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371 (Planning Case No. PL2021 -
15) based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to th e Conditions of
Approval Contained therein.
Requested by: Community Development Department
4.2 APPROVAL OF A COST REPORT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND LIEN TO RECOVER NUISANCE
ABATEMENT COSTS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2202 PEBBLE LANE (APN: 8765-017-038).
Recommended Action:
A. Open the public hearing to receive any testimony from the property
owner or their representative;
B. Close the public hearing; and
C. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-40 approving the Cost Report and
establishing a special assessment and lien in the amount of $15,462
on the property located at 2202 Pebble Lane (APN: 8765 -017-038).
Requested by: Community Development Department
AUGUST 17, 2021 PAGE 4
4.3 ORDINANCE NO. 02 (2021) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 22 (DEVELOPMENT
CODE) OF THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD NEW
SECTION 22.42.135 (SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES), AND TO AM END
SECTION 22.42.130 (RADIO AND TELEVISION ANTENNAS AND
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA FACILITIES),
SECTION 22.44.020 (AUTHORITY FOR LAND USE AND ZONING
DECISIONS), SECTION 22.74.030 (APPEALS OF DECISIONS), AND
SECTION 22.74.040 (FILING AND PROCESSING OF APPEALS), TO
ENACT REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE DEPLOYMENT,
AUGMENTATION, AND RELOCATION OF SMALL WIRELESS
FACILITIES IN THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND
FEDERAL LAW.
Recommended Action:
Introduce first reading of Ordinance No. 02 (2021) as modifi ed, open
Public Hearing, receive public testimony, schedule the second reading
and adoption at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting.
Requested by: Community Development Department
5. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
5.1 CA LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES RESOLUTIONS AT THE 2021
ANNUAL CONFERENCE.
Recommended Action:
Provide direction to the City’s Delegates on the proposed Resolutions to
be considered at the League of CA Cities General Assembly Meeting.
Requested by: City Manager
6. COUNCIL SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE
REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
7. ADJOURNMENT:
Agenda #: 3.1
Meeting Date: August 17, 2021
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager
TITLE: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 3, 2021 REGULAR
MEETING.
STRATEGIC
GOAL:
Open, Engaged & Responsive Government
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the August 3, 2021 Regular City Council meeting minutes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Minutes have been prepared and are being presented for approval.
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
3.1
Packet Pg. 7
Attachments:
1. 3.1.a August 3, 2021 City Council Minutes
3.1
Packet Pg. 8
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
DIAMOND BAR CITY HALL WINDMILL COMMUNITY ROOM
21810 COPLEY DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
AUGUST 3, 2021
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Lyons called the Regular City Council meeting
to order at 6:30 p.m.
M/Lyons stated that consistent with COVID-19 regulations, members of the public were
encouraged to participate and address the City Council during the public comment
portion of the meeting via teleconference. Members of the City Council a nd limited staff
were physically present for the meeting and public seating was limited due to distancing
requirements on a first-come, first-serve basis.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tem Low led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Andrew Chou (telephonically), Stan
Liu, Steve Tye, Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Low, Mayor
Nancy Lyons
Staff in Attendance: Dan Fox, City Manager; Ryan McLean, Assistant City
Manager; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Joan Cruz, Administrative
Assistant; Kristina Santana, City Clerk
Staff present telephonically: David DeBerry, City Attorney; David Liu, Public Works
Director; Hal Ghafari, Public Works Manager/Assistant City Engineer; Jessica Cortez,
Director of Finance; Amy Haug, Human Resources and Risk Manager; Ken Desforges,
Director of Information Services; Cecilia Arellano, Public Information Coordinator;
Christy Murphey, Recreation Superintendent; Marsha Roa, Public Information Manager
Also in Attendance: Deputy Aaron Scheller, LA County Sheriff’s
Department.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented.
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 Golf Course Renovation Project Update – Presentation provided by Paul
Hubler, Director of Government and Community Relations with the San
Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, and Bob Huff, President of Huff
Strategies.
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
2.1 2021 Strategic Plan Implementation Update – Presentation provided by
ACM/McLean
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 9
AUGUST 3, 2021 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
George Davidson spoke about local efforts to stave off destruction of bee
colonies.
Michelle Yi commented on the Millennium Development Tract Map.
Pui-Ching Ho announced the reopening of the all-volunteer Basically Books at
the Diamond Bar library.
Allen Wilson asked for clarification on the use of Prop A Funds and other
restricted funds projects.
CC/Santana announced that George Davidson submitted a public comment via
email and it was forwarded to the City Council prior to the meeting.
The following speakers spoke telephonically:
Paul Deibel commended the City Council for adopting the Additional Dwell ing
Unit (ADU) Ordinance.
Teri Muse, Public Sector Solutions Representative for Waste Management,
spoke about and apologized for service disruptions and longer wait times for
collection services due to driver shortages and COVID-19 related health
concerns.
CA/DeBerry responded to comments about the Millennium Development Final
Map approval.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Tye moved, MPT/Low seconded, to approve the
Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Liu, Tye, MPT/Low, M/Lyons
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
4.1 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:
4.1a JULY 20, 2021 REGULAR MEETING.
4.2 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER DATED JULY 15, 2021 THROUGH JULY
28, 2021 TOTALING $776,240.76.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
5.1 ORDINANCE NO. 02 (2021): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 22 (DEVELOPMENT
CODE) OF THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD NEW
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 10
AUGUST 3, 2021 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 22.42.135 (SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES), AND TO AMEND
SECTION 22.42.130 (RADIO AND TELEVISION ANTENNAS AND
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA FACILITIES),
SECTION 22.44.020 (AUTHORITY FOR LAND USE AND ZONING
DECISIONS), SECTION 22.74.030 (APPEALS OF DECISIONS), AND
SECTION 22.74.040 (FILING AND PROCESSING OF APPEALS), TO
ENACT REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE DEPLOYMENT,
AUGMENTATION, AND RELOCATION OF SMALL WIRELESS
FACILITIES IN THE CITY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND
FEDERAL LAW.
AP/Nakajima presented the staff report.
M/Lyons opened the Public Hearing.
Paul Deibel asked whether there would be notice given under the new
Administrative Approval process to residential property owners with in
proximity to a proposed new small wireless facility about possible health
exposure. AP/Nakajima explained that the new process would not require
notification to adjacent property owners. RF reports can be required for
these sites to make sure they do not exceed the FCC thresholds.
Douglas Barcon spoke about ham radio operators and radio frequencies.
M/Lyons closed the Public Hearing.
C/Chou asked whether the safe harbor fees were recurring or one time
and AP/Nakajima responded that for recurring fees, the City is limited to
charging about $270 for poles, right-of-way, and antennas in parks. For
one-time fees, the City is limited to $500 for pole location and $1000 for
new builds.
CA/DeBerry responded to C/Chou that radio frequencies are governed by
the FCC over which the City has no regulatory authority and would
therefore not be subject to liability.
CDD/Gubman elaborated on the application of fees that for this ordinance
pertain only to the cost of staff’s time to process, review and approve the
micro towers as opposed to collection of rent on Edison assets or non-
micro facilities that are subject to a lease agreement on private or public
property.
CA/DeBerry responded to MPT/Low that statutes enacted by congress
prohibiting cities, local jurisdictions and the state from enacting regulations
that have the effect of prohibiting service and the FCC is the implementing
agency.
C/Tye moved, C/Chou seconded, to introduce for first reading by title only,
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 11
AUGUST 3, 2021 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
waive full reading of Ordinance No. 02 (2021) and schedule second
reading and adoption for the next regularly scheduled City Council
Meeting scheduled for August 17, 2021. Motion carried by the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Liu, Tye, MPT/Low,
M/Lyons
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
6.1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR AUTHORIZING A REWARD OF UP TO $10,000 FOR
INFORMATION LEADING TO THE ARREST AND CONVICTION OF THE
PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF BRUCE BODEL.
M/Lyons introduce the item and invited family members speak to the
resolution.
Gene Bodel spoke about his brother Bruce Bodel and said his family
would appreciate the driver coming forward and acknowledging
responsibility for his brother’s death.
Jessica Bodel, daughter, said that it has been almost a month since her
father’s passing with no resolution and thinks a reward would be helpful in
encouraging someone to come forward.
Deputy Scheller felt a reward at this time would be helpful to provide
encouragement for the driver to come forward. The department has
received a few calls that did not result in finding a suspect(s) or suspect
vehicle, and encourages anyone to come forth with any inform ation that
might assist the department in finding the individual and bring some
resolution to the family. Anyone with information can call the Diamond
Bar/Walnut Sheriff’s Station at 909-595-2264 or crime stoppers at 1800-
222-TIPS.
M/Lyons asked Deputy Scheller if the department could match wha t the
City was offering to which he responded that any reward offered ultimately
goes to the LA County Board of Supervisors for approval.
C/Tye appealed to the community to do the right thing and come forward.
He favored offering the reward and asking the supervisors to participate.
MPT/Low agreed.
C/Chou thanked M/Lyons for bringing this matter to the Council and said
he believes the $10,000 reward is the least the City could do to help the
family. He further stated that during the press conference, Jessica Bodel
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 12
AUGUST 3, 2021 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
suggested a traffic calming device might be helpful on that portion of
Lycoming.
C/Liu agreed with other Council Members, thanked M/Lyons for bringing
this item forward and said he hoped the LA County Supervisors would
match the reward amount.
M/Lyons moved, C/Tye seconded, to adopt a Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar authorizing a reward of up to $10,000
for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the perso n(s)
responsible for the death of Bruce Bodel and that the City pursue
obtaining a matching reward of $10,000 from the LA County Supervisors.
6.2 HEALTH OFFICER ORDER ON INDOOR FACE COVERING
REQUIREMENTS.
M/Lyons opened Public Comments.
Allen Wilson disagreed with a no-confidence letter regarding the health
officer’s order on indoor face covering requirements.
CC/Santana announced that following submitted a public comment via
email and all the emails were forwarded to the City Council prior to the
meeting:
Christina Goode
Adrienne Cotterell
Douglas Barcon
Stacy Lee
Cynthia Robin Smith
Mindy Farabee
Speaking Telephonically:
The following individuals spoke in opposition to a no-confidence letter
regarding the health officer’s order on indoor face covering
requirements.
Adrienne Cotterell
Greg Fritchell (Walnut resident)
Grace Mann
Kevin Hayakawa
Paul Deibel
Rosie Fabian
George Davidson returned to the speaker’s podium to suggest that
residents follow the guidelines and do what needs to be do ne to get
through this pandemic.
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 13
AUGUST 3, 2021 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
M/Lyons closed Public Comments.
M/Lyons said that in retrospect while she remains unhappy about wearing
a mask, she will not fight the mask mandate and proposed sending a
letter to the LA County Board of Supervisors asking for 1) a breakdown of
the data between vaccinated and unvaccinated, 2) removing the vaccine
from “emergency status”, and 3) improving contact tracing.
C/Chou appreciated M/Lyons consideration of the change in data for the
past two weeks as a reason to not fight the indoor mask mandate and
believes it is important to stand for local businesses and residents and
while M/Lyons has good points, he believes it is up to each Council
Member to consider putting their questions and conce rns on their own
letterhead. He supports getting more data pertinent to Diamond Bar to
help guide science-based decisions which he believes is available through
the health department as is information about contact tracing.
C/Tye said that upon further reflection, it makes no sense to have a vote
of no-confidence in the LA County Health Department Director and likes
the idea of M/Lyons’ three points.
MPT/Low appreciated M/Lyons thoughtful comments and leadership and
does not appreciate people labeling Council Members who are doing their
best to represent all residents and businesses. While she does not like
wearing a mask she sees value in doing so and likes the idea of asking for
reconsideration and clarification based on science and data. In her
opinion, people need to be convinced about the need to be vaccinated
and feels the county should do a much better job incentivizing people.
C/Chou said he does not believe a letter from Council is necessary and
suggested that staff ask the health department for more data.
CM/Fox said that in accordance with Council’s discussion, staff would
bring back a revised letter to the City Council at their next meeting that
includes four points mentioned: 1) making data more readily available
focusing on the vaccinated versus unvaccinated, 2) contact tracing, 3)
encouraging removal of the emergency authorization for the vaccine, and
4) pursue other avenues of Incentives to get more people vaccinated.
M/Lyons suggested the City initiate a citywide campaign to get to a higher
percentage goal of vaccinated individuals.
7. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE
REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
C/Chou said he appreciates the Council’s discussions in pursuit of doing the
people’s business, thanked staff for the Concerts in the Park event last week,
appreciated that the City was at a 77 percent vaccination rate, agreed that a
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 14
AUGUST 3, 2021 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
citywide campaign to get the City to a higher percentage was a good idea, and
looked forward to Council continuing to make policies that help the most
vulnerable and make doing business easier in Diamond Bar.
C/Liu thanked staff for their presentations and Council for the lively discussions
and the pursuit of getting more information and looked forward to implementing a
Diamond Bar vaccination campaign. He congratulated Gold Medal winner
Kathleen Zang, thanked the community for checking up on one another during
the heat wave and reminded everyone the final in this year’s series of Concerts
in the Park is tomorrow evening. Best wishes to kids returning to school next
week – please stay safe and enjoy the journey.
C/Tye asked everyone to remain diligent and help bring the killer of Bruce B odel
to justice, thanked Teri Muse for addressing the Council on challenges that
Waste Management faces, and recognized that a driver passed away in
Diamond Bar while performing his job duties for the City. He hopes to see
everyone at Concerts in the Park tomorrow evening.
MPT/Low thanked M/Lyons for a great meeting and for her leadership , and staff
for the excellent Strategic Plan report and staff’s commitment to the community
during trying times. She looks forward to completion of the Golf Course project
and the Concerts in the Park tomorrow evening.
M/Lyons thanked Council for a spirited and thoughtful discussion this evening
and likes the way the members can discuss things agreeably and politely. She is
very happy about the vote to offer a reward for the apprehension of the killer of
Bruce Bodel and hopes that Supervisor Hahn will match the $10,000 amount.
She thanked ACM/McLean for his excellent Strategic Plan presentation, PWD/Liu
for helping her with aspects of the SR57/60 chokepoint and hopes to see
everyone tomorrow at Concerts in the Park.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Lyons adjourned the
Regular City Council Meeting at 9:09 p.m. in memory of Waste Management driver Jose
(JL) Garcia.
Respectfully submitted:
__________________________
Kristina Santana, City Clerk
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 17th day of August, 2021.
__________________________
Nancy Lyons, Mayor
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Agenda #: 3.2
Meeting Date: August 17, 2021
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager
TITLE: RATIFICATION OF CHECK REGISTER DATED JULY 29, 2021
THROUGH AUGUST 11, 2021 TOTALING $459,642.14.
STRATEGIC
GOAL:
Responsible Stewardship of Public Resources
RECOMMENDATION:
Ratify the Check Register.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Expenditure of $459,642.14.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City has established the policy of issuing accounts payable checks on a bi-weekly
basis with City Council ratification at the next scheduled City Council Meeting.
The attached check register containing checks dated July 29, 2021 through August 11,
2021 totaling $459,642.14 is being presented for ratification. All payments have been
made in compliance with the City’s purchasing policies and procedures, and have been
reviewed and approved by the appropriate departmental staff . The attached Affidavit
affirms that the check register has been audited and deemed accurate by the Finance
Director.
PREPARED BY:
3.2
Packet Pg. 16
REVIEWED BY:
Attachments:
1. 3.2.a Check Register Affidavit 8-17-2021
2. 3.2.b Check Register 8-17-2021
3.2
Packet Pg. 17
3.2.a
Packet Pg. 18
City of Diamond Bar Check Register
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
OTP VENDOR NAME
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
ORG
OBJECT
AMOUNT
3209 8/10/2021 PERS HEALTH HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
106 21106 ($167.32)
8/10/2021 PERS HEALTH HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
100220 50062 $143.66
8/10/2021 PERS HEALTH HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
239 21106 $216.18
8/10/2021 PERS HEALTH HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
238 21106 $347.07
8/10/2021 PERS HEALTH HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
201 21106 $387.93
8/10/2021 PERS HEALTH HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
206 21106 $845.28
8/10/2021 PERS HEALTH HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
250 21106 $847.02
8/10/2021 PERS HEALTH HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
207 21106 $1,151.99
8/10/2021 PERS HEALTH HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
105220 50048 $1,287.00
8/10/2021 PERS HEALTH HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
100 10000 $7,411.15
8/10/2021 PERS HEALTH HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
100 21106 $41,510.99
CHECK TOTAL $53,980.95
3210 8/10/2021 TASC FLEX SPENDING MEDICAL & CHILDCARE
08/06/2021
238 21118 $10.10
8/10/2021 TASC FLEX SPENDING MEDICAL & CHILDCARE
08/06/2021
239 21118 $10.10
8/10/2021 TASC FLEX SPENDING MEDICAL & CHILDCARE
08/06/2021
207 21118 $17.74
8/10/2021 TASC FLEX SPENDING MEDICAL & CHILDCARE
08/06/2021
250 21118 $29.14
8/10/2021 TASC FLEX SPENDING MEDICAL & CHILDCARE
08/06/2021
206 21118 $82.29
8/10/2021 TASC FLEX SPENDING MEDICAL & CHILDCARE
08/06/2021
100 21118 $1,187.32
CHECK TOTAL $1,336.69
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 19
City of Diamond Bar Check Register
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
OTP VENDOR NAME
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
ORG
OBJECT
AMOUNT
3211 8/10/2021 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGNTS-
303248
DEF COMP CONTRIBUTION/LOAN PYMT
08/06/2021
106 21109 ($174.92)
8/10/2021 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGNTS-
303248
DEF COMP CONTRIBUTION/LOAN PYMT
08/06/2021
239 21109 $159.67
8/10/2021 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGNTS-
303248
DEF COMP CONTRIBUTION/LOAN PYMT
08/06/2021
238 21109 $259.82
8/10/2021 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGNTS-
303248
DEF COMP CONTRIBUTION/LOAN PYMT
08/06/2021
201 21109 $568.58
8/10/2021 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGNTS-
303248
DEF COMP CONTRIBUTION/LOAN PYMT
08/06/2021
207 21109 $705.22
8/10/2021 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGNTS-
303248
DEF COMP CONTRIBUTION/LOAN PYMT
08/06/2021
250 21109 $1,513.08
8/10/2021 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGNTS-
303248
DEF COMP CONTRIBUTION/LOAN PYMT
08/06/2021
206 21109 $2,447.03
8/10/2021 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGNTS-
303248
DEF COMP CONTRIBUTION/LOAN PYMT
08/06/2021
100 21109 $46,167.50
CHECK TOTAL $51,645.98
3212 8/10/2021 CALPERS PENSION CONTRIBUTION 07/17/2021-
07/31/2021 8/6/21
106 21110 ($65.83)
8/10/2021 CALPERS PENSION CONTRIBUTION 07/17/2021-
07/31/2021 8/6/21
239 21110 $143.79
8/10/2021 CALPERS PENSION CONTRIBUTION 07/17/2021-
07/31/2021 8/6/21
238 21110 $220.95
8/10/2021 CALPERS PENSION CONTRIBUTION 07/17/2021-
07/31/2021 8/6/21
201 21110 $394.37
8/10/2021 CALPERS PENSION CONTRIBUTION 07/17/2021-
07/31/2021 8/6/21
207 21110 $867.29
8/10/2021 CALPERS PENSION CONTRIBUTION 07/17/2021-
07/31/2021 8/6/21
250 21110 $1,061.36
8/10/2021 CALPERS PENSION CONTRIBUTION 07/17/2021-
07/31/2021 8/6/21
206 21110 $1,225.28
8/10/2021 CALPERS PENSION CONTRIBUTION 07/17/2021-
07/31/2021 8/6/21
100 21110 $31,608.95
CHECK TOTAL $35,456.16
3213 8/11/2021 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPT
FY2020-21 SHERIFF'S LAW ENF. SVS -CAV
CHAPEL 06/21
100310 55402 $10,424.17
CHECK TOTAL $10,424.17
3214 8/10/2021 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
UNEMPLOYMENT INS BENEFIT CHARGE
2ND QTR 2021
106220 50062 $1,771.34
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 20
City of Diamond Bar Check Register
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
OTP VENDOR NAME
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
ORG
OBJECT
AMOUNT
CHECK TOTAL $1,771.34
3215 8/11/2021 GUARANTEED JANITORIAL
SERVICE INC
JANITORIAL SERVICES (JUL 2021) 100630 55505 $2,450.00
8/11/2021 GUARANTEED JANITORIAL
SERVICE INC
JANITORIAL SERVICES (JUL 2021) 100510 55505 $5,400.00
8/11/2021 GUARANTEED JANITORIAL
SERVICE INC
JANITORIAL SERVICES (JUL 2021) 100620 52320 $8,724.00
CHECK TOTAL $16,574.00
3216 8/11/2021 HARDY & HARPER INC SIDEWALK PROJECT AT PANTERA PARK 100655 55514 $120,600.00
CHECK TOTAL $120,600.00
3217 8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC HYDROLOGY REVIEW - CROOKED
CREEK - THRU JUNE 2021
100 22107 $166.25
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC GRADING REVIEW - CROOKED CREEK -
THRU JUNE 2021
100 22107 $424.00
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC GRADING REVIEW - 25589 PACIFIC -
THRU JUNE 2021
100 22109 $387.50
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC HYDROLOGY REVIEW - 22589 PACIFIC
LANE
100 22109 $1,022.50
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC HYDROLOGY REVIEW - 2218 INDIAN
CREEK
100 22109 $47.50
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC GRADING PLAN REVIEW - 23331
RIDGELINE
100 22109 $23.75
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC STREET PARCELS - TR 53670 ALAMO
HEIGHTS
100 22109 $589.63
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC GRADING PLAN REVIEW - 23509
RIDGELINE
100 22109 $1,197.50
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC HYDROLOGY REVIEW - 22589 PACIFIC
LANE
100 22109 $845.00
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC HYDROLOGY REVIEW - 2218 INDIAN
CREEK
100 22109 $578.75
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC GRADING PLAN REVIEW - 22589
PACIFIC LANE
100 22109 $390.00
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC GRADING PLAN REVIEW - 23331
RIDGELINE
100 22109 $258.25
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC HYDROLOGY REVIEW - CROOKED
CREEK VTTM54081
100 22107 $318.75
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC GRADING INSPECTION - 2909
STEEPLECHASE
100 22109 $310.00
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 21
City of Diamond Bar Check Register
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
OTP VENDOR NAME
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
ORG
OBJECT
AMOUNT
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC HYDROLOGY REVIEW - CROOKED
CREEK VTTM54081
100 22107 $23.75
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC GRADING PLAN REVIEW - CROOKED
CREEK VTTM54081
100 22107 $187.00
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC GRADING PLAN - 22589 PACIFIC LANE 100 22109 $618.75
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC GRADING PLAN REVIEW - 23331
RIDGELINE
100 22109 $221.25
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC STREET PARCELS - TR53670 ALAMO
HEIGHTS
100 22109 $579.38
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC PRELIM GRADING - VTTM83259 100 22107 $1,567.25
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC GRADING PLAN REVIEW - 23331
RIDGELINE
100 22109 $465.00
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC STREET PARCELS - TR53670 ALAMO
HEIGHTS
100 22109 $219.38
8/11/2021 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC HHR - VTTM83259 100 22107 $47.50
CHECK TOTAL $10,488.64
3218 8/11/2021 VALLEY VISTA SERVICES , INC. STREET SWEEPING SERVICES - JULY 2021 100655 55510 $11,713.68
CHECK TOTAL $11,713.68
3219 8/11/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - JUNE 2021 100 22107 $46.00
8/11/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - JUNE 2021 100120 54020 $46.00
8/11/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - JUNE 2021 100 22107 $80.50
8/11/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - JUNE 2021 100120 54020 $92.00
8/11/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - JUNE 2021 100120 54020 $115.00
8/11/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - JUNE 2021 100120 54020 $120.00
8/11/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - JUNE 2021 106120 54020 $161.00
8/11/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - JUNE 2021 100120 54020 $345.00
8/11/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - JUNE 2021 100 22107 $356.50
8/11/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - JUNE 2021 100 22107 $782.00
8/11/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - JUNE 2021 100120 54020 $851.00
8/11/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - JUNE 2021 100120 54020 $1,196.00
8/11/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - JUNE 2021 100 22107 $1,426.00
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 22
City of Diamond Bar Check Register
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
OTP VENDOR NAME
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
ORG
OBJECT
AMOUNT
8/11/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - JUNE 2021 100120 54020 $2,081.50
8/11/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - JUNE 2021 100120 54020 $2,139.00
8/11/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - JUNE 2021 100120 54020 $2,737.00
8/11/2021 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN & SMART LEGAL SVCS - JUNE 2021 100 22107 $2,762.31
CHECK TOTAL $15,336.81
3220 8/11/2021 A1 PARTY RENTALS CONCERTS IN THE PARK STAGE
CANOPY RENTAL
100520 55300 $1,146.57
CHECK TOTAL $1,146.57
3221 8/11/2021 AARON M REYES CONCERTS IN THE PARK BAND 7.7.21 100520 55300 $1,400.00
CHECK TOTAL $1,400.00
3222 8/11/2021 AARON R SALO STIPEND - PARKS & REC MEETING
(07.22.21)
100520 52525 $45.00
CHECK TOTAL $45.00
3223 8/11/2021 AFLAC SUPP INSURANCE PREMIUM JULY 2021 201 21117 $6.02
8/11/2021 AFLAC SUPP INSURANCE PREMIUM JULY 2021 250 21117 $47.22
8/11/2021 AFLAC SUPP INSURANCE PREMIUM JULY 2021 207 21117 $73.90
8/11/2021 AFLAC SUPP INSURANCE PREMIUM JULY 2021 206 21117 $303.90
8/11/2021 AFLAC SUPP INSURANCE PREMIUM JULY 2021 100 21117 $1,822.08
CHECK TOTAL $2,253.12
3224 8/11/2021 AIRGAS INC HELIUM 100630 51200 $8.00
8/11/2021 AIRGAS INC HELIUM 100520 51200 $93.00
CHECK TOTAL $101.00
3225 8/11/2021 AMERICAN UNITED SALES CORP 2022 ROSE PARADE EXCURSION
DEPOSIT
100520 55300 $685.00
CHECK TOTAL $685.00
3226 8/11/2021 ANDREW WONG STIPEND - T&T MEETING - MAY 2021 100610 52525 $45.00
CHECK TOTAL $45.00
3227 8/11/2021 ANIMAL PEST MANAGEMENT
SERVICES INC
COMPREHENSIVE PEST CONTROL - JUN
2021
100630 52320 $70.00
8/11/2021 ANIMAL PEST MANAGEMENT
SERVICES INC
COMPREHENSIVE PEST CONTROL - JUN
2021
100510 52320 $105.00
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 23
City of Diamond Bar Check Register
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
OTP VENDOR NAME
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
ORG
OBJECT
AMOUNT
8/11/2021 ANIMAL PEST MANAGEMENT
SERVICES INC
COMPREHENSIVE PEST CONTROL - JUN
2021
100620 52320 $120.00
CHECK TOTAL $295.00
3228 8/11/2021 BEGINNERS EDGE SPORTS
TRAINING LLC
CONTRACT CLASS INSTRUCTOR - YOUTH
SPORTS
100520 55320 $2,428.80
CHECK TOTAL $2,428.80
3229 8/11/2021 JOHN E BISHOP INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT SUMMER JULY 21 100520 55320 $300.00
CHECK TOTAL $300.00
3230 8/11/2021 CALIFORNIA JPIA POLLUTION LIABILITY INS PROG FY 21/22 501220 57204 $3,189.00
CHECK TOTAL $3,189.00
3231 8/11/2021 CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPERS
PARTNERSHIP
PRINTING OF JULY 2021 6-PAGE CITY
NEWSLETTER
100240 52110 $3,228.06
CHECK TOTAL $3,228.06
3232 8/11/2021 CALIFORNIA PARK &
RECREATION SOCIETY, INC
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 100630 52400 $450.00
8/11/2021 CALIFORNIA PARK &
RECREATION SOCIETY, INC
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 100520 52400 $1,790.00
CHECK TOTAL $2,240.00
3233 8/11/2021 CANNON CORPORATION ENGR. DESIGN SERVICES - WVWD - THRU
JUN 2021
100 22109 $210.00
8/11/2021 CANNON CORPORATION PLAN CHECK - 2775 SHADOW CYN -
THRU JUNE 2021
100 22109 $270.00
8/11/2021 CANNON CORPORATION PLAN CHECK - 2218 INDIAN CREEK RD -
THRU JUNE 2021
100 22109 $195.00
CHECK TOTAL $675.00
3234 8/11/2021 CDW GOVERNMENT TRENDMICRO RENEWAL 8/14/21 -
8/13/22
100230 52314 $1,450.80
CHECK TOTAL $1,450.80
3235 8/11/2021 CHEM PRO LABORATORY INC WATER TREATMENT SERVICE - CITY HALL
(JULY 2021)
100620 52320 $155.00
8/11/2021 CHEM PRO LABORATORY INC WATER TREATMENT SERVICE (CITY HALL)
JAN 2021
100620 52320 $155.00
CHECK TOTAL $310.00
3236 8/11/2021 CNC PRINTWERKS BUSINESS CARDS (FINANCE) 100140 52140 $88.70
CHECK TOTAL $88.70
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 24
City of Diamond Bar Check Register
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
OTP VENDOR NAME
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
ORG
OBJECT
AMOUNT
3237 8/11/2021 COLD DUCK PRODUCTIONS INC CONCERTS IN THE PARK 7.14.21 100520 55300 $2,000.00
CHECK TOTAL $2,000.00
3238 8/11/2021 CREATE & LEARN INC INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT SUMMER (JULY)
21
100520 55320 $261.00
CHECK TOTAL $261.00
3239 8/11/2021 CYNTHIA T QUAN STIPEND - T&T MEETING - MAY 2021 100610 52525 $45.00
CHECK TOTAL $45.00
3240 8/11/2021 DELTA DENTAL HMO DENTAL PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 250 21105 $1.03
8/11/2021 DELTA DENTAL HMO DENTAL PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 206 21105 $1.99
8/11/2021 DELTA DENTAL HMO DENTAL PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 207 21105 $1.99
8/11/2021 DELTA DENTAL HMO DENTAL PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 100 21105 $276.53
CHECK TOTAL $281.54
3241 8/11/2021 DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY
PPO DENTAL PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 106 21105 ($14.43)
8/11/2021 DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY
PPO DENTAL PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 239 21105 $22.08
8/11/2021 DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY
PPO DENTAL PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 238 21105 $38.37
8/11/2021 DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY
PPO DENTAL PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 201 21105 $53.38
8/11/2021 DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY
PPO DENTAL PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 250 21105 $141.87
8/11/2021 DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY
PPO DENTAL PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 207 21105 $142.61
8/11/2021 DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY
PPO DENTAL PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 206 21105 $219.83
8/11/2021 DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY
PPO DENTAL PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 100 21105 $4,060.35
CHECK TOTAL $4,664.06
3242 8/11/2021 DENNIS VLASICH CONSULT SERVICES - LAND MGMT SYST
RFP - MAR-JUL 21
503230 56135 $880.00
CHECK TOTAL $880.00
3243 8/11/2021 DOGGIE WALK BAGS INC DOGGIE WASTE BAGS (JULY 2021) 100630 52320 $1,600.00
CHECK TOTAL $1,600.00
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 25
City of Diamond Bar Check Register
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
OTP VENDOR NAME
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
ORG
OBJECT
AMOUNT
3244 8/11/2021 ECOFERT INC FERTILIZER INJECTION SYSTEM - JULY
2021
100630 52320 $1,150.00
CHECK TOTAL $1,150.00
3245 8/11/2021 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
CORP
INTERNET SERVICE - 7/28/21 - 8/27/21 100230 54030 $382.03
8/11/2021 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
CORP
INTERNET SERVICE - CITY HALL - AUGUST
2021
100230 54030 $2,325.00
CHECK TOTAL $2,707.03
3246 8/11/2021 GARY TOSHIHIKO BUSTEED STIPEND - T&T MEETING - MAY 2021 100610 52525 $45.00
CHECK TOTAL $45.00
3247 8/11/2021 GATEWAY CORP CENTER ASSOC CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION & ASSO. DUE
FOR AUG. 2021
100620 52400 $2,037.88
CHECK TOTAL $2,037.88
3248 8/11/2021 HAILE BLACKMAN CONCERTS IN THE PARK BAND 7.28.21 100520 55300 $1,500.00
CHECK TOTAL $1,500.00
3249 8/11/2021 HARRY H JOH CONSTRUCTION
INC
WASHINGTON PARK PROJECT -
RETENTION
504630 56100 $1,994.70
CHECK TOTAL $1,994.70
3250 8/11/2021 HDL COREN & CONE ACFR STATISTICAL REPORT-FY 20/21 100210 54010 $795.00
CHECK TOTAL $795.00
3251 8/11/2021 HODGMAN ENTERPRISES PRINTING/MAILING - FOUR-PAGE AUG
2021 NEWSLETTER
100240 52110 $2,071.93
CHECK TOTAL $2,071.93
3252 8/11/2021 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES GROUNDS / BUILDING MAINTENANCE 100655 51250 $82.26
8/11/2021 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES GROUNDS / BUILDING MAINTENANCE 100620 52320 $109.15
8/11/2021 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES GROUNDS / BUILDING MAINTENANCE 100520 51200 $283.39
CHECK TOTAL $474.80
3253 8/11/2021 HONEYCOTT INC BEE REMOVAL - WASHINGTON &
PETERSON PARKS
100630 52320 $197.00
CHECK TOTAL $197.00
3254 8/11/2021 KIM K HSIEH SIPEND - T&T MEETING - MAY 2021 100610 52525 $45.00
CHECK TOTAL $45.00
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 26
City of Diamond Bar Check Register
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
OTP VENDOR NAME
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
ORG
OBJECT
AMOUNT
3255 8/11/2021 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES
INC
CUP FOR PROPOSED BOOT CAMP
SHARED PARKING STUDY
100 22107 $1,004.22
CHECK TOTAL $1,004.22
3256 8/11/2021 LA COUNTY ASSESSOR OFFICE SBF ABSTRACT - MAY 2021 100230 52314 $50.00
CHECK TOTAL $50.00
3257 8/11/2021 LIA MURPHY STIPEND - PARKS & REC MEETING
(07.22.21)
100520 52525 $45.00
CHECK TOTAL $45.00
3258 8/11/2021 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPT
WITHHOLDING ORDER 20NWLC11081 100 23199 $48.91
CHECK TOTAL $48.91
3259 8/11/2021 LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
BILINGUAL TESTING SERVICES 100220 54900 $90.00
CHECK TOTAL $90.00
3260 8/11/2021 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 100630 52320 $18.41
8/11/2021 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 100655 51250 $100.77
8/11/2021 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 100655 51250 $825.06
CHECK TOTAL $944.24
3261 8/11/2021 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK EAP PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 106 21114 ($0.60)
8/11/2021 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK EAP PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 239 21114 $0.48
8/11/2021 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK EAP PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 238 21114 $0.72
8/11/2021 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK EAP PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 201 21114 $1.42
8/11/2021 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK EAP PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 207 21114 $2.76
8/11/2021 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK EAP PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 250 21114 $3.75
8/11/2021 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK EAP PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 206 21114 $5.04
8/11/2021 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK EAP PREMIUM AUGUST 2021 100 21114 $132.83
CHECK TOTAL $146.40
3262 8/11/2021 MANISHA SULAKHE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
MEETING (07.22.21)
100520 52525 $45.00
CHECK TOTAL $45.00
3263 8/11/2021 MATTHEW G PHAIRAS 8.4.21 WEEK 5 BAND PAYMENT 100520 55300 $1,600.00
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 27
City of Diamond Bar Check Register
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
OTP VENDOR NAME
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
ORG
OBJECT
AMOUNT
CHECK TOTAL $1,600.00
3264 8/11/2021 METROLINK METROLINK PASSES - JULY 2021 206650 55610 $716.10
8/11/2021 METROLINK METROLINK PASSES - JULY 2021 206650 55620 $2,864.40
CHECK TOTAL $3,580.50
3265 8/11/2021 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
INC
CANYON LOOP TRAIL JUNE 2021 301630 56104 $8,650.00
CHECK TOTAL $8,650.00
3266 8/11/2021 MSNOC INC CONTRACT CLASS INSTRUCTOR -
SCIENCE CLASSES SUMMER
100520 55320 $3,450.00
CHECK TOTAL $3,450.00
3267 8/11/2021 MUNICIPAL CODE
CORPORATION
ELECTRONIC UPDATE PAGES 100130 54900 $1,102.62
CHECK TOTAL $1,102.62
3268 8/11/2021 OFFICE SOLUTIONS SUPPLIES - FINANCE 100210 51200 $180.63
CHECK TOTAL $180.63
3269 8/11/2021 ONE TIME PAY VENDOR CARMEN ELSAHRGTY PICNIC REFUND- AREA CLEAN FULL
REFUND
100 20202 $100.00
CHECK TOTAL $100.00
3270 8/11/2021 ONE TIME PAY VENDOR ERIK ZELAYA ALCOHOL DEPOSIT REFUND 100 20202 $500.00
CHECK TOTAL $500.00
3271 8/11/2021 ONE TIME PAY VENDOR JUN GONG REFUND OF CLASS CANCELLATION DUE
TO REPEAT CLASS
100 20202 $100.00
CHECK TOTAL $100.00
3272 8/11/2021 ONE TIME PAY VENDOR OSCAR FERNANDEZ PICNIC REFUND- AREA CLEAN, FULL
REFUND
100 20202 $100.00
CHECK TOTAL $100.00
3273 8/11/2021 ONE TIME PAY VENDOR PAUL KAITZ REFUND-2252 EVERGREEN SPGS:
WITHDRAWN APPLICATION
100 48100 $3,111.94
8/11/2021 ONE TIME PAY VENDOR PAUL KAITZ REFUND-2252 EVERGREEN SPGS:
WITHDRAWN APPLICATION
100 22107 $5,000.00
CHECK TOTAL $8,111.94
3274 8/11/2021 PAUL TAYLOR REPLACE RIBBON FOR THE DATE STAMP
IN CM OFFICE
100140 52310 $192.59
CHECK TOTAL $192.59
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 28
City of Diamond Bar Check Register
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
OTP VENDOR NAME
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
ORG
OBJECT
AMOUNT
3275 8/11/2021 PRO1PRINT, LLC COFFEE WITH THE COP POSTCARDS -
AUG-OCT2021 QTY300
100240 52110 $121.28
CHECK TOTAL $121.28
3276 8/11/2021 PUBLIC STORAGE #23051 STORAGE RENTAL AUG. 2021 100130 52302 $466.00
CHECK TOTAL $466.00
3277 8/11/2021 PYRO COMM SYSTEMS INC FIRE ALARM MONITORING (DBC)
08.01.21 - 10.31.21
100510 52310 $135.00
CHECK TOTAL $135.00
3278 8/11/2021 QUADIENT FINANCE USA INC METER RENTAL - POSTAGE MACHINE
9/21-8/22
100230 52314 $900.00
8/11/2021 QUADIENT FINANCE USA INC STANDARD MAINT - POSTAGE MACHINE
9/21-8/22
100140 52170 $1,069.50
CHECK TOTAL $1,969.50
3279 8/11/2021 QUINN RENTAL SERVICES CONCERTS IN THE PARK GENERATOR
RENTAL 7.28.21
100520 55300 $256.89
CHECK TOTAL $256.89
3280 8/11/2021 RAPHAEL H PLUNKETT STIPEND - PARKS & REC MEETING
(07.22.21)
100520 52525 $45.00
CHECK TOTAL $45.00
3281 8/11/2021 RICHARD FISHER ASSOCIATES CANYON LOOP TRAIL - DESIGN 301630 56104 $2,015.61
CHECK TOTAL $2,015.61
3282 8/11/2021 RICHDAI INC INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT SUMMER (JULY)
2021
100520 55320 $712.80
CHECK TOTAL $712.80
3283 8/11/2021 RKA CONSULTING GROUP DBB REHAB PROJ - AREA 1 & 2 - DESIGN
- MAY 2021
301610 56101 $695.00
CHECK TOTAL $695.00
3284 8/11/2021 ROSS CREATIONS CONCERTS IN THE PARK REMAINING
BALANCE
100520 55300 $3,300.00
CHECK TOTAL $3,300.00
3285 8/11/2021 SC FUELS FLEET VEHICLE FUEL (07.01.21 - 07.31.21) 502130 52330 $45.90
8/11/2021 SC FUELS FLEET VEHICLE FUEL (07.01.21 - 07.31.21) 502620 52330 $135.19
8/11/2021 SC FUELS FLEET VEHICLE FUEL (07.01.21 - 07.31.21) 502430 52330 $154.85
8/11/2021 SC FUELS FLEET VEHICLE FUEL (07.01.21 - 07.31.21) 502630 52330 $575.10
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 29
City of Diamond Bar Check Register
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
OTP VENDOR NAME
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
ORG
OBJECT
AMOUNT
8/11/2021 SC FUELS FLEET VEHICLE FUEL (07.01.21 - 07.31.21) 502655 52330 $774.96
8/11/2021 SC FUELS FLEET VEHICLE FUEL (JUL PT 2) 502130 52330 $42.06
8/11/2021 SC FUELS FLEET VEHICLE FUEL (JUL PT 2) 502620 52330 $101.43
8/11/2021 SC FUELS FLEET VEHICLE FUEL (JUL PT 2) 502430 52330 $136.15
8/11/2021 SC FUELS FLEET VEHICLE FUEL (JUL PT 2) 502655 52330 $556.57
8/11/2021 SC FUELS FLEET VEHICLE FUEL (JUL PT 2) 502630 52330 $1,002.64
CHECK TOTAL $3,524.85
3286 8/11/2021 SCAN NATOA MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL PI STAFF 100240 52400 $400.00
CHECK TOTAL $400.00
3287 8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 2746 BREA CANYON
BPED LS-3
100655 52210 $117.72
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 717 GRAND AVE
TC-1
100655 52210 $175.03
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 801 S. LEMON AVE.
& VARIOUS TC-1
100655 52210 $296.36
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON GS-1 1215 S. BREA CANYON RD 100655 52210 $95.02
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 2201 DBB PED TC-1 100655 52210 $179.41
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAFETY LIGHTS - 21250 GOLDEN
SPRINGS LS-2
100655 52210 $73.94
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 21010
WASHINGTON TC-1
100655 52210 $82.79
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - BREA
CYN/OAKCREST & FALLOWFIELD
100655 52210 $159.06
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 22000 PATHFINDER
& VARIOUS TC-1
100655 52210 $2,772.00
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 21010
WASHINGTON TC-1
100655 52210 $77.43
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 2201 DBB PED TC-1 100655 52210 $60.14
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 1798 DBB/22566
GOLDEN SPRINGS
100655 52210 $213.18
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 1450
BRIDGEGATE/VARIOUS TC-1
100655 52210 $426.07
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRAFFIC CONTROL - 809 S DBB TC-1 100655 52210 $105.65
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1395 S DBB & VARIOUS TC-1 100655 52210 $955.73
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 30
City of Diamond Bar Check Register
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
OTP VENDOR NAME
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
ORG
OBJECT
AMOUNT
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON DISTRICT 38 (06.28.21 - 07.27.21) 238638 52210 $324.22
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 575 S. DBB & 20671 GOLDEN SP
(06.30.21 - 07.29.21)
238638 52210 $30.36
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON DISTRICT 39 (06.28.21 - 07.27.21) 239639 52210 $253.10
8/11/2021 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON PARKS (06.28.21 - 07.27.21) 100630 52210 $2,772.16
CHECK TOTAL $9,169.37
3288 8/11/2021 STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY
LIFE/LTD/STD INSURANCE PREMIUM
AUGUST 2021
106 21113 ($4.93)
8/11/2021 STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY
LIFE/LTD/STD INSURANCE PREMIUM
AUGUST 2021
106 21107 ($3.18)
8/11/2021 STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY
LIFE/LTD/STD INSURANCE PREMIUM
AUGUST 2021
239 21107 $2.56
8/11/2021 STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY
LIFE/LTD/STD INSURANCE PREMIUM
AUGUST 2021
238 21107 $3.83
8/11/2021 STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY
LIFE/LTD/STD INSURANCE PREMIUM
AUGUST 2021
239 21113 $9.28
8/11/2021 STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY
LIFE/LTD/STD INSURANCE PREMIUM
AUGUST 2021
238 21113 $14.32
8/11/2021 STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY
LIFE/LTD/STD INSURANCE PREMIUM
AUGUST 2021
207 21107 $18.10
8/11/2021 STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY
LIFE/LTD/STD INSURANCE PREMIUM
AUGUST 2021
201 21107 $21.60
8/11/2021 STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY
LIFE/LTD/STD INSURANCE PREMIUM
AUGUST 2021
201 21113 $23.77
8/11/2021 STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY
LIFE/LTD/STD INSURANCE PREMIUM
AUGUST 2021
206 21107 $38.43
8/11/2021 STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY
LIFE/LTD/STD INSURANCE PREMIUM
AUGUST 2021
250 21107 $40.19
8/11/2021 STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY
LIFE/LTD/STD INSURANCE PREMIUM
AUGUST 2021
207 21113 $52.68
8/11/2021 STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY
LIFE/LTD/STD INSURANCE PREMIUM
AUGUST 2021
250 21113 $65.43
8/11/2021 STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY
LIFE/LTD/STD INSURANCE PREMIUM
AUGUST 2021
206 21113 $75.53
8/11/2021 STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY
LIFE/LTD/STD INSURANCE PREMIUM
AUGUST 2021
100 21107 $1,284.72
8/11/2021 STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY
LIFE/LTD/STD INSURANCE PREMIUM
AUGUST 2021
100 21113 $1,916.86
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 31
City of Diamond Bar Check Register
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
OTP VENDOR NAME
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
ORG
OBJECT
AMOUNT
CHECK TOTAL $3,559.19
3289 8/11/2021 STAY GREEN INC LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE (CITY HALL)
JULY 2021
100620 52320 $1,053.00
CHECK TOTAL $1,053.00
3290 8/11/2021 STEPHEN QIU STIPEND - PARKS & REC MEETING
(07.22.21)
100520 52525 $45.00
CHECK TOTAL $45.00
3291 8/11/2021 SURENDRA R MEHTA STIPEND - T&T MEETING - MAY 2021 100610 52525 $45.00
CHECK TOTAL $45.00
3292 8/11/2021 THE KNOT WORLDWIDE INC ONLINE DBC STOREFRONT WEDDING
WIRE
100510 52160 $9,600.00
CHECK TOTAL $9,600.00
3293 8/11/2021 THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY
NEWSPAPER GR
LEGAL AD-PC MTG 7/13/21-1114
DIAMOND BAR
100 22107 $575.00
8/11/2021 THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY
NEWSPAPER GR
LEGAL AD - LLAD #38 LEVY/PUBLIC
HEARING
238638 52160 $1,242.00
8/11/2021 THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY
NEWSPAPER GR
LEGAL AD - LLAD #39 LEVY/PUBLIC
HEARING
239639 52160 $1,344.00
8/11/2021 THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY
NEWSPAPER GR
LEGAL AD PUBLISHED JULY 26, 2021 100140 52160 $338.00
CHECK TOTAL $3,499.00
3294 8/11/2021 TIMOTHY D BOWEN CONTRACT CLASS INSTRUCTOR -
EDUCATION SCIENCE
100520 55320 $2,154.60
CHECK TOTAL $2,154.60
3295 8/11/2021 ULTIMATE ENTERTAINMENT REMAINING BALANCE OF MOVIE
PAYMENT 7.28.21
100520 55300 $1,000.00
8/11/2021 ULTIMATE ENTERTAINMENT REMAINING BALANCE OF MOVIE
PAYMENT 8.4.21
100520 55300 $1,000.00
CHECK TOTAL $2,000.00
3296 8/11/2021 UNITED SITE SERVICES OF
CALIFORNIA INC
TEMPORARY FENCING - BREA CANYON
ROAD (ROAD MAINT)
100655 52300 $570.83
8/11/2021 UNITED SITE SERVICES OF
CALIFORNIA INC
TEMPORARY FENCING - BREA CANYON
ROAD (ROAD MAINT)
100655 52300 $123.66
CHECK TOTAL $694.49
3297 8/11/2021 VISION SERVICE PLAN VISION INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
106 21108 ($5.37)
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 32
City of Diamond Bar Check Register
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
OTP VENDOR NAME
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
ORG
OBJECT
AMOUNT
8/11/2021 VISION SERVICE PLAN VISION INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
239 21108 $7.68
8/11/2021 VISION SERVICE PLAN VISION INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
238 21108 $13.23
8/11/2021 VISION SERVICE PLAN VISION INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
201 21108 $17.82
8/11/2021 VISION SERVICE PLAN VISION INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
250 21108 $45.86
8/11/2021 VISION SERVICE PLAN VISION INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
207 21108 $51.56
8/11/2021 VISION SERVICE PLAN VISION INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
206 21108 $111.27
8/11/2021 VISION SERVICE PLAN VISION INSURANCE PREMIUM AUGUST
2021
100 21108 $1,662.73
CHECK TOTAL $1,904.78
3298 8/11/2021 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY JANITORIAL SUPPLIES (DBC) 100510 51210 $345.15
8/11/2021 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY JANITORIAL SUPPLIES - CITY HALL 100620 51200 $468.44
CHECK TOTAL $813.59
3299 8/11/2021 WEST COAST CABLE INC TROUBLESHOOT/REPAIR OUTSIDE
CAMERA -CITY HALL
100230 52310 $718.00
CHECK TOTAL $718.00
3300 8/11/2021 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECH REVIEW - 23528 MIRAGE
LANE
100 22109 $200.00
8/11/2021 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECH REVIEW - 22438
STEEPLECHASE
100 22109 $630.00
8/11/2021 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECH REVIEW - 22589 PACIFIC
LANE
100 22109 $420.00
8/11/2021 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECH REVIEW - 2345 ALAMO
HEIGHTS
100 22109 $200.00
8/11/2021 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECH REVIEW - CROOKED CREEK
TTM 54081
100 22107 $1,260.00
8/11/2021 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECH REVIEW - 20305 FLINTGATE 100 22109 $400.00
8/11/2021 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECH REVIEW - 2909 STEEPLECHASE 100 22109 $400.00
8/11/2021 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECH REVIEW - 23331 RIDGELINE 100 22109 $800.00
8/11/2021 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECH REVIEW - 1607 DERRINGER 100 22109 $210.00
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 33
City of Diamond Bar Check Register
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
OTP VENDOR NAME
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
ORG
OBJECT
AMOUNT
8/11/2021 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECH REVIEW - 22438
STEEPLECHASE
100 22109 $420.00
8/11/2021 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECH REVIEW - 1415 STONECREST 100 22109 $420.00
8/11/2021 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECH REVIEW - 259 GENTLE
SPRINGS
100 22107 $1,050.00
8/11/2021 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECH REVIEW - 22589 PACIFIC
LANE
100 22109 $420.00
8/11/2021 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECH REVIEW - 21711 BIRCH HILL 100 22109 $420.00
8/11/2021 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECH REVIEW - 2775 SHADOW
CANYON
100 22109 $400.00
8/11/2021 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECH REVIEW - 2769 WAGON
TRAIN
100 22109 $200.00
8/11/2021 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECH REVIEW - 2522 STEEPLECHASE 100 22109 $800.00
CHECK TOTAL $8,650.00
3301 8/11/2021 WISCONSIN QUICK LUBE INC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE (#1479593) 502655 52312 $52.16
8/11/2021 WISCONSIN QUICK LUBE INC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE (#1363852) 502630 52312 $40.57
CHECK TOTAL $92.73
GRAND TOTAL $459,642.14
3.2.b
Packet Pg. 34
Agenda #: 3.3
Meeting Date: August 17, 2021
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager
TITLE: CONSIDERATION TO EXTEND A LOCAL EMERGENCY REGARDING
NOVEL CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19).
STRATEGIC
GOAL:
Safe, Sustainable & Healthy Community
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 2021-38 extending the Declared Local Emergency regarding
Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The continuation of the declared local emergency is necessary to ensure access to
reimbursement for related costs in response to COVID-19. The City has submitted a
Request for Public Assistance with California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) to
seek reimbursement for all eligible COVID-19 related expenses.
BACKGROUND:
The rapid global spread of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) has resulted in
unprecedented actions by Federal, State, County and local agencies, as well as private
individuals and businesses, to help combat the community spread of the virus. On
March 4, 2020, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors declared a State of
Emergency and the Los Angeles County Public Health Officials declared a Local Health
Emergency. Since that time, numerous actions have been, and continue to be taken, at
the Federal, State and County levels to implement far reaching measures that include
Stay at Home Orders, prohibit gatherings of any size, require closure of a wide range of
businesses, schools, colleges, public facilities, cancellation of large community and
sporting events, and other limitations all aimed at slowing the community spread of the
virus.
At the time the City Council declared a local emergency on March 19, 2020, LA County
Public Health Officials reported (as of March 18, 2020) 190 confirmed cases (including 2
3.3
Packet Pg. 35
in Diamond Bar), with one death in the County. As of August 10, 2021, there were
1,329,262 confirmed cases and 24,783 deaths in Los Angeles County (including 3,535
cases and 87 deaths in Diamond Bar). Updated numbers will be provided for the
Resolution at the meeting.
On January 25, 2021, Governor Newsom canceled the Regional Stay Home Order that
tied restrictions to available ICU capacity state-wide. On June 15, 2021, Governor
Newsom retired the Blueprint for a Safer Economy Program and eliminated the need for
social distancing or capacity limits on businesses and other activities, with a few
exceptions. While conditions improved in early 2021, since the June 15 reopening
COVID-19 case counts and hospitalizations have increased especially for unvaccinated
persons. The increasing case count is fueled by the new Delta variant, which is highly
transmissible and prompted changes to indoor face -covering guidance.
The Council is being asked to continue the Local State of Emergency (Attachment 1)
regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, which was last adopted by Council on July 6, 2021,
as is required every 60 days during the existence of the local emergency. The City
Manager, as the Emergency Services Director for the City, also intends to continue
the activation of the Emergency Operations Center at the lowest level (Leve l 3) to be
able to provide enhanced communications with LA County Emergency Operations
Center (already activated), and with LA County Sheriff and Fire personnel to monitor
and respond to essential service requests that may be needed throughout the City.
ANALYSIS:
The City has taken extraordinary actions and precautions to help protect residents,
businesses and our workforce from community spread of COVID -19. The City
transitioned to online service delivery and recreation programming to better serve the
public, and as of June 14, 2021 has expanded service delivery options to include
telephone, video, and in-person appointments.
City Operations:
• City facilities have welcomed back the public for in-person services as of June
14, 2021, Monday through Friday during regular operating hours. This is in
addition to the continued availability of telephone, video calls and on-line
appointment-based services offered at City Hall such as building, planning, public
works/engineering, as well as transit passes, Diamond Ride identifications, and
environmental services.
• City playgrounds, skate park, ball fields, tennis/pickleball courts,
Basketball/volleyball courts, picnic shelters, trails, and dog park are open.
• City Staff continue to work both in-person and remotely in order to better serve
the public through the variety of in-person, telephone, and video appointment
options.
• Hybrid in-person and virtual Council/Commission meetings are being held in the
Windmill Community Room at City Hall.
3.3
Packet Pg. 36
• Street sweeping parking enforcement resumed in January 2021.
Recreation & Special Events Update:
• Recreation programs are being expanded, with in-person and virtual recreation
programming available for residents – with information on the City website.
• Community in-person special events returned with Concerts in the Park starting
Wednesday July 7, 2021, with plans underway for additional fall and winter
events.
• Field allocations for youth sports organizations are following City policies and in
accordance with LA County Public Health.
• Recreation staff will commence limited senior programming activities at the
Diamond Bar Center starting the week of August 16, 2021.
The City continues to encourage all residents to get vaccinated to help keep the
community spread of COVID-19 in check, and to help protect those that are not able to
be vaccinated, particularly those under the age of 12. Additional information is available
on the County Public Health and City websites.
LEGAL REVIEW:
City Attorney has reviewed and approved the Resolution as to form.
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Attachments:
1. 3.3.a Resolution No. 2021-38 Emergency Declaration
3.3
Packet Pg. 37
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-38
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR, CALIFORNIA, PROCLAIMING EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL
EMERGENCY REGARDING NOVEL CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19)
WHEREAS, the Emergency Services Act (Government Code sections 8550 et
seq.), and in particular California Government Code sections 8630, et seq. thereof, and
Chapter 8.00 of Title 8 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, provide that the City Council
may proclaim the existence of a local emergency when the City of Diamond Bar is affected
or likely to be affected by public calamity; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been requested by the City Manager as the
Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence of a local emergency in the City
of Diamond Bar; and
WHEREAS, COVID-19 has spread globally to over 192 countries, infecting more
than ____________ persons and killing nearly __________ individuals worldwide. As
of August ____, 2021 there were nearly _________ cases in the United States with more
than _________ deaths, including ________ cases and ______ deaths in Los Angeles
County (_____ cases and ___ deaths in Diamond Bar) related to COVID-19. Due to the
expanding list of countries with widespread transmission of COVID-19, increasing travel
alerts and warnings for countries experiencing sustained or uncontrolled community
transmission issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), the
escalation of United States domestic cases of and deaths from COVID-19, and the
identification of COVID-19 cases in California, including Los Angeles County, COVID-19
has created conditions that are likely to be beyond the control of local resources and
require the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat; and
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2020, the CDC confirmed the first possible case of
community transmission of COVID-19 in the United States. On March 4, 2020, the Health
Officer of Los Angeles County determined that there is an imminent and proximate threat
to the public health from the introduction of COVID-19 in Los Angeles County and
declared a Local Health Emergency and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
concurrently proclaimed the existence of a local emergency for the County of Los
Angeles; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom of the State of California
declared a State of Emergency in response to the COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease 19);
and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization (WHO) publicly
characterized COVID-19 as a global pandemic; and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2020 Governor Newsom of the State of California issued
Executive Order N-25-20 in a further effort to confront and contain COVID-19 that among
3.3.a
Packet Pg. 38
Resolution No. 2021-38
2
other things, required residents of California to follow orders and guidance of local public
health officials, including following social distancing requirements and suspended certain
provision of the Ralph M. Brown Act providing local agencies with greater flexibility to hold
meetings via teleconferencing; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the President of the United States declared a
National Emergency due to the continue spread and the effects of COVID -19; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-
20 mandating that residents stay at home while carving out exceptions for workers in
specified federal critical infrastructure sectors; and
WHEREAS, the State of California and numerous other public and private
organizations have announced the cancellation or postponement of all events where
social distancing cannot be reasonably achieved; and
WHEREAS, the City's ability to mobilize local resources, coordinate interagency
response, accelerate procurement of vital supplies, use mutual aid, and seek future
reimbursement by the State and Federal governments will be critical to successfully
responding to COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, the Diamond Bar City Council adopted Resolution 2020-04 on March
19, 2020, proclaiming the existence of a local emergency in response to the COVID-19
public health emergency; and
WHEREAS, the Diamond Bar City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-12 on
May 5, 2020, extending the local emergency due to the continued existence of a local
emergency; and
WHEREAS, the Diamond Bar City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-22 on
July 7, 2020, extending the local emergency due to the continued existence of a local
emergency; and
WHEREAS, the Diamond Bar City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-38 on
September 1, 2020, extending the local emergency due to the continued existence of a
local emergency; and
WHEREAS, the Diamond Bar City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-41 on
November 3, 2020, extending the local emergency due to the continued existence of a
local emergency; and
WHEREAS, the Diamond Bar City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-01 on
January 5, 2021, extending the local emergency due to the continued existence of a local
emergency; and
3.3.a
Packet Pg. 39
Resolution No. 2021-38
3
WHEREAS, the Diamond Bar City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-06 on
March 2, 2021, extending the local emergency due to the continued existence of a local
emergency; and
WHEREAS, the Diamond Bar City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-14 on
May 4, 2021, extending the local emergency due to the continued existence of a local
emergency; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2021, the Governor retired the Blueprint for a Safer
Economy, phasing out the majority of executive actions put in place since March 2020,
including elimination of social distancing requirements and occupancy limitation, with a
few exceptions, but leaving in place many other executive orders and declaration of
emergency; and
WHEREAS, the Diamond Bar City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-32 on
July 6, 2021, extending the local emergency due to the continued existence of a local
emergency; and
WHEREAS, the Diamond Bar City Council must review the local emergency at
least once every 60 days to determine the need for continuing the local emergency until
its termination by the Diamond Bar City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED that as authorized by
Government Code section 8630 and Diamond Bar Municipal Code section 8.00.050, the
City Council proclaims that as defined in Government Code section 8558 and Section
8.00.020 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, a “local emergency” continues to exist
throughout the City of Diamond Bar, which proclamation is based on the following findings
by the City Council:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and based thereon, hereby finds
that the spread and potential further spread of COVID -19 constitutes a
situation that severely impairs the public health and safety, and constitutes
conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the
City of Diamond Bar;
2. That these conditions are likely to be beyond the control of the services,
personnel, equipment, and facilities of the City of Diamond Bar; and
3. That the conditions of extreme peril warrant and necessitate the extension of
the proclamation of the existence of a local emergency.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that during the
threatened existence and actual existence of the local emergency, the powers, functions
and duties of the Director of Emergency Services and the emergency organization of the
City shall be those prescribed by state law, by ordinances and resolutions of the City and
approved by the City Council.
3.3.a
Packet Pg. 40
Resolution No. 2021-38
4
IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED to ensure that City vendors are
paid in a timely manner, the City Manager and the City Treasurer or their designees are
authorized and directed to approve the claims and demands, make payments thereon,
and finally to bring those claims and demands to the City Council at future meetings for
ratification of the payments made.
IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that the City Council will utilize,
to the extent reasonably feasible and appropriate, the ability to conduct its council
meetings via teleconferencing and other electronic means to permit council members and
members of the public to implement recommended social distancing while still proceeding
with the efficient handling of the City’s business, in compliance with California Executive
Orders N-25-20 and N-33-20, and such other orders issued by the Governor of the State
of California and President of the United States.
IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that a copy of this proclamation
be forwarded to the Director of California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
requesting that the Director find it acceptable in accordance with State law that the
Governor of California, pursuant to the Emergency Services Act, issue a proclamation
declaring an emergency in the City of Diamond Bar; that the Governor waive regulations
that may hinder response and recovery efforts; that response and recovery assistance be
made available under the California Disaster Assistance Act and the Stafford Act; and
that the State expedite access to State and Federal resources and any other appropriate
federal disaster relief programs.
IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that the proclamation of a local
emergency shall be reviewed at least once every 60 days until its termination is
proclaimed by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, State of California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of August, 2021.
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
___________________________
Nancy Lyons, Mayor
[Attestation continued on the following page]
3.3.a
Packet Pg. 41
Resolution No. 2021-38
5
ATTEST:
I, Kristina Santana, City Clerk for the City of Diamond Bar, hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City
of Diamond Bar at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of August, 2021, by the following
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
___________________________
Kristina Santana, City Clerk
3.3.a
Packet Pg. 42
Agenda #: 3.4
Meeting Date: August 17, 2021
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager
TITLE: CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FRJ & ASSOCIATES
("FRJ"), TO ADMINISTER THE CITY'S HOME IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (HIP) THROUGH JUNE 30, 2026.
STRATEGIC
GOAL:
Safe, Sustainable & Healthy Community
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve, and authorize the Mayor to sign, the Consulting Services Agreement with FRJ
& Associates for Home Improvement Program Administration Services through June 30,
2026.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The total not-to-exceed amount of the Agreement is $120,000, to be paid entirely from
CDBG funds allocated to the City. Payments to the Consultant are limited annually to
no more than 20% of the approved Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
allocation for the Home Improvement Program (HIP). It is estimated that annual
payments to the Consultant will average $24,000 over the term of the contract, but
ultimately depends on the annual CDBG budget allocations for the HIP. For FY
2021/22, The CDBG budget allocation for the HIP is $110,796, of which $22,159 may
be spent on administrative costs. For subsequent years, the annual amount will be
based on future HIP budget allocations.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of the Home Improvement Program is to preserve and enhance single
family residential neighborhoods throughout the City by providing financial assistance to
low- and moderate-income households. The HIP allows participants to apply for
deferred loans of up to $20,000 for repairs to owner-occupied homes. Eligible owners
of single-family detached dwellings may correct hazardous structural conditions, make
modifications necessary to provide access to individuals with disabilities, improve the
overall exterior of the home, and/or correct exterior code violations. As with all CDBG-
3.4
Packet Pg. 43
funded programs, the administration of the Home Improvement Program is subject to
the terms of the City’s cooperative agreement with the Los Angeles County Community
Development Authority (LACDA).
The City recently terminated its HIP contract with SJC 3 Consulting (“SJC 3”). The City
first hired SJC 3 in 2012, and entered into two subsequent, five -year contracts with the
firm in 2015 and 2020. For most of that time, SJC 3 provided excellent service.
However, there have recently been issues with staff turnover. At the beginning of FY
2020/21, SJC 3 assigned a new project manager to Diamond Bar, and by September
2020, the project manager resigned. Lacking additional in-house staff, SJC 3
subcontracted with another firm, FRJ & Associates (“FRJ”), to bring its partners, Vivian
and Bill Moss, on board to serve as Diamond Bar’s project managers.
Ms. and Mr. Moss have done outstanding work managing the HIP since coming on
board. However, it made little sense for the City to continue a contr actual relationship
with SJC 3 for services ostensibly provided by a separate firm. Therefore, staff
informed SJC 3 that it would be in the City’s best interest to seek the services of another
firm to manage Diamond Bar’s Home Improvement Program. After severing ties with
SJC 3 at the end of the prior fiscal year, the City entered into an interim contract with
FRJ, enabling to allow the Home Improvement Program to continue without interruption
while the City completes the RFP and consultant selection process for a long-term HIP
contract.
DISCUSSION:
On July 12, 2021, the City published a detailed Request for Proposals (RFP) through
PlanetBids, inviting qualified consulting firms to submit proposals to administer the
Home Improvement Program. Seventeen firms viewed the RFP, and three firms
submitted proposals:
• Beatrice Picon;
• FRJ & Associates; and
• Global Urban Strategies.
After thoroughly reviewing the proposals, staff recommends that the City enter into a
new, five-year Consulting Services Agreement with FRJ & Associates. The factors on
which this recommendation is based are summarized below.
Consultant Qualifications and Experience
FRJ & Associates has 27 years of experience administering a variety of CDBG
programs for several Southern California cities.
Vivian Moss has written and implemented CDBG, HOME, and redevelopment programs
for the cities of Azusa and Monrovia, and wrote and implemented the HOME grant,
loan, & rental loan programs for the City of Lynwood. She also performed construction
management for the City of Palmdale and LACDA.
3.4
Packet Pg. 44
Bill Moss has worked in housing programs for the past 21 years. Currently, he handles
construction management responsibilities, including preconstruction and abatement.
He has worked in different capacities in the construction field for 31 years, including the
role of labor superintendent for a construction company.
As stated, FRJ has managed Diamond Bar’s Home Improvement Program for the past
nine months, and has consistently administered program in an exemplary manner. The
project managers’ thorough knowledge of LACDA’s rules and regulations, combined
with meticulous documentation of expenditures and services rendered has played a
major role in Diamond Bar’s continued good standing with LACDA. Moreover, Vivian
and Bill Moss have been more proactive than their predecessors in assisting applicants
navigate the loan approval process, and moving projects through the funding and
construction pipeline.
Because the firm’s owners will personally manage Diamond Ba r’s Home Improvement
Program, the employee turnover experienced with SJC 3 will no longer be an issue.
Pricing
The three firms proposed different pricing methods in their cost proposals:
• FRJ proposes an amount not to exceed 20% of each loan amount.
• Beatrice Picon proposes an hourly rate of $95, with a not -to-exceed amount of
$28,500 per year.
• Global Urban Strategies proposes with hourly rates ranging from $65 to $120 among
the seven staff persons included in the proposal, plus mailing and printing cost s, with
a not-to-exceed amount of $22,000 per year.
CDBG rules allow up to 20% of the City’s CDBG allocation to be used to pay
administrative expenses. Thus, FRJ’s invoices would be paid entirely from CDBG
funds, assuring that the firm’s billings would never impact the General Fund.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached Consulting Services
Agreement as to form.
PREPARED BY:
3.4
Packet Pg. 45
REVIEWED BY:
Attachments:
1. 3.4.a Consulting Servies Agreement with FRJ & Associates
3.4
Packet Pg. 46
1
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
CDBG Non-Design Professional
THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made as of September 1, 2021 by and between
the City of Diamond Bar, a municipal corporation ("City") and FRJ & Associates, a
California general partnership ("Consultant").
1. Consultant’s Services.
Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement , Consultant shall
provide to the reasonable satisfaction of the City the performance of CDBG Home
Improvement Program (“HIP”) services set forth in the attached Exhibit "A", which is
incorporated herein by this reference. As a material inducement to the City to enter into
this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has thoroughly investigated
the work and fully understands the difficulties and restrictions in performing the work.
Consultant represents that it is fully qualified to perform such consulting services by virtue
of its experience and the training, education and expertise of its principals and employees.
Greg Gubman, Community Development Director (herein referred to as the “City’s
Project Manager”), shall be the person to whom the Consultant will report for the
performance of services hereunder. It is understood that Consultant shall coordinate its
services hereunder with the City’s Project Manager to the extent required by the City’s
Project Manager, and that all performances required hereunder by Consultant shall be
performed to the satisfaction of the City’s Project Manager and the City Manager.
2. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall take effect September 1, 2021,
and shall continue until June 30, 2026 (“Term”) unless earlier terminated pursuant to the
provisions herein.
3. Compensation. City agrees to compensate Consultant for each service
which Consultant performs to the satisfaction of City in compliance with the scope of
services set forth in Exhibit "A". Payment will be made only after submission of proper
invoices in the form specified by City. The sum of payments to Consultant per fiscal year
shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the adopted CDBG budget allocated to the HIP
for that same fiscal year without the prior written consent of the City. Total payments to
Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed ONE HUNDRED TWENTY
THOUSAND Dollars ($120,000) without the prior written consent of the City.
The above not to exceed amount shall include all costs, including, but not limited
to, all clerical, administrative, overhead, telephone, travel and all related expenses.
4. Payment.
A. As scheduled services are completed, Consultant shall submit to City an
invoice for the services completed, authorized expenses and authorized extra work
actually performed or incurred.
B. All such invoices shall state the basis for the amount invoiced, including
services completed, the number of hours spent and any extra work performed.
3.4.a
Packet Pg. 47
City will pay Consultant the amount properly invoiced within 35 days ofC.
receipt.
Payment shall constitute payment in full for all services, authorized costs
and authorized extra work covered by that invoice.
D.
Records and Audits.
records, including personnel, property and financial records, adequate to identify and
account for all costs pertaining to this Agreement and such other records as may be
deemed necessary by the CITY to assure proper accounting for all project funds, both
federal and non-federal shares. These records will be made available for audit purposes
to the CITY or any authorized representative, and will be retained five (5) years after the
expiration of this Agreement unless permission to destroy them is granted by the CITY.
(24 CFR Part 84, Sec. 84.53)
The Consultant shall maintain accounts and5.
Change Orders. No payment for extra services caused by a change in the
scope or complexity of work, or for any other reason, shall be made unless and until such
extra services and a price therefore have been previously authorized in writing and
approved by the City Manager or his/her designee as an amendment to this Agreement.
The amendment shall set forth the changes of work, extension of time, if any, and
adjustment of the fee to be paid by City to Consultant.
6.
Priority of Documents. In the event of any inconsistency between the
provisions of this Agreement and the attached Exhibit “A”, the provisions of this
Agreement shall control.
7.
Status as Independent Contractor.8.
Consultant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent
contractor. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on
behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent, except as specifically
provided herein. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of
Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, except as set forth in this Agreement.
Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its agents
or employees are in any manner employees of City.
A.
Consultant agrees to pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Consultant
under this Agreement, and to indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes,
assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent
contractor relationship created by this Agreement. In the event that City is audited by any
Federal or State agency or the Public Employee Retirement System regarding the
independent contractor status of Consultant and the audit in any way fails to sustain the
validity of a wholly independent contractor relationship between City and Consultant, its
employees or subconsultants, then Consultant agrees to reimburse City for all costs,
including accounting and attorney's fees, arising out of such audit and any appeals
relating thereto.
B.
2
3.4.a
Packet Pg. 48
Consultant shall fully comply with Workers' Compensation laws regarding
Consultant and Consultant's employees. Consultant further agrees to indemnify and hold
City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with applicable Worker's
Compensation laws.
C.
Consultant shall, at Consultant’s sole cost and expense fully secure and
comply with all federal, state and local governmental permit or licensing requirements,
including but not limited to a City of Diamond Bar business license.
D.
In addition to any other remedies it may have, City shall have the right to
offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount
due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to promptly pay to City any
reimbursement or indemnification required by this Agreement or for any amount or
penalty levied against the City for Consultant’s failure to comply with this Section.
E.
Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all work at the
standard of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession under similar
conditions and represents that it and any subcontractors it may engage, possess any and
all licenses which are required to perform the work contemplated by this Agreement and
shall maintain all appropriate licenses during the performance of the work.
9.
10. Indemnification.
Consultant shall indemnify, defend with counsel approved by City, and hold
harmless City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers ("Indemnitees") from and
against all liability, loss, damage, expense, cost (including without limitation reasonable
attorneys' fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation) of every nature
arising out of or in connection with:
(1) Any and all claims under Workers’ Compensation Act and other
employee benefit acts with respect to Consultant’s employees or Consultant’s
contractor’s employees arising out of Consultant’s work under this Agreement; and
(2) Any and all claims arising out of Consultant's performance of work
hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this
Agreement, regardless of City’s passive negligence, but excepting such loss or
damage which is caused by the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the
City. Should City in its sole discretion find Consultant’s legal counsel
unacceptable, then Consultant shall reimburse the City its costs of defense,
including without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and all other
costs and fees of litigation. The Consultant shall promptly pay any final judgment
rendered against the Indemnitees. It is expressly understood and agreed that the
foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by
the law of the State of California and will survive termination of this Agreement.
Except for the Indemnitees, this Agreement shall not be construed to extend to any
third-party indemnification rights of any kind.
(3) The Consultant's obligations to indemnify, defend and hold harmless
the City shall survive termination of this Agreement.
3
3.4.a
Packet Pg. 49
11. Insurance.
Consultant shall at all times during the term of this Agreement carry,
maintain, and keep in full force and effect, with an insurance company authorized to do
business in the State of California and approved by the City the following insurance:
A.
(1) a policy or policies of broad-form comprehensive general liability
insurance written on an occurrence basis with minimum limits of $2,000,000.00
combined single limit coverage against any injury, death, loss or damage as a
result of wrongful or negligent acts by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents,
and independent contractors in performance of services under this Agreement;
(2) automotive liability insurance written on an occurrence basis covering
all owned, non-owned and hired automobiles, with minimum combined single limits
coverage of $1,000,000.00; and
(3) Worker’s Compensation insurance when required by law, with a
minimum limit of $500,000.00 or the amount required by law, whichever is greater.
The City, its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be named as
additional insureds on the policies as to comprehensive general liability, property
damage, and automotive liability. The policies as to comprehensive general liability,
property damage, and automobile liability shall provide that they are primary, and that any
insurance maintained by the City shall be excess insurance only.
B.
All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be
non-renewed, canceled, reduced, or otherwise modified (except through the addition of
additional insureds to the policy) by the insurance carrier without the insurance carrier
giving City at least ten (10) days prior written notice thereof. Consultant agrees that it will
not cancel, reduce or otherwise modify the insurance coverage and in the event of any of
the same by the insurer to immediately notify the City.
C.
All policies of insurance shall cover the obligations of Consultant pursuant
to the terms of this Agreement and shall be issued by an insurance company which is
authorized to do business in the State of California or which is approved in writing by the
City; and shall be placed have a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A-, VII.
D.
Consultant shall submit to City (1) insurance certificates indicating
compliance with the minimum insurance requirements above, and (2) insurance policy
endorsements or a copy of the insurance policy evidencing the additional insured
requirements in this Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City.
E.
Self-Insured Retention/Deductibles. All policies required by this Agreement
shall allow City, as additional insured, to satisfy the self-insured retention (“SIR”) and/or
deductible of the policy in lieu of the Consultant (as the named insured) should Consultant
fail to pay the SIR or deductible requirements. The amount of the SIR or deductible shall
be subject to the approval of the City. Consultant understands and agrees that
satisfaction of this requirement is an express condition precedent to the effectiveness of
F.
4
3.4.a
Packet Pg. 50
this Agreement. Failure by Consultant as primary insured to pay its SIR or deductible
constitutes a material breach of this Agreement. Should City pay the SIR or deductible
on Consultant’s due to such failure in order to secure defense and indemnification as an
additional insured under the policy, City may include such amounts as damages in any
action against Consultant for breach of this Agreement in addition to any other damages
incurred by City due to the breach.
Subrogation. With respect to any Workers' Compensation Insurance or
Employer's Liability Insurance, the insurer shall waive all rights of subrogation and
contribution it may have against the Indemnitees.
G.
Failure to Maintain Insurance. If Consultant fails to keep the insurance
required under this Agreement in full force and effect, City may take out the necessary
insurance and any premiums paid, plus 10% administrative overhead, shall be paid by
Consultant, which amounts may be deducted from any payments due Consultant.
H.
I. Consultant shall include all subcontractors, if any, as insureds under its
policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor to
the City for review and approval. All insurance for subcontractors shall be subject to all
of the requirements stated herein.
Confidentiality. Consultant in the course of its duties may have access to
confidential data of City, private individuals, or employees of the City. Consultant
covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or
received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed
confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without written authorization by City.
City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is required by law. All City data shall be
returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under
this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, to the extent Consultant prepares reports of a proprietary nature specifically
for and in connection with certain projects, the City shall not, except with Consultant's
prior written consent, use the same for other unrelated projects.
12.
13. Ownership of Materials. Except as specifically provided in this
Agreement, all materials provided by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement
shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon its use or
dissemination by City. Consultant may, however, make and retain such copies of said
documents and materials as Consultant may desire.
Maintenance and Inspection of Records. In accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles, Consultant and its subcontractors shall maintain
reasonably full and complete books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other
information (collectively, the “records”) pertaining to the costs of and completion of
services performed under this Agreement. The City and any of their authorized
representatives shall have access to and the right to audit and reproduce any of
Consultant's records regarding the services provided under this Agreement. Consultant
shall maintain all such records for a period of at least three (3) years after termination or
completion of this Agreement. Consultant agrees to make available all such records for
14.
5
3.4.a
Packet Pg. 51
inspection or audit at its offices during normal business hours and upon three (3) days’
notice from the City, and copies thereof shall be furnished if requested.
15. Conflict of Interest.
Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire
any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the services to be performed by
Consultant under this Agreement, or which would conflict in any manner with the
performance of its services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that, in performance
of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it.
Furthermore, Consultant shall avoid the appearance of having any interest which would
conflict in any manner with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement.
A.
Consultant covenants not to give or receive any compensation, monetary
or otherwise, to or from the ultimate vendor(s) of hardware or software to City as a result
of the performance of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under this section shall
survive the termination of this Agreement.
B.
Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement with or without cause
upon fifteen (15) days' written notice to Consultant. The effective date of termination shall
be upon the date specified in the notice of termination, or, in the event no date is specified,
upon the fifteenth (15th) day following mailing of the notice. In the event of such
termination, City agrees to pay Consultant for services satisfactorily rendered prior to the
effective date of termination. Immediately upon receiving written notice of termination,
Consultant shall discontinue performing services, unless the notice provides otherwise,
except those services reasonably necessary to effectuate the termination. The City shall
be not liable for any claim of lost profits.
16.
Personnel/Designated Person. Consultant represents that it has, or will
secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform the services under this
Agreement. All of the services required under this Agreement will be performed by
Consultant or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be
qualified to perform such services. Except as otherwise authorized by the City's Project
Managers, Vivian Moss and Bill Moss shall be the persons who primarily perform the work
provided under this Agreement. Except as provided in this Agreement, Consultant
reserves the right to determine the assignment of its own employees to the performance
of Consultant's services under this Agreement, but City reserves the right in its sole
discretion to require Consultant to exclude any employee from performing services on
City's premises.
17.
Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity.18.
Consultant shall not discriminate as to race, color, creed, religion, sex,
marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical
condition, or sexual orientation, in the performance of its services and duties pursuant to
this Agreement, and will comply with all rules and regulations of City relating thereto.
Such nondiscrimination shall include but not be limited to the following: employment,
upgrading, demotion, transfers, recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or
A.
6
3.4.a
Packet Pg. 52
termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training,
including apprenticeship.
Consultant will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed
by or on behalf of Consultant state either that it is an equal opportunity employer or that
all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race,
color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental
handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation.
B.
Consultant will cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all
subcontracts for any work covered by this Agreement except contracts or subcontracts
for standard commercial supplies or raw materials.
C.
Executive Order 11246 requires that during the performance of this
Agreement, Consultant agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race, religion, sex, color or national origin. Consultant will take
affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated
during employment, without regard to their race, religion, sex, color or national origin.
Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading,
demotion, or transfer, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for
training, including apprenticeship. Consultant agrees to post in conspicuous places,
available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the
Consultant setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
D.
Section 3 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1968, as
amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., requires that, to the greatest extent feasible,
opportunities for training and employment be given to lower income residents of the
project area and contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to business
concerns which are located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the area
of the project.
E.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person shall, on the
ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance.
F.
Section 109, Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
provides that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any program of activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under
this title.
G.
Any prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age under the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975, or with respect to an otherwise qualified handicapped
individual, as provided in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, shall also apply.
H.
Time Is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement.
Consultant shall do all things necessary and incidental to the prosecution of Consultant's
work.
19.
7
3.4.a
Packet Pg. 53
20. Reserved.
Delays and Extensions of Time. Consultant's sole remedy for delays
outside its control shall be an extension of time. No matter what the cause of the delay,
Consultant must document any delay and request an extension of time in writing at the
time of the delay to the satisfaction of City. Any extensions granted shall be limited to the
length of the delay outside Consultant’s control. If Consultant believes that delays caused
by the City will cause it to incur additional costs, it must specify, in writing, why the i^elay
has caused additional costs to be incurred and the exact amount of such cost within 10
days of the time the delay occurs. No additional costs can be paid that exceed the not to
exceed amount absent a written amendment to this Agreement. In no event shall the
Consultant be entitled to any claim for lost profits due to any delay, whether caused by
the City or due to some other cause.
21.
Assignment. Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this
Agreement nor the performance of any of Consultant's obligations hereunder, without the
prior written consent of City, and any attempt by Consultant to so assign this Agreement
or any rights, duties, or obligations arising hereunder shall be void and of no effect.
22.
Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws,
ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state, and local governments.
23.
Non-Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of
any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a
waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the
making by City of any payment to Consultant constitute or be construed as a waiver by
City of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of
Consultant, and the making of any such payment by City shall in no way impair or
prejudice any right or remedy available to City with regard to such breach or default.
24.
25. Reserved.
Mediation. Any dispute or controversy arising under this Agreement, or in
connection with any of the terms and conditions hereof, which cannot be resolved by the
parties, may be referred by the parties hereto for mediation. A third party, neutral
mediation service which be selected, as agreed upon by the parties and the costs and
expenses thereof shall be borne equally by the parties hereto. 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 mutual good
faith efforts to resolve any dispute or controversy as provided herein, shall be a condition
precedent to the institution of any action or proceeding, whether at law or in equity with
respect to any such dispute or controversy.
26.
Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by this Agreement
shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand during regular
business hours or by facsimile before or during regular business hours; or (b) on the third
business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the
27.
8
3.4.a
Packet Pg. 54
addresses heretofore set forth in the Agreement, or to such other addresses as the parties
may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the provisions of this section.
CITY’CONSULTANT”
City of Diamond Bar
21810 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
Attn.: Greg Gubman
Phone: (909) 839-7030
E-mail: GGubman@DiamondBarCa.gov
FRJ & Associates
14110 Moonridge Drive
Riverside, CA 92503
Attn.: Vivian Moss
Phone: (951)288-3805
E-Mail: vmossconsultant@yahoo.com
Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and
enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The venue for any action
brought under this Agreement shall be in Los Angeles County.
28.
Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be the original, and all of which together
shall constitute one and the same instrument.
29.
30. County Lobbying Certification.
The Consultant certifies that:
It is understood that each person/entity/firm who applies for a Los Angeles
County Development Authority (“LACDA”) contract, as part of that process, shall certify
that they are familiar with the requirements of the Los Angeles County Code Chapter
2.160, (Los Angeles County Ordinance 9.-0031) and;
A.
That all persons/entities/firms that seek a contract with LACDA shall be
disqualified therefrom and denied that contract and, shall be liable in civil action, if any
lobbyist, lobbying firm, lobbyist employer or any other person or entity acting on behalf of
the above-named firm fails to comply with the provisions of the County Code.
B.
Consultant’s Warranty of Compliance with County’s Defaulted
Property Tax Reduction Program:
31.
The Consultant acknowledges that the County has established a goal of
ensuring that all individuals and businesses that benefit financially from the County
through contract are current in paying their personal and real property tax obligations
(secured and unsecured roll) in order to mitigate the economic burden otherwise imposed
upon the County and its taxpayers. Unless the Consultant qualifies for an exemption or
exclusion, the Consultant warrants and certifies that to the best of its knowledge it is now
in compliance, and during the term of this Agreement will maintain compliance, with the
County's Defaulted Tax Program, found at Los Angeles County Ordinance No. 2009-0026
and codified at Los Angeles County Code, Chapter 2.206.
A.
Failure of the Consultant to maintain compliance with the requirements set
forth in the “County’s Defaulted Property Tax Reduction Program " shall constitute default
B.
9
3.4.a
Packet Pg. 55
under this Agreement. Without limiting the rights and remedies available to the City under
any other provision of this Agreement, failure of the Consultant to cure such default within
10 days of notice shall be grounds upon which the City may suspend or terminate this
Agreement pursuant to the County's Defaulted Property Tax Reduction Program found at
Los Angeles County Ordinance No. 2009-0026 and codified at Los Angeles County Code,
Chapter 2.206.
32. Lobbying Certification.
The Consultant certifies that:
No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on
behalf of the Consultant, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer
or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, and officer or employee of Congress,
or an employee of any Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any
Federal contract, the making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension,
continuation renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan or
cooperative agreement.
A.
If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will
be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of
any agency, a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan,
or cooperative agreement, the Consultant shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL,
“Disclosures Form to Report Lobbying”, in accordance with its instructions.
B.
The Consultant shall require that the language of this certification be
included in all subcontracts and that all subcontracts shall certify and disclose
accordingly.
C.
33. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and any other documents
incorporated herein by reference, represent the entire and integrated agreement between
Consultant and City. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations,
representations or agreements. This Agreement may not be amended, nor any provision
or breach hereof waived, except in a writing signed by the parties which expressly refers
to this Agreement. Amendments on behalf of the City will only be valid if signed by a
person duly authorized to do so under the City's Purchasing Ordinance.
10
3.4.a
Packet Pg. 56
IN WITNESS of this Agreement, the parties have executed this Agreement as of
the date first written above.
Consultant'"City'
CITY OF DIAMOND BARFRJ & ASSOCIATES
By:By:
Nancy Lyons, Mayor
UMiQ J .Printed Name:
'PariiTitTitle:\r
ATTEST:
Kristina Santana, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
By:
David DeBerry, City Attorney
*NOTE: If Consultant is a corporation, the City requires the following signature(s):
the Chairman of the Board, the President or a Vice-President, AND (2) the Secretary, the Chief
Financial Officer, the Treasurer, an Assistant Secretary or an Assistant Treasurer. If only one corporate
officer exists or one corporate officer holds more than one corporate office, please so indicate. OR
o
o The corporate officer named in a corporate resolution as authorized to enter into this Agreement. A
copy of the corporate resolution, certified by the Secretary close in time to the execution of the
Agreement, must be provided to the City.
11
3.4.a
Packet Pg. 57
INTRODUCTION
FRJ & Associates are dedicated to serving the residents of the city. We have been working
effectively in different cities for the last twenty-seven years. We are committed to meeting the needs
of its residents, making each city our top priority. The residents can get a hold of us anytime to
answer questions or take care of problems that arise. We understand the special needs of the elderly
and disabled. FRJ helps those clients through the application process, and drives to their homes for
signatures and appointments normally handled in the office. We are constantly finding ways to
improve our services to meet the needs of the residents.
FRJ & Associates are a partnership of consultants highly experienced in CDBG programs. We
adhere strictly to CDBG guidelines and receive high marks during all Los Angeles Community
Development Authority audits. We are very familiar with building codes and work closely with the
building department to make sure cases are handled in a timely manner.
PRICING
We propose to bill the CDBG Home Improvement Program at 20% of the project total. Pricing
based on 3-5 estimated home rehabilitation loans.
Fees are all inclusive of the following services; photos, travel expenses, cell phones, off hour
appointments, and phone calls. Our firm will provide off site laptops, fax machine, printers, and
copier.
CURRENT PROJECT
City of Azusa (27 years)
Wrote and administer:
A. CDBG Single Family Residential Rehabilitation Grant Program
EXHIBIT "A"3.4.a
Packet Pg. 58
Agenda #: 3.5
Meeting Date: August 17, 2021
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager
TITLE: HEALTH OFFICER ORDER OF FACE COVERINGS.
STRATEGIC
GOAL:
Safe, Sustainable & Healthy Community
RECOMMENDATION:
Remove the item from further consideration.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
At the August 3, 2021 meeting, the City Council discussed sending a letter to the Board
of Supervisors expressing concerns regarding the Health Officer Order of July 16, 2021,
requiring all persons to wear face coverings, regardless of vaccination status, while in
all indoor public settings and businesses. As discussed at that meeting, LA County has
seen, and continues to see, significant increases in daily new cases and hospitalizations
since the retirement of the State’s Blueprint for a Safer Economy on June 15, 2021.
Similar increases are being experienced across the nation; now referred to as a
“Summer Surge”. Health Officials have indicated that the surge is being fueled by the
presence of the more contagious “Delta” variant. The majority of the new cases and
hospitalizations continue to be among those that are not vaccinated. However, there is
clearly an increase in the number of new cases from those that have been vaccinated.
For those that are fully vaccinated, the vaccine continues to be extremely effective in
preventing serious illness, hospitalization and death.
Based on Council direction provided at that meeting, the matter was continued for staff
to provide a revised letter that encouraged County Health Officials to more prominently
make available daily metrics broken down by vaccination status, develop new strategies
to encourage more persons to get vaccinated, better identify location hot spots or
3.5
Packet Pg. 59
business sectors with increasing cases through contract tracing, and encourage the
Federal Drug Administration (FDA) to expedite removal of the Emergency Authorization
status of the vaccines.
Upon further review, these efforts are already being implemented with the changing
conditions. A new data page is available that includes a variety of metrics since the
reopening on June 15, 2021 at:
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/data/reopenin g-dashboard.htm
This includes cases, hospitalizations and deaths for persons vaccinated, as well as %
vaccinated and a 14-day cumulated new case rate per 100K in populations by
community. The FDA has indicated that Emergency Authorization status of th e
vaccines could be removed by the end of the month. The County continues robust
contract tracing efforts and uses a variety of campaigns to encourage residents to get
vaccinated.
Based on these continued efforts and continually changing conditions, a le tter to the
Board of Supervisors at this time would not identify any new information or alternatives
to combat community spread of COVID-19. Therefore, it is recommended that the City
Council remove this item from further consideration. The Council could revisit the
matter at some point in the future should conditions warrant.
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
3.5
Packet Pg. 60
Agenda #: 3.6
Meeting Date: August 17, 2021
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager
TITLE: CANCELLATION OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
STRATEGIC
GOAL:
Open, Engaged & Responsive Government
RECOMMENDATION:
Adjourn the August 17, 2021 City Council meeting to September 21, 2021.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND:
It has been suggested that the Council consider the cancellation of the City Council
Meeting scheduled for September 7, 2021. There will be no pressing matters or public
hearings scheduled and therefore adjourning the meeting will not cause the City any
hardship.
Should the City Council concur, it is recommended that the Mayor, at the end of the
August 17, 2021 City Council Meeting, adjourn said Council meeting to September 21,
2021.
PREPARED BY:
3.6
Packet Pg. 61
REVIEWED BY:
3.6
Packet Pg. 62
Agenda #: 4.1
Meeting Date: August 17, 2021
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager
TITLE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 83371 (PLANNING CASE NO.
PL2021-15) FOR A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 2335 S. DIAMOND
BAR BOULEVARD (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 8292-009-004).
STRATEGIC
GOAL:
Open, Engaged & Responsive Government
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive staff report; Open the Public Hearing to receive any testimony; Close the Public
Hearing; Discuss; and Adopt Resolution No. 2021-39 Approving Tentative Parcel Map
No. 83371 (Planning Case No. PL2021-15) based on the Findings of Fact, and subject
to the Conditions of Approval Contained therein.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. All staff and consultant costs to process the Tentative Parcel Map application
have been borne by the applicant.
SUMMARY:
The property owner, Southern California Nevada Conference of the United Church of
Christ, and applicant, Samir M. Khoury of Coory Engineering, are requesting approval of
Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371 to create a two-lot subdivision. The subject property
consists of approximately 3.52 acres at the southwest corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard
and Morning Canyon Road and is surrounded by multifamily residential developments.
Proposed Parcel 1 will be 76,728 square feet (1.76 acres) and proposed Parcel 2 will be
76,729 square feet (1.76 acres). No modifications to the existing church buildings and
no new construction are being proposed in conjunction with the proposed subdivision.
The Diamond Bar United Church of Christ and a community garden are currently
located on the subject property. The proposed subdivision will result in the existing
church occupying one of the proposed parcels and the creation of a new vacant lot to
4.1
Packet Pg. 63
accommodate the future construction of residential development. The property is zoned
RM, and the underlying General Plan land use designation is Medium Density
Residential (i.e., 12 dwellings per acre)
The site is legally described as Lot 1 of Tract No. 35554, and the Assessor’s Parcel
Number (APN) is 8292-009-004.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On July 13, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the Project. By a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Garg absent, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 2021-08, recommending that the City Council
approve the proposed Tentative Parcel Map, subject to conditions. The Planning
Commission staff report is included as Attachment 4.
During the public hearing, a member of the public voiced concerns about the worsening
traffic in the area, parking issues, whether any trees would be removed, and the effect
of the subdivision and future development on property values. Staff explained that the
subdivision request does not include any new construction or the removal of existing
trees along the perimeter of the project site , and affirmed that the future development of
Proposed Parcel 1 will be subject to the development standards of the underlying
zoning district in effect at the time of Development Review application submittal. The
Planning Commission meeting minutes are included as Attachment 5.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
On August 4, 2021, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a
1,000-foot radius of the project site. On August 6, 2021, the notice was published in the
San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspaper; the project site was posted with a notice display
board; and a copy of the public notice was posted at the City’s designated community
posting sites.
Public Comments Received
On July 14, 2021, staff received a phone call from a neighbor inquiring about the
property owner’s reason for the subdivision and the future development of proposed
Parcel 1. No other comments or inquiries have been received as of the publication date
of this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) of the CEQA Guidelines exemption applies to
projects consisting of the division of property in urbanized are as zoned for residential,
commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in
conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are
required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are
4.1
Packet Pg. 64
available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous
two years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. The
proposed Tentative Parcel Map qualifies for this exemption because t he project site
meets all the listed requirements under this exemption. In addition, the average slope
of the project site was determined to be 12 percent, which is under the 20 percent
threshold under CEQA (see the exhibits accompanying the Tentative Parcel Map in
Attachment 2).
Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Article 19 under Section 15315 (Minor
Land Divisions) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the Resolution as to form.
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Attachments:
1. 4.1.a Resolution No. 2021-39 w/ Conditions of Approval
2. 4.1.b Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371 and Average Slope Analysis
3. 4.1.c Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 13, 2021
4. 4.1.d Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021-08
5. 4.1.e Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from July 13, 2021
4.1
Packet Pg. 65
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-39
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 83371
(PLANNING CASE NO. PL2021-15) FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF AN
EXISTING 3.52-ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS LOCATED AT 2335 SOUTH
DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CA (APN 8292-009-004).
A. RECITALS
1. The property owner, Southern California Nevada Conference of the United
Church of Christ, and applicant, Samir M. Khoury of Coory Engineering,
have filed an application for Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371, to create a
two-lot subdivision. The subject property consists of approximately
3.52 acres at the southwest corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Morning
Canyon Road, with approximately half of the site developed as a church.
Proposed Parcel 1 is 76,728 square feet (1.76 acres) and proposed
Parcel 2 is 76,729 square feet (1.76 acres). No new construction is
proposed with this request. The subject property is more specifically
described as 2335 South Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, Los
Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this resolution, the subject
Tentative Parcel Map shall be collectively referred to as t he “Proposed
Subdivision.”
2. The subject property is located in the Medium Density Residential (RM)
zone with a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density
Residential.
3. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 1 of Tract No. 35554.
The Assessor’s Parcel Number is 8292-009-004.
4. On July 2, 2021, notification of the Planning Commission public hearing for
the Proposed Subdivision was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune
newspaper. On June 30, 2021 public hearing notices were mailed to
property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject property and
posted at the City’s designated community posting sites.
5. On July 13, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar
conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all
interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date.
6. On August 6, 2021, notification of the City Council public hearing for the
Proposed Subdivision was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune
newspaper. On August 4, 2021 public hearing notices were mailed to
property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject property and
posted at the City’s designated community posting sites.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 66
Resolution No. 2021-39
2
7. On August 17, 2021, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted
a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested
individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date.
8. The documents and materials constituting the administrative record of the
proceedings upon which the City’s decision is based are located at the City
of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department, Planning Division,
21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
B. RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. The 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. The City Council hereby determines the Proposed Subdivision to be
Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the provisions of Article 19, Section 15315
(Minor Land Divisions) of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
3. The City Council approves the Proposed Subdivision, finding it consistent
with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act as
further detailed below.
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein and as prescribe d under
Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 21.20, this City Council hereby
finds and recommends as follows:
1. The City Council 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 Subdivision set forth in the app lication, there is no
evidence before this City Council that the Proposed Subdivision 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 City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse
effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations.
Tentative Map Findings: Pursuant to Subdivision Code Section 21.20.080
of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, this City Council makes the following
findings:
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 67
Resolution No. 2021-39
3
a. The Proposed Subdivision, together with the provisions for its design
and improvement, is consistent with the general plan and a ny
applicable specific plan.
The Proposed Subdivision involves the subdivision of an existing
153,457 gross square-foot (3.52 acres) lot into two lots. Proposed
Parcel 1 will be 76,728 square feet (1.76 acres) and proposed
Parcel 2 will be 76,729 square feet (1.76 acres). The Proposed
Subdivision will not involve any new construction and there will be no
physical changes to the existing buildings and property. The
property is zoned Medium Density Residential (RM) with the
underlying General Plan land use designation of Medium Density
Residential. Parcel 2 of the subject site is already developed and the
Proposed Subdivision is in compliance with the City’s General Plan,
Design Guidelines, and development standards. The future
development of Parcel 1 will be processed through a Development
Review application for compliance with the City’s General Plan, City
Design Guidelines, and development standards.
The Proposed Subdivision is consistent with the Diamond Bar 2013 -
2021 Housing Element Goal 3: (“Provide adequate sites through
appropriate land use and zoning designations to accommodate
future housing growth.”) in that the Proposed Subdivision will result
in the creation of a potential site for future housing development that
will be compatible with the surrounding development.
The subject property is not subject to the provisions of any specific
plan.
b. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of
development.
The Proposed Subdivision will not interfere with the use and
enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments. The
subject property site is already improved with existing buildings and
utility facilities to service the church campus. No new construction
will take place, no physical changes to the existing buildings are
proposed, and no new land uses are being proposed wit h this
Proposed Subdivision.
The maximum allowed density for the Medium Density Residential
general plan land use designation and zoning district is twelve
dwelling units per gross acre (12 DU/Acre). Future development of
Parcel 1 will be reviewed through the Development Review process
and analyzed against the development standards.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 68
Resolution No. 2021-39
4
c. The design of the Proposed Subdivision or the proposed
improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
The design of the Proposed Subdivision or the proposed
improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the subject property is
located in an urbanized area that does not contain habitats or would
otherwise injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. In addition, no new
construction is being proposed with this Tentative Parcel Map
application. The act of creating parcels on the subject property for
the purpose of lease, sale or financing will have no material effect on
fish, wildlife or their habitats.
d. The design of the Proposed Subdivision or type of improvements will
not cause serious public health or safety problems.
The Proposed Subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health or safety problems because the existing
site is located in an urbanized area. There is no new construction or
building modifications proposed with this Proposed Subdivision. The
Proposed Subdivision is required to comply with all conditions within
the approved resolution, the Building and Safety Division and Public
Works Department, and Los Angeles County Fire Department
requirements. Through the permit and inspection process, the
referenced agencies will ensure that the Proposed Subdivision is not
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially
injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Future development of the Proposed Subdivision site will be
processed through a Development Review application for
compliance with the City’s development standards, California
Building Code, and other applicable regulations.
e. The design of the Proposed Subdivision or type of improvements will
not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of, property within the Proposed Subdivision.
The subject property has a 2-foot-wide County of Los Angeles
easement for storm drain purposes that runs parallel to Morning
Canyon Road. Storm drain connections to and/or construction
activities encroaching into a County easement require a County
permit.
The Proposed Subdivision will result in the Morning Canyon Road
driveway to be located on a separate parcel from the church campus.
The Proposed Subdivision will not interfere with the church’s main
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 69
Resolution No. 2021-39
5
existing access from Diamond Bar Boulevard. Access to Parcel 1
will be from the Morning Canyon Road driveway. In addition, a
condition is added to the Proposed Subdivison requiring the
recordation of a reciprocal access easement between the proposed
parcels. The easement shall remain in effect unless and until the
property owner(s) propose to quitclaim the reciprocal access
easement in conjunction with the issuance of building permits on
proposed Parcel 1, and the City approves the quitclaim request.
Vehicular and pedestrian circulation for Parcel 1 will be contingent
on the future development of Parcel 1 and will be analyzed during
the Development Review process.
f. The discharge of sewage from the Proposed Subdivision into the
community sewer system would not result in violation of existing
requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
The Proposed Subdivision will not violate any requirement of the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Pro posed
Subdivision will be connecting to the existing public sewer system
which is in compliance with the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
The church campus on proposed Parcel 2 shall continue to be served
by the existing water meter and sewer lateral which does not cross
the proposed lot lines. Proposed Parcel 1 will require new utility
services. The type of utility services required for the undeveloped lot
will be contingent on the scope of the new development.
As part of the environmental review process, the City received a will-
serve letter from the Walnut Valley Water District. The existing
buildings on-site are currently receiving water for domestic usage.
A will-serve letter was requested from the Los Angeles County
Sanitation District. In an email dated April 9, 2021, their Facilities
Planning Department determined that a will serve letter was not
applicable for this Proposed Subdivision since there is no
development being proposed for the Proposed Subdivision and there
is no increase in wastewater discharge.
g. A preliminary soils report or geologic hazard report does not indicate
adverse soil or geologic conditions.
A preliminary soils or geologic hazards report was not required for
the Proposed Subdivision because the subject property is a relatively
flat infill parcel surrounded by fully urbanized development. The
location and context of the subject property provides substantial
evidence that no adverse soil or geological conditions exist on the
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 70
Resolution No. 2021-39
6
subject property. Moreover, prior to any future development within
the Proposed Subdivision will require thorough geotechnical
investigations prepared by licensed civil engineers in conformance
with the locally-amended California Building Codes in effect at the
time such development is proposed. Such future development shall
adhere to the findings and recommendations of such investigations.
h. The Proposed Subdivision is consistent with all applicable provisions
of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, the Development Code, and the
Subdivision Map Act.
The Proposed Subdivision is consistent with the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance, Subdivision Map Act, and applicable Development Code.
The existing buildings on the proposed Parcel 2 were constructed in
1965, twenty-four years prior to the City’s incorporation. In addition,
future developments will be processed through a Development
Review application for compliance with the City’s development
standards.
D. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the City Council approves
Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371 (Planning Case No. PL2021-15) subject to the
following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions of Approval:
A. GENERAL
1. The approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371 (Planning Case
No. PL2021-15) shall expire within three (3) years from the date of
approval if a final map has not been filed pursuant to Diamond Bar
Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 21.20.140. The appl icant may
request an extension of the initial expiration date up to a maximum
of three (3) years in accordance with the provisions set forth under
DBMC Section 21.20.150. Extension requests shall be submitted in
writing prior to the expiration of the approval or previous extension,
together with the required filing fee.
2. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning,
Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and the Los
Angeles County Fire Department.
3. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant
and owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one
(21) days of approval of this Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371, at the
City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their
affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the
conditions of this approval.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 71
Resolution No. 2021-39
7
4. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the property
in a condition that will not cause erosion. Erosion control methods
shall be utilized to maintain slope stability, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. Slope plant material shall be maintained in a manner
that does not detract from the appearance of the immediate
neighborhood.
5. The development of Proposed Parcel 1 shall be submitted for review
and approval of a Development Review application and shall comply
with the City’s Development Code.
6. The Proposed Subdivision site shall be maintained and operated in
full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other
applicable regulations.
7. Standard Conditions. The applicant shall comply with the standard
development conditions attached hereto.
B. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CONDITIONS
1. Approval of the Tentative Parcel Map is for subdivision of land only.
No land use or development entitlements are expressed or implied.
2. The final map shall provide for parcels, easements or rights-of-way
for private streets, water supply and distribution systems, sewage
disposal systems, storm drainage facilities, solid waste disposal and
public utilities providing electric, gas, and telecommunications
services to accommodate the future development of Parcel 1.
3. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall fully comply with
DBMC Chapters 21.30 (Subdivision Design and Improvement
Requirements) and 21.34 (Improvement Plans and Agreements) of
the Subdivision Ordinance.
4. Pursuant to subsection (a)(8) of Government Code Section 66477, if
a building permit is requested for construction of a residential
structure or structures on one or more of the parcels created by the
Proposed Subdivision within four (4) years of Final Parcel Map
recordation, prior to the issuance the building permit, the owner of
each such parcel shall pay a parkland dedication in -lieu fee in an
amount determined in accordance with the formula set forth in
subsections (c) and (d) of DBMC Section 21.32.040. The amount of
the fee shall equal the parkland obligation derived from the formula
set forth in subsection (c) of DBMC Section 21.32.040 times a per -
acre “fair market value” of $2,271,591, or other per-acre “fair market
value” determined by mutual agreement of the city and the applicant
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 72
Resolution No. 2021-39
8
prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map. This requirement shall be
noted on the Final Parcel Map or contained in a separate covenant,
agreement, or similar document in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney and recorded prior to or concurrently with the Final Parcel
Map.
5. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371 shall not be interpreted
as repealing, abrogating, or annulling any private easement,
covenant, or dual restriction imposed on the subject property.
6. Prior to final map approval, a reciprocal access easement between
the parcels shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director and/or City Attorney and recorded. The
reciprocal access easement shall remain in effect unless and until
the property owner(s) propose to quitclaim the reciprocal access
easement in conjunction with the issuance of building permits on
Parcel 1, and the City approves the quitclaim proposal.
The City Council shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail,
to: Southern California Nevada Conference of the United Church of
Christ, 2335 S. Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, CA 91765, and
Coory Engineering, 1718 N. Neville St., Orange, CA 92865.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 17th day of August, 2021.
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
________________________
Nancy A. Lyons, Mayor
[Attestation continued on the following page ]
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 73
Resolution No. 2021-39
9
ATTEST:
I, Kristina Santana, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed, approved and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, at its regular meeting held on the 17th day
of August, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
________________________
Kristina Santana, City Clerk
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 74
Resolution No. 2021-39
10
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES
PROJECT #: Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371
Planning Case No. PL2021-15
SUBJECT: To create a two-lot subdivision. The subject property consists
of approximately 3.52 acres. Proposed Parcel 1 will be 76,728
square feet (1.76 acres) and proposed Parcel 2 will be 76,729
square feet (1.76 acres).
PROPERTY Southern California Nevada Conference of the United Church
OWNER(S): of Christ
2335 S. Diamond Bar Blvd.
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
APPLICANT: Samir M. Khoury
Coory Engineering
1718 N. Neville St.
Orange, CA 92865
LOCATION: 2335 S. Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, CA 91765
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030 FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1), the applicant
shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents
and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set -aside,
void or annul, the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371 (Planning
Case No. PL2021-15) brought within the time period provided by
Government Code Section 66499.37 or any claim, action or proceeding
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 75
Resolution No. 2021-39
11
alleging subdivision of the property is prohibited by contract, Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions, or similar instruments. In the event the city
and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such
action:
(a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the
City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including
reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred in defense of such claims.
(b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the
City defendants. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any
claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense
thereof.
2. The subdivider/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within
three (3) days of this Proposed Subdivision’s approval.
3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the
Development Code, all applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable
Specific Plan in effect at the time of grading and building permit issuance.
4. The Proposed Subdivision site shall be maintained and operated in full
compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable
regulations.
B. FEES/DEPOSITS
1. Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning,
Building and Safety Divisions, and Public Works Department) at the
established rates, prior to issuance of building permits, as required by the
City. School fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building
permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City
project review and processing fees prior to issua nce of grading or building
permit, whichever comes first.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
AT (909) 839-7040 FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. GENERAL
1. A title report/guarantee showing all fee owners, interest holders, and nature
of interest shall be submitted for final map plan check. An updated title
report/guarantee and subdivision guarantee shall be submitted ten (10)
business days prior to final map approval.
2. Prior to final map approval, surety shall be posted guaranteeing completion
of monumentation.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 76
Resolution No. 2021-39
12
3. Any details or notes which may be inconsistent with requirement or
ordinances, general conditions or approval, or City policies shall be
specifically approved in other conditions or ordinance requirem ents are
modified to those shown on the tentative parcel map upon approval by the
Advisory agency.
4. The Applicant shall label and delineate on the final map any private drives
or fire lanes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
5. After the final map records, the applicant shall submit to the Public
Works/Engineering Department, at no cost to the City, an electronic copy of
the recorded map.
6. The Applicant shall contribute funds to a separate engineering trust deposit
against which charges can be made by the City or its representatives for
services rendered. Charges shall be on an hourly basis and shall include
any City administrative costs.
7. The Applicant shall provide digitized information in a format defined by the
City for all related plans, at no cost to the City.
8. The site topography shows the natural drainage course draining from the
proposed Parcel 1 to Parcel 2. A note shall be included on the final map
indicating that neither property owner shall modify or block drainage
patterns that would impact the cross-lot drainage without prior approval from
the City of Diamond Bar.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION AT (323) 890-4243 FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. FINAL MAP REQUIREMENTS
1. Access as noted on the Tentative and the Exhibit Maps shall comply with
Title 21 (County of Los Angeles Subdivision Code) and Section 503 of the
Title 32 (County of Los Angeles Fire Code), which requires an all -weather
access surface to be clear to sky.
2. The Final Map shall be submitted for review and approval prior recordation.
B. WATER SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTS
1. All fire hydrants shall measure 6”x 4"x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming
to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal, and shall be installed
in accordance with the 2017 County of Los Angeles Fire Code, Table
B105.1.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 77
Resolution No. 2021-39
13
2. The required fire flow for the public fire hydrants for this Proposed
Subdivision is 2000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure for 2 hours. Two public
fire hydrant(s) flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required
fire flow. Fire Code 507.3 & Appendix B105.1.
END
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 78
PARKMORNING
CANYONRD.GROSS AREA = 153,457 SF= 3.52 ACRESNET AREA = 138,607 SF= 3.18 ACRES18' WIDE EASEMENT FOR STORM DRAIN
PURPOSES OF L.A.C.F.C.D., SUCCESSOR
IN INTEREST TO THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES PER D1231, 851 O.R. AND
D4005/967 O.R.2' WIDE EASEMENT OF THE COUNTYOF LOS ANGELES FOR STORM DRAINPURPOSES PER D3052/788 O.R.20' WIDE EASEMENT OF TRANSAMERICADEVELOPMENT COMPANY (FORMERLYCAPITOL CO.) FOR STORM DRAINPURPOSES PER INSTRUMENT NO. 1725RECORDED JULY 5, 1961.NOT A PARTPRESADO DR.PARCEL 1AREA = 76,728 SF= 1.76 ACRESPARCEL 2AREA = 76,729 SF= 1.76 ACRESLOT 1R/WP/LP/LP/LP/LR/W R/WR/WR/WR/W11.12'± WIDE EASEMENT FOR STORM DRAINPURPOSES OF L.A.C.F.C.D., SUCCESSOR ININTEREST TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESPER D1231, 851 O.R. AND D4005/967 O.R.EXIST. 8" V.C.P. SEWEREXIST. 10" A.C.P. WATER
EXIST. 33" R.C.P.
STORM DRAIN P.D. 0498
EXIST. DOUBLE 8'X6' R.C.B. STORM DRAIN P.D. 0233EXIST. 8" V.C.P. SEWEREXIST. 6" GASEXIST. 12" C.I.P. WATEREXIST. 3" GAS
EXIST. DOUBLE 6'X6' R.C. B. STORM DRAIN P.D. 0233EXIST. 8" A.C.P. WATER18'12'12'10'50'CANYONPROPOSED P/LEX. 30" OAK TREETO REMAINEX. 24" OAK TREETO REMAINEX. 12" OAK TREETO REMAINGMEXISTING 1 STORY STUCCO BUILDINGEXISTING 1 STORY
STUCCO BUILDINGEXISTING 1 STORY STUCCO BUILDING20'10'39'39'50'10'22'DR.120'60'60'30'30'60'32'32'64'EX. TRASHBINDIAMOND BAR BLVD.
EXIST. 12" C.I.P. WATER (ABAND.)
2'
2'9'9'18'20'20'33' WIDE EASEMENT OF TRANSAMERICADEVELOPMENT COMPANY (FORMERLY CAPITOLCO.) FOR STORM DRAIN PURPOSES PERINSTRUMENT NO. 1725 RECORDED JULY 5, 1961.EXIST. WATERSERVICE LINEEXIST. 6"ØSEWER LATERALEX. BLOCK WALLW.I.F.W.I.F.EX. BLOCK WALLEXISTINGCOMMUNITY GARDENTO BE REMOVEDEXIST. GASSERVICE LINEPATHFINDER RD.DIAMOND BAR UNITED CHURCH2335 S. DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARDDIAMOND BAR, CA 91765TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP No. 83371-COORY ENGINEERINGA.P.N. 8292-009-004TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP No. 83371COORY ENGINEERINGBENCH MARKBM # FG 4529OTTERBEN QUAD 2013 ADJUSTMENTRCE TAG #8793 IN W CB DIAMOND BAR BLVD 450MM (1.5 FT) N/O BCR AT SW CORNER MORNINGCANYON DRIVE.VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALEAPRIL, 202157SITEBASIS OF BEARINGSTHE BASIS OF BEARINGS USED ON THIS SURVEY IS THE BEARING NORTH 53° 40' 00” WEST OF THECENTERLINE OF MORNING CANYON ROAD AS SHOWN IN TRACT No. 35554, BOOK 927, PAGES 78AND 79 RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY.PROJECT ZONEMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL [RM]A.P.N.A.P.N. 8292-009-004ADDRESS NET AREA : 138,607 SQ.FT. 3.182 AC.LAND AREA2335 S. DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARDDIAMOND BAR, CA 91765GROSS LAND AREA: 153,457 SQ.FT. 3.523 AC.REVISIONSELEV = 782.330'SILVER BELLA PINE DRS
D
I
A
M
O
N
D
B
A
R PATHFINDERRDBL
V
D MORNING CANYON RDLOST RIVER DRS BREA CANYON RDEVERGREEN SPRINGS DRCHESNUTTIERRALOMA DRCREEK STONEPINE
STRDFERNHOLLOWDRBIRCH HILL DRLAURELRIMDRDRPRE
S
A
D
O
HAWK DRZONING: LCR3800012UDRAINAGE NOTE:NEITHER PROPERTY OWNER SHALL MODIFY OR BLOCK DRAINAGE PATTERNS THATWOULD IMPACT THE CROSS-LOT DRAINAGE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITYOF DIAMOND BAR.4.1.bPacket Pg. 79
20'20'60'30'60'32'32'64'60'120'18'12'12'39'60'
20'30'10'RD.DIAMOND BAR BLVD.
PRESADO DR.MORNINGCANYON22'39'10'10'LOT 16'GROSS AREA = 153,457 SF= 3.52 ACRESNET AREA = 138,607 SF= 3.18 ACRESR/WR/WP/LP/LP/LP/LR/WR/WEXISTING 1 STORY STUCCO BUILDING EXISTING 1 STORY STUCCO BUILDINGEXISTING 1 STORY STUCCO BUILDINGAREA #1AREA #3AREA #2AREA #4AREA #5AREA #7S = 54%S = 8%S = 23%S = 8%S = 3%S = 6%S = 18%AREA #6VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALE57SITESILVER BELLA PINE DRS DIAMOND BAR PATHFINDERRDBLVD MORNING CANYON RDLOST RIVER DRS BREA CANYON RDEVERGREEN SPRINGS DRCHESNUTTIERRALOMA DRCREEK STONEPINE STRDFERNHOLLOWDRBIRCH HILL DRLAURELRIMDRDRPRESADO HAWK DRAVERAGE SLOPE ANALYSIS05-28-21LEGAL DESCRIPTIONTHE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE CITYOF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OFCALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 35554, AS PERMAP RECORDED IN BOOK 927, PAGES 78 AND 79 OF MAPS, IN THEOFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 8292-009-004DIAMOND BAR UNITED CHURCHDIAMOND BAR, CA 91765APN: 8292-009-004-BENCH MARKBM # FG 4529 OTTERBEN QUAD 2013 ADJUSTMENT ELEV = 782.330'BASIS OF BEARINGS” AVERAGE SLOPE ANALYSIS = 12% ON 3.52 ACRESTENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #833714.1.bPacket Pg. 80
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8.1
MEETING DATE: July 13, 2021
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371, Planning Case
No. PL2021-15
PROJECT LOCATION:
2335 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
(APN 8292-009-004)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (RM)
ZONING DISTRICT: Medium Density Residential (RM)
PROPERTY OWNER:
Southern California Nevada Conference of the
United Church of Christ
2335 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
APPLICANT:
Samir M. Khoury
Coory Engineering
1718 N. Neville St.
Orange, CA 92865
SUMMARY:
The property owner, Southern California Nevada Conference of the United Church of
Christ, and applicant, Samir M. Khoury of Coory Engineering, are requesting approval of
Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371 to create a two-lot subdivision. The subject property
consists of approximately 3.52 acres at the southwest corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard
and Morning Canyon Road. Proposed Parcel 1 will be 76,728 square feet (1.76 acres)
and proposed Parcel 2 will be 76,729 square feet (1.76 acres). No new construction is
being proposed with this request.
The Diamond Bar United Church of Christ and a community garden are currently
located on the subject property. The proposed subdivision will result in the existing
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ~ 21810 COPLEY DRIVE ~ DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 ~ TEL. (909) 839-7030 ~ FAX (909) 861-3117
4.1.c
Packet Pg. 81
Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371, Planning Case No. PL2021-15
Page 2 of 12
church occupying one of the proposed parcels and the creation of a new vacant lot to
accommodate the future construction of residential development. The property is zoned
Medium Density Residential (RM), and the underlying General Plan land use
designation is also named Medium Density Residential.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the proposed Tentative Parcel Map complies with the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance and that the subdivision findings required pursuant to Diamond Bar Municipal
Code (DBMC) Section 21.20.080 can be made. Therefore, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council
approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371 (Planning Case No. PL2021-15), based on
the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval listed within the draft
resolution.
BACKGROUND:
The 3.52-acre project site is situated at the southwest corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard
and Morning Canyon Road and is surrounded by multifamily residential developments.
The project site is under the ownership of the Diamond Bar United Church of Christ.
The church campus was built in 1965 and is situated at the south easterly portion of the
subject property with access from Diamond Bar Boulevard and Morning Canyon Road.
There are 55 on-site surface parking spaces, which will not be affected by the
subdivision. A community garden, created six to seven years ago, is situated towards
the northwestern portion of the project site. There are three existing oak trees adjacent
to the church campus, but none are being proposed for removal.
The site is legally described as Lot 1 of Tract No. 35554, and the Assessor’s Parcel
Number (APN) is 8292-009-004.
Site and Surrounding General Plan, Zoning and Land Uses
The project site is bound by Diamond Bar Boulevard to the southeast and Morning
Canyon Road to the north. The site is surrounded by townhome-style condominium
developments.
4.1.c
Packet Pg. 82
Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371, Planning Case No. PL2021-15
Page 3 of 12
Aerial View
4.1.c
Packet Pg. 83
Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371, Planning Case No. PL2021-15
Page 4 of 12
Aerial View of Project Site (Facing Northwest)
The following table describes the surrounding land uses located adjacent to the subject
property:
General Plan
Designation Zoning Land Uses
Site Medium Density
Residential (RM)
Medium Density
Residential (RM)
Church and Community
Garden
North Medium Density
Residential (RM)
Medium High Density
Residential (RMH) Multifamily Residences
South Medium Density
Residential (RM)
Medium High Density
Residential (RMH) Multifamily Residences
East Medium Density
Residential (RM)
Medium High Density
Residential (RMH) Multifamily Residences
West Medium Density
Residential (RM)
Medium Density
Residential (RM) Multifamily Residences
4.1.c
Packet Pg. 84
Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371, Planning Case No. PL2021-15
Page 5 of 12
Project Description
The proposed project will subdivide an existing 153,457 square -foot (3.52 acres) lot into
two separate parcels. Parcel 1 will be 76,728 square feet (1.76 acres) and parcel 2 will
be 76,729 square feet (1.76 acres). No modifications to the existing church buildings
and no new construction are being proposed in conjunction with the proposed
subdivision.
The subject property is currently partially developed with a church and a community
garden. The church is located on proposed Parcel 2 and the community garden is
currently located on proposed Parcel 1. The proposed subdivision will result in the
creation of one vacant lot to facilitate future residential development.
If the tentative parcel map is approved and the final map is recorded, the property
owner stated that they would discontinue the use of and remove the community garden,
as the community garden is considered an ancillary use to the church. The irrigation to
the community garden is currently serviced from the church property’s water main line.
The current property owner is responsible for maintaining the project site, and will be
responsible for the maintenance of both parcels until Parcel 1 is sold. A development
review application for residential development on proposed Parcel 1 will be submitted
for processing in the future.
Northwest View of Project Site from Diamond Bar Blvd.
4.1.c
Packet Pg. 85
Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371, Planning Case No. PL2021-15
Page 6 of 12
Northwest View of Project Site from Intersection of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Morning
Canyon Rd.
Southwest View of Project Site from Morning Canyon Rd.
Facing West towards Community Garden from Morning Canyon Rd.
4.1.c
Packet Pg. 86
Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371, Planning Case No. PL2021-15
Page 7 of 12
The gross lot size of each parcel is provided in the table below:
Existing Lot 1 Proposed Parcel 1 Proposed Parcel 2
Lot Size 153,457 SF (3.52 AC) 76,728 SF (1.76 AC) 76,729 SF (1.76 AC)
Proposed Tentative Parcel Map
ANALYSIS:
Review Authority (DBMC Section 22.01)
Section 21.02.040 of the City’s Municipal Code requires all subdivision applications to
be reviewed and approved by the City Council. Therefore, the Planning Commission
will be forwarding a recommendation to the City Council for this request.
Tentative Map: A tentative map is a map approving the division of land for the purpose
of sale, lease, or financing, and is governed by the Subdivision Map Act. A tentative
map prescribes how the land is to be subdivided. The City of Diamond Bar’s
Subdivision Ordinance establishes the minimum standards for the design of the lots,
and the public improvements which serve them. A subdivision of four or fewer parcels
4.1.c
Packet Pg. 87
Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371, Planning Case No. PL2021-15
Page 8 of 12
requires a parcel map, and a subdivision of five or more parcels requires a tract map.
When a Planning Commission or City Council considers a tentative parcel or tract map,
it must be reviewed in light of the required findings mandated by state law for approval
or denial of the map.
Once the tentative map is approved, the refined final map is approved by the City
Council if deemed by the City Engineer to be in substantial conformance with the
tentative map. The final map is then recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s
Office, after which the newly-created parcels may be individually sold and developed
pursuant to the underlying zoning regulations.
Development Standards: The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the City’s
Development Code standards pertaining to lot size and dimensions. The tables below
compare the proposed subdivision with the City’s Subdivision and Development Code
standards:
The subdivision design enables proposed Parcel 2 to meet setback and lot coverage
requirements for the church as shown in the table below.
Development
Feature
Development
Standards Existing Proposed
Meets
Requirements
Parcel Width Minimum 50’ 219.58’ Parcel 1: 194.38’
Parcel 2: 219.58’ Yes
Parcel Depth Minimum 80’ Average
488.58’
Parcel 1: Average 323.41’
Parcel 2: Average 255.42’ Yes
Lot Area Minimum 5,000
SF
153,457
SF
Parcel 1: 76,728 SF
Parcel 2: 76,729 SF Yes
Development
Feature
Development
Standards Existing Proposed
Meets
Requirements
Front
Setback 20’ 109’ 109’ (no change) Yes
Side Setback 5’ 13’ 13’ (no change) Yes
4.1.c
Packet Pg. 88
Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371, Planning Case No. PL2021-15
Page 9 of 12
Detailed site planning, building footprints, floor plan, exterior design, landscaping, and
grading will be submitted for review during the Development Review application process
for the future development of proposed Parcel 1. The development of proposed
Parcel 1 will be subject to the development standards of the underlying zoning district in
effect at the time of Development Review application submittal.
As part of the subdivision review, staff sent notices to all public utility companies and
service agencies regarding the proposed subdivision request. All agencies will be
expected to provide service to proposed Parcel 1 and continue to provide service to
proposed Parcel 2, including providers of gas, electrical, water, sewer, and cable
television services.
As set forth in the above analysis, the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the
City’s General Plan and zoning, and all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map
Act. The project complies with the City’s development standards. No variances or
exceptions are requested, and all public utilities and services will continue to service the
project.
Access and Circulation
The project site is located at the corner of Morning Canyon Road and Diamond Bar
Boulevard and is surrounded by multifamily residential developments. The site is
currently accessed from Diamond Bar Boulevard and Morning Canyon Road. The main
access is from Diamond Bar Boulevard, which leads to the church’s surface parking lot
and the front entrance to the church. The proposed subdivision will not interfere with
the church’s existing access from Diamond Bar Boulevard and will not reduce the
number of on-site parking spaces. In addition, proposed Parcel 1 will gain access from
Morning Canyon Road. Vehicle and pedestrian circulation patterns will be reviewed
during the Development Review application process for the development of Parcel 1.
Compatibility with Neighborhood
The proposed project complies with the goals and objectives as set forth in the adopted
General Plan in terms of land use. The project site is located within a neighborhood
consisting of a variety of multifamily residential developments. There will be no
changes to the existing church campus; therefore, the project will maintain compatibility
Street Side
Setback 5’ 91’ 91’ (no change) Yes
Rear
Setback 25’ 273’ 46’ Yes
Maximum
Lot
Coverage
30% 9% 16.7% Yes
4.1.c
Packet Pg. 89
Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371, Planning Case No. PL2021-15
Page 10 of 12
with the surrounding uses. The existing church facility was constructed under the Los
Angeles County’s jurisdiction and pre-dates the City’s incorporation.
The proposed subdivision will result in a creation of a vacant lot for fu ture residential
development, and therefore, the project is consistent with the current General Plan land
use designation of Medium Density Residential and compatible with the neighborhood.
Parkland Dedication
State law (“Quimby Act”) and Diamond Bar’s Subdivision Ordinance require the
dedication of land or payment of fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of
approval for a tentative map. The land or fees are to be used only for the purpose of
developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities to serve the
subdivision, and the amount and location of land to be dedicated , or amount of fees
paid, shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational
facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision.
The amount of acreage required to be dedicated, or in -lieu fee paid, by the applicant is
based upon the number of dwelling units ultimately developed within the proposed
subdivision. Section 21.32.040 of the Subdivision Ordinance establishes the following
formula for the parkland dedication requirement :
X = .005(UP)
Where:
X = Amount of parkland required, in acres.
U = Total number of approved dwelling units in the subdivision
P = 3.4 for single-family dwellings; 2.9 for multifamily dwellings containing four or
fewer dwelling units; or 2.1 for multifamily dwellings containing five or more units
Because a development plan is not proposed in conjunction with the Tentative Parcel
Map application, the precise parkland dedication requirement will b e assessed at such
time that residential units are proposed and approved on proposed Parcel 1.
Subsection (a)(8) of the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) authorizes the
City to place a condition of approval on the tentative parcel map requiring the payment
of an in-lieu fee prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of
residential structure(s) within four years of approval of the parcel map.
Proposed Parcel 1 (1.76 acres) is currently listed for sale at $3,998,000 (contingent
upon the approval and recordation of the parcel map). This equates to $2,271,591 per
acre. Staff recommends that the price listed for the proposed parcel to be established
as the “fair market value.” The in-lieu fee would thus equal the parkland obligation
derived from the formula above, multiplied by the per-acre fair market value of
$2,271,591, or other per-acre “fair market value” determined by mutual agreement of
the City and the applicant prior to approval of the final parcel map.
4.1.c
Packet Pg. 90
Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371, Planning Case No. PL2021-15
Page 11 of 12
The in-lieu fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
construction of any residential structure(s) on the parcel applied for within four years of
approval of the parcel map. (Condition of Approval #4 under Tentative Parcel Map
Conditions). The fees collected shall be committed within five years after payment of
the fees or the issuance of building permits on one -half of the lots created by the
subdivision, whichever occurs later. If the fees are not committed, they are distributed
and paid to each record owner of the subdivision in the same proportion that the size of
each lot bears to the total area of all lots in the subdivision.
Additional Review
The Public Works Department reviewed this project, and their comments are included in
the attached resolution as conditions of approval.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
On June 30, 2021, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a
1,000-foot radius of the project site. On July 2, 2021, the notice was published in the
San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspaper; the project site was posted with a notice display
board; and a copy of the public notice was posted at the City’s designated community
posting sites.
Public Comments Received
No comments have been received as of the publication date of this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
The Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) of the CEQA Guidelines exemption applies to
projects consisting of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential,
commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in
conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are
required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are
available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous
two years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. The
proposed Tentative Parcel Map qualifies for this exemption because the project site
meets all the listed requirements under this exemption. In addition, the average slope
of the project site was determined to be 12 percent, which is under the 20 percent
threshold (see the exhibits accompanying the Tentative Parcel Map in Attachment 2).
4.1.c
Packet Pg. 91
Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371, Planning Case No. PL2021-15
Page 12 of 12
Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Article 19 under Section 15315 (Minor
Land Divisions) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required.
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Attachments:
A. Draft Resolution No. 2021-XX and Standard Conditions of Approval
B. Tentative Parcel Map No. 83371 and Average Slope Analysis
4.1.c
Packet Pg. 92
4.1.dPacket Pg. 93
4.1.dPacket Pg. 94
4.1.dPacket Pg. 95
4.1.dPacket Pg. 96
4.1.dPacket Pg. 97
4.1.dPacket Pg. 98
4.1.dPacket Pg. 99
4.1.dPacket Pg. 100
4.1.dPacket Pg. 101
4.1.dPacket Pg. 102
4.1.dPacket Pg. 103
4.1.dPacket Pg. 104
PLANNING COMMISSIONPAGE 6JULY 13, 2021
cleaned up in a timely manner as this would not reflect positively on the business.
Dr. Kumar also explained that hospitals and sick animals generally do not
produce a lot of noise.
Chair/Rawlings closed the public hearing.
C/Wolfe moved, C/Barlas seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No.
PL2020-120, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of
approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
Barias, Mok, Wolfe, Chair/Rawlings
None
VC/Garg
COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONERS
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
Development Code Amendment PL2021-44 - Under the authority of Diamond
Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.70, the City of Diamond Bar proposes to
amend the following sections of Title 22 of the DBMC (“Development Code") to
enact regulations governing the deployment, augmentation and relocation of
small wireless facilities in the City, in accordance with State and Federal law by
adding a new Section 22.42.135 and amending Sections 22.42.130, 22.44.020,
22.74.030 and 22.74.040.
8.3
CITYWIDEPROJECT ADDRESS:
City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department
C/Wolfe commented that the staff report had detailed information and requested
to forgo staff's presentation if there are no public comments.
APPLICANT:
Chair/Rawiings opened the public hearing.
Chair/Rawlings closed the public hearing.
C/Wolfe moved, C/Barias seconded, to adopt a Resolution recommending City
Council approval of Development Code Amendment (Planning Case
No. PL2021-44). Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
Barias, Mok, Wolfe, Chair/Rawlings
None
VC/Garg
COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONERS
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4.1.e
Packet Pg. 105
Agenda #: 4.2
Meeting Date: August 17, 2021
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager
TITLE: APPROVAL OF A COST REPORT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND LIEN TO RECOVER NUISANCE
ABATEMENT COSTS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2202 PEBBLE LANE (APN: 8765-017-038).
STRATEGIC
GOAL:
Safe, Sustainable & Healthy Community
RECOMMENDATION:
A. Open the public hearing to receive any testimony from the property owner or their
representative;
B. Close the public hearing; and
C. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-40 approving the Cost Report and establishing a special
assessment and lien in the amount of $15,462 on the property located at 2202
Pebble Lane (APN: 8765-017-038).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The City has incurred nuisance abatement and administrative costs in the amount of
$15,462. Recordation of a lien/special assessment with the County Assessor’s Office
will enable the City to fully recover these costs.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
Among its other duties, the Neighborhood Improvement Division works with property
owners to ensure compliance with the City’s Property Maintenance Standards, as set
forth under Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Chapter 22.34. When voluntary
compliance is not achieved, the City will invoke appropriate enforcement measures to
gain compliance. When a neglected property becomes a public nuisance, and
abatement action is the most expedient means of eliminating the nuisance, the City will
obtain an abatement warrant, perform the abatement, and then seek restitution by
4.2
Packet Pg. 106
placing a lien on the property.
The single-family residence at 2202 Pebble Lane has a long record of property
maintenance violations, but the City has been able to close prior cases after the owner
eventually complied with Diamond Bar’s property development standards.
Documentation of the latest round of property maintenance violations began on May 2,
2018, when Neighborhood Improvement staff found the residential property to be in
violation of the landscaping maintenance standards set forth under Section 22.34.30 o f
the Municipal Code. Observations included weeds, rank growth and other overgrown,
dead or diseased vegetation throughout the front, side and rear yards, and two
inoperative vehicles in public view, and the issuance of multiple administrative citations
proved ineffective. The premises appear to be unoccupied, and a search of public
records indicate that property tax payments are current, and there is no recorded
foreclosure activity.
On March 15, 2021, the City obtained an abatement warrant (Warrant No. 861) from the
Los Angeles Superior Court/Pomona Branch, enabling the City or its agents to perform
nuisance abatement at the property. On March 18, 2021, City staff and contractors
entered the property on March 18, 2021 to perform the following work:
• Removal of an overgrown silk oak tree in the front yard that was uplifting the
driveway and other hardscape within the property.
• Removal of four dead or diseased trees in the rear yard.
• Pruning of two overgrown trees in the rear yard.
• Removal of weeds and overgrown shrubs throughout the property.
• Removal of junk, trash and debris throughout the property.
• Hauling off of two inoperative vehicles for destruction.
• Installation of mulch in the front and street side yard.
The labor cost alone to perform the above tasks exceeded $8,000.
On August 3, 2021, the City issued a written notice to the property owner stating that
the City Council will conduct a public hearing on August 17, 2021 to consider placing a
lien/special assessment in the amount of $15,462.03 to recover full abatement costs as
itemized in the attached Cost Report (Attachment 2) and summarized below:
MCE Landscaping Services labor costs $8,256.25
Staff hours $3,183.04
City Prosecutor billings $2,692.00
Dumpster rental and postage costs $1,330.74
TOTAL $15,462.03
This hearing before the City Council provides the property owners or their
representatives the opportunity to present written or oral protests or objections to the
proposed special assessment. Notice of the public hearing was poste d on the property
and sent to the owner via Certified and First-Class Mail. Notice of the hearing did not
4.2
Packet Pg. 107
require advertisement in local newspapers, as the posting and mailing of the cost report
and hearing notice fully satisfy the notification requirements set forth under Section
22.34.070 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code.
Pursuant to DBMC Section 22.34.070 and Government Code Section 38773.5, the City
Council has the authority to assess a lien/special assessment on property where the
City incurred costs to abate a public nuisance. It is recommended that the City Council
consider this report, open the public hearing, receive public comment, close the public
hearing and consider adoption of the Resolution and Cost Report for recovery of
nuisance abatement costs in the amount of $15,462.03. Upon approval, the appropriate
documentation will be certified and filed with the County of Los Angeles as required.
NEXT STEPS:
The abatement was performed to eliminate a serious public nuisance. However, the
property remains in violation of the City’s property development standards , primarily due
to significant root damage to all of the flatwork in the front yard, peeling paint, and lack
of ongoing property maintenance. To address these outstanding violations, the City will
record a Declaration of Public Nuisance against the subject property, specifying the
above-stated substandard conditions (Attachment 4). The recording of such
encumbrances impacts the transferability of affected properties, and are generally
effective at compelling property owners to eliminate nuisances prior to listing properties
for sale. The City will also continue to cite the owners for these violations until they are
corrected, and retains the option to pursue other legal remedies, including receivership
and criminal prosecution, if the owners continue to be nonresponsive.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the Resolution as to form.
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Attachments:
4.2
Packet Pg. 108
1. 4.2.a City Council Resolution No. 2021-40
2. 4.2.b Exhibit "A" Summary of Abatement Costs for 2202 Pebble Lane
3. 4.2.c Before & After Photos
4. 4.2.d Declaration of Public Nuisance
4.2
Packet Pg. 109
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-40
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR CONFIRMING A COST REPORT FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT
COSTS CONCERNING 2202 S. PEBBLE LANE, DIAMOND BAR, CA
[APN: 8765-017-038] AND ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
AND LIEN THEREOF
WHEREAS, the Diamond Bar Community Development Department (hereafter the
“Department”), pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 22.34.070 of the Diamond
Bar Municipal Code (hereafter, "Code"), caused the abatement of public nuisance
conditions at 2202 S. Pebble Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91789 (hereafter the “Subject
Property”) on March 15, 2021 with an Abatement Warrant from the Los Angeles Superior
Court [Warrant No. 861].
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2021, the Department duly served Richard Lehmann &
Deborah Lehmann, the record owners of the Subject Property, with a Cost Report
(containing an account of abatement costs totaling $15,462.03) and a Notice of City
Council Hearing on the Special Assessment. Said notice also informed Richard Lehmann
& Deborah Lehmann, and other interested persons, of the right to present a written or
oral protest to the Cost Report.
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2021, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals,
and concluded said hearing on that date.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Diamond
Bar as follows:
Section 1. Having considered the Cost Report and any oral and written protests
or objections thereto, the City Council hereby confirms the Cost Report totaling
$15,346.74 in abatement costs.
Section 2. Richard Lehmann and/or Deborah Lehmann are/is liable for the
confirmed abatement costs of $15,462.03 pursuant to Section 22.34.070 (g) of the Code.
The confirmed abatement costs of $15,462.03 also constitute a special assessment and
lien against the Subject Property described below pursuant to Section 22.34.070 (j)(3) of
the Code. Pursuant to Government Code Section 38773.5(c) “the property may be sold
after three years by the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments.”
Street Address: 2202 S. Pebble Ln., Diamond Bar, CA 91789
L.A. County Assessor Parcel Number: 8765-017-038
Legal Description: Lot 86 of Tract No. 43162, as per Map recorded in Book 1046
of maps, pages 5 to 14 inclusive, in the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder.
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 110
Resolution No. 2021-40
2
Section 3. A certified copy of the Cost Report shall be attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit “A” and constitute a part hereof.
Section 4. A certified copy of the Resolution shall be mailed via certified mail to
the property owner.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption of
this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 17th day of August, 2021.
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
__________________________
Nancy A. Lyons, Mayor
I, Kristina Santana, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, at its adjourned regular meeting held on
the 17th day of August, 2021, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
__________________________
Kristina Santana, City Clerk
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 111
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ABATEMENT COST REPORT
Property Address: 2202 S. Pebble Ln., Diamond Bar, CA 91765
APN: 8765-017-038
FLAT FEE COSTS 9,586.99$
ABATEMENT CONTRACTOR
MCE Landscape Services Inc. : Labor for Weed & Debris Removal.8,256.25$
Waste Management 40 Yard Dumpsters 1,275.24$
Postage cost 55.50$
HOURLY RATE COSTS 3,183.04$
Hourly
Rate:Total Hrs Total:
SENIOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT OFFICER 47.92$ 20 958.40$
Inspections: Visiting location; taking photos; issuing courtesy
notices;posting court documents; and abatement monitoring
Paperwork: Letters to owner; correspondence with City Prosecutor;
current file upkeep (both paper and CityView computer log entries)
Court appearance: Abatement warrant and return
PARKS AND MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT $ 80.05 10 800.50$
Inspections: Initial inspection of property, abatement, follow up inspection
Office time: Contacting multiple companies for abatement quotes
MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR $ 62.99 9 566.91$
Inspections: Initial inspection of property, abatement, secure side gate,
garage doors
Office time: Contacting multiple companies for abatement quotes
SENIOR MAINTENANCE WORKER $ 38.43 3 115.29$
Inspections: Abatement, secure side gate, garage doors
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR $ 121.99 4 487.96$
Review case file; communications with Neighborhood Improvement
Officer and City Prosecutor; review and approve correspondence;
attendance at City Council meeting
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR $ 56.99 2 113.98$
Preparation of the Cost Report and Public Hearing Notice;
Preparation of the City Council Report
CITY CLERK $ 70.00 2 140.00$
Preparation of correspondence and certification of documents to be filed
with the County to record the special assessment
CITY PROSECUTOR BILLINGS
Firm: Dapeer, Rosenblit & Litvak, LLP 2,692.00$
15,462.03$
City of Diamond Bar City Hall 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar CA. 91765
909.839.7010 Fax: 909.861.3117 www.DiamondBarCA.gov
TOTAL ABATEMENT COSTS:
Time & materials
4.2.b
Packet Pg. 112
2202 PEBBLE LANE
NUISANCE ABATEMENT PERFORMED ON MARCH 18, 2021
HIGH
PEBBLE
TWO INOPERATIVE VEHICLES
REMOVED AND DESTROYED
OVERGROWN TREE CUT →
DOWN TO STUMP
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 113
2202 PEBBLE LANE
NUISANCE ABATEMENT PERFORMED ON MARCH 18, 2021
BEFORE AFTER
4.2.c
Packet Pg. 114
Page 1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
City of Diamond Bar
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Diamond Bar
Community Development
21810 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Space Above Line For Recorder's Use Only
APN: 8765-017-038
DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the provisions of Section 22.34.070(b) of the Diamond
Bar Municipal Code, the property described below has been inspected and found to be a public
nuisance, as defined in Sections 22.34.010 et seq. of the above Code and the owner has been or
will be so notified.
This document will be terminated only when the City finds that the condition(s) noted in Exhibit
“A” – Substandard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, have
been abated and either that such abatement has been accomplished at no cost to the City or that
any such costs have been repaid to the City or that such costs have been placed upon the tax rolls
as a special assessment pursuant to Section 38773.5 of the Government Code. Detailed
information may be obtained by contacting the City of Diamond Bar, Planning Division.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The undersigned hereby certifies that, according to the latest available tax rolls, Richard
Lehmann and Deborah Lehmann are the owners of the hereinafter described real property in the
City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California, commonly known as:
2202 S. Pebble Lane legally described as Lot 86 of Tract 43162
Assessor’s Parcel No. 8765-017-038
BY: DATED:
Greg Gubman
Community Development Director
City of Diamond Bar
4.2.d
Packet Pg. 115
Declaration of Public Nuisance
2202 S. Pebble Lane
Page 2
EXHIBIT A
PUBLIC NUISANCE CONDITIONS
2202 S. Pebble Lane, Diamond Bar
1. Violation of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.34.030(g), which states: “All
paved surfaces visible from an adjacent street or sidewalk shall be kept and maintained
so as not to detract from the appearance of adjacent properties. Areas shall be kept in a
neat and clean condition, free of trash, debris or rubbish, and free of standing wat er, oil
stains, cracks exceeding one -half inch in width, lifting exceeding one -half inch, and/or
broken areas.”
4.2.d
Packet Pg. 116
Agenda #: 4.3
Meeting Date: August 17, 2021
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager
TITLE: ORDINANCE NO. 02 (2021) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 22
(DEVELOPMENT CODE) OF THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE
TO ADD NEW SECTION 22.42.135 (SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES),
AND TO AMEND SECTION 22.42.130 (RADIO AND TELEVISION
ANTENNAS AND WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA
FACILITIES), SECTION 22.44.020 (AUTHORITY FOR LAND USE AND
ZONING DECISIONS), SECTION 22.74.030 (APPEALS OF
DECISIONS), AND SECTION 22.74.040 (FILING AND PROCESSING
OF APPEALS), TO ENACT REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE
DEPLOYMENT, AUGMENTATION, AND RELOCATION OF SMALL
WIRELESS FACILITIES IN THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE
AND FEDERAL LAW.
STRATEGIC
GOAL:
Open, Engaged & Responsive Government
RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce first reading of Ordinance No. 02 (2021) as modified, open Public Hearing,
receive public testimony, schedule the second reading and adoption at the next
regularly scheduled City Council meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND:
On August 3, 2021, the City Council conducted a public hearing and approved for first
reading Ordinance No. 02 (2021), amending Title 22 of the Municipal Code to enact
regulations governing the development, augmentation, and relocation of small wireless
facilities in accordance with state and federal law.
4.3
Packet Pg. 117
After introduction of Ordinance No. 02 (2021), the City Attorney's office noted that the
definition of Public Right-of-Way included the term "other public places," and as such,
might be interpreted to apply to the placement of small wireless cell facilities on City
property such as parks and City Hall. After review of the federal statutes and the
Federal Communications Commission Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order
("Order") regulating the placement of small wireless cell facilities, the City Attorney's
office concluded that the regulations apply only to the placement of such facilities within
what is commonly understood to constitute the public right-of-way. The common
meaning of a public right-of-way is the area dedicated as a public street, i.e., the area
from the back of the sidewalk on each side of the street. Therefore, the definition
contained in Section 22.42.135(c) on Ordinance page 7 is proposed to be revised to
read as follows:
Public Right-of-Way or Right-of-Way means any public street, public way,
public alley, that is dedicated for street purposes.
No other changes to the Ordinance considered at the August 3, 2021 City Council
meeting have been made.
Section 253(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that nothing within the
statute "affects the authority of a ... local government to manage the public rights -of-way
...." The Order refers to the public right-of-way in several places. There appears
nothing within the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or the Order that the federal
government was supplanting local authority with respect to the placement of small
wireless cell facilities outside of what is commonly understood to mean pub lic right-of-
way.
Government Code section 36934 provides that if an ordinance is altered after
introduction, it may be passed only at a meeting held at least five days after such
alteration. Since the proposed modification to Ordinance No. 02 (2021) consists of
more than a simple typographical or clerical error, the ordinance needs to be introduced
and passed for first reading again.
A copy of the August 3, 2021 staff report is included in Attachment 2 for reference.
PREPARED BY:
4.3
Packet Pg. 118
REVIEWED BY:
Attachments:
1. 4.3.a Ordinance No. 02 (2021) Amended
2. 4.3.b City Council Staff Report Dated August 3, 20211
4.3
Packet Pg. 119
1594367.1
ORDINANCE NO. 02 (2021)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING TITLE 22 (DEVELOPMENT CODE) OF THE DIAMOND BAR
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD NEW SECTION 22.42.135 (SMALL
WIRELESS FACILITIES), AND TO AMEND SECTION 22.42.130 (RADIO
AND TELEVISION ANTENNAS AND WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA FACILITIES), SECTION 22.44.020
(AUTHORITY FOR LAND USE AND ZONING DECISIONS), SECTION
22.74.030 (APPEALS OF DECISIONS), AND SECTION 22.74.040
(FILING AND PROCESSING OF APPEALS), TO ENACT REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE DEPLOYMENT, AUGMENTATION, AND
RELOCATION OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES IN THE CITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission
(“FCC”) adopted its Declaratory Ruling, Third Report, and Order (“Order”) “In the Matter
of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure
Investment,” which established new limitations on local standards for the siting of, and
the processing of applications for, small wireless facilities by all local jurisdictions; and,
WHEREAS, the Order provides that all local jurisdictions must comply with various
restrictions on their exercise of aesthetic, zoning, public works, and fee authority when
considering applications for the installation of small wireless facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the Order is intended to facilitate the spread, growth, and
accumulation of small wireless facilities over a short period of time to ensure deployment
of 5G technology. The Order reduces the “shot clock” period allowable for cities to review,
comment upon, consider, and make a final determination on small wireless facility
applications for as many as 90 days for new facilities and as many as 60 days for
collocated and modified facilities; and,
WHEREAS, small wireless facilities are primarily installed within public rights-of-
way and as such create significant concerns regarding traffic and pedestrian safety,
aesthetics, protection and preservation of public property, and the health, safety, and
welfare of the general public; and,
WHEREAS, installation of small wireless facilities within the public right-of-way can
pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, including: disturbance to the right -
of-way through the installation and maintenance of wireless facilities; traffic and
pedestrian safety hazards due to the unsafe location of wireless facilities; land use
conflicts and incompatibilities, including excessive height of poles and towers; creation of
visual and aesthetic blights and potential safety concerns arising from excessi ve size,
heights, noise or lack of camouflaging of wireless facilities , including the associated
pedestals, meters, equipment and power generators; and the creation of unnecessary
visual and aesthetic blight by failing to utilize alternative technologies or capitalizing on
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 120
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
2
co-location opportunities, which may negatively impact the unique quality and character
of the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City currently regulates all wireless telecommunications antenna
facilities within specified land use zones of the City as provided in Section 22.42.130
(Radio and Television Antennas and Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Facilities) of
the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, which does not specifically address the deployment of
small wireless facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempts and declares
invalid all state rules that restrict entry or limit competition in both local and long-distance
telephone service; and,
WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) is primarily
responsible for the implementation of local telephone competition and the CPUC issues
certificates of public convenience and necessity to new entrants that are qualified to
provide competitive local telephone exchange services and related telecommunications
service, whether using their own facilities or the facilities or services provided by other
authorized telephone corporations; and,
WHEREAS, Section 234(a) of the California Public Utilities Code defines a
"telephone corporation" as "every corporation or person owning, controlling, operating, or
managing any telephone line for compensation within this state;” and,
WHEREAS, Section 616 of the California Public Utilities Code provides that a
telephone corporation "may condemn any property necessary for the construction and
maintenance of its telephone line;” and,
WHEREAS, many wireless service providers are eligible to utilize the public righ t-
of-way pursuant to a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, as issued by the
California Public Utilities Commission; and,
WHEREAS, Section 2902 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes
municipal corporations to retain their powers of control to supervise and regulate the
relationships between a public utility and the general public in matters affecting the health,
convenience, and safety of the general public, including matters such as the use and
repair of public streets by any public utility and the location of the poles, wires, mains, or
conduits of any public utility on, under, or above any public streets. The primary and
highest purpose of public streets, rights-of-way, roads, and highways is the safe and
efficient accommodation of the traveling public, including without limitation motor vehicles,
automobiles, trucks, buses and other modes of public transportation, bicycles,
pedestrians, and emergency and first responder vehicles. Street signs, street lights, and
drainage systems also provide services and enhancements that protect and serve the
traveling public. The City Council finds that all other uses of the public right-of-way are
ancillary and secondary to the primary purpose and use of the public right -of-way and will
only be allowed to the extent such secondary uses do not impede the traveling public or
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 121
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
3
compromise the safety of the members of the public and the residents and businesses of
the City; and,
WHEREAS, Section 7901 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes
telephone/telegraph corporations to construct telephone/telegraph lines upon any public
road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this state, and to erect
poles, posts, piers, or abatements for supporting the insulators, wires, and other
necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode
the public use of the road or highway or interrupt the navigation of the waters; and,
WHEREAS, Section 7901.1 of the California Public Utilities Code confirms the right
of municipalities to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which
roadways, highways, and waterways are accessed, which control must be applied to all
entities in an equivalent manner; and,
WHEREAS, Section 50030 of the California Government Code states that permit
fees imposed by a city for the placement, installation, repair, or upgrading of
telecommunications facilities, such as lines, poles, or antennas, by a telephone
corporation that has obtained all required authorizations from the CPUC and the FCC to
provide telecommunications services cannot exceed the reasonable costs of providing
service for which the fee is charged and cannot be levied for general revenue; and,
WHEREAS, state and federal law have changed substantially and the City is in
need of clear regulations for small wireless facility installations given the number of
anticipated applications and legal timelines upon which the City must act; and,
WHEREAS, the public right-of-way in the City is a uniquely valuable public
resource, closely linked with the City's scenic nature and rural character. The reasonably
regulated and orderly deployment of small wireless facilities in the public right -of-way is
desirable, and unregulated or disorderly deployment represents an ever-increasing threat
to the health, welfare, and safety of the community; and,
WHEREAS, the regulation of installations, including small wireless facilities, in the
public right-of-way is necessary to protect and preserve the aesthetics in the community,
as well as the values of properties within the City, and to ensure that such installations
are installed using the least intrusive means possible; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes its responsibilities under the Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and state law, and believes that it is acting consistent
with the current state of the law in ensuring that irreversible development activity does not
occur that would harm the public health, safety, or welfare; and,
WHEREAS, the City does not intend that this Ordinance prohibit or have the effect
of prohibiting the provision of telecommunications service; rather, this Ordinance includes
appropriate regulations to ensure that the deployment, augmentation, and relocation of
small wireless facilities in the City are conducted in such a manner as to lawfully balance
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 122
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
4
the legal rights of applicants under the Federal Telecommunications Act, the
rules/regulations promulgated thereunder, and the California Public Utilities Code, while
at the same time, protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and land
use concerns described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Subsection (b) of Section 22.42.130 (Radio and Television Antennas
and Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Facilities) of Chapter 22.42 (Standards for
Specific Land Uses) of Title 22 (Development Code) of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code
is hereby amended to read as follows (deletions shown in strikethrough; additions shown
in bold/underline):
“(b) Applicability. The standards of this section apply to all earth station
antennas, amateur radio station antennas, and wireless
telecommunications antenna facilities, except for small wireless facilities
governed by and subject to the provisions of Section 22.42.135, which
shall be exempt from and not governed by the provisions of this
section.
SECTION II. Section 22.42.135 (Small Wireless Facilities) of Chapter 22.42
(Standards for Specific Land Uses) of Title 2 2 (Development Code) is hereby added to
the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, which shall read as follows:
Section 22.42.135. – Small wireless facilities.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to:
(1) Provide a uniform and comprehensive set of regulations and standards for
the permitting, development, siting, deployment, design, operation, and
maintenance of small wireless facilities in the City.
(2) Establish clear local guidelines, standards, and time frames for the exercise
of local authority with respect to the regulation of small wireless facilities in
the City.
(3) Impose clear and reasonable requirements so that applications for small
wireless facilities will be processed in a consistent and timely manner. This
section imposes requirements that are necessary to protect public health,
safety, welfare, aesthetics, and provide for the orderly, managed, and
efficient deployment of small wireless facilities in accordance with state and
federal laws, rules, and regulations.
(4) Provide for the orderly, managed, and efficient deployment of small wireless
facilities in accordance with state and federal laws, rules, and regulations ,
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 123
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
5
and permit and manage reasonable access to public rights -of-way of the
City for telecommunications purposes on a competitively neutral basis.
(5) Enable the City to discharge its public trust responsibilities consistent with
rapidly evolving federal and state regulatory policies, industry competition,
and technological development through the encouragement of advanced
and competitive telecommunications services on the widest possible
equivalent basis to the businesses, institutions, and residents of the City
while continuing to fairly and responsibly protect the public health, safety,
and welfare.
(6) Promote and protect public health, safety, welfare, and the aesthetic quality
of the City consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General
Plan.
(7) Conserve the limited physical capacity of public rights-of-way held in public
trust by the City.
(8) Assure that the City’s current and ongoing costs of granting and regulating
private access to and use of public rights -of-way are fully paid by the
persons seeking such access and causing such costs while securing fair
and reasonable compensation for the City and the residents of the City for
permitting private use of public rights -of-way, within the limits established
by the FCC.
(b) Interpretation. This section is not intended nor shall it be interpreted to:
(1) Prohibit or effectively prohibit any small wireless service provider's ability to
deploy small wireless facilities.
(2) Prohibit or effectively prohibit any entity's ability to provide any interstate or
intrastate telecommunications service, subject to any competitively neutral
and nondiscriminatory rules or regulations for rights-of-way management.
(3) Unreasonably discriminate among providers of functio nally equivalent
services.
(4) Deny any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify small
wireless facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio-frequency
emissions to the extent that the small wireless facilities comply with the
FCC's regulations concerning such emissions.
(5) Prohibit any co-location or modification that the City may not deny under
federal or state law.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 124
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
6
(c) Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following words and terms shall
have the meaning set forth herein unless the context clearly indicates or requires
a different meaning.
Accessory Equipment means any equipment, other than antenna equipment,
associated with the installation of a small wireless facility.
Antenna means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(b), as may
be amended or superseded, which defines that term as an apparatus designed for
the purpose of emitting radiofrequency radiation, to be operated or operating from
a fixed location, for the provision of personal wireless service and any commingled
information services.
Antenna Equipment means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §
1.6002(c), as may be amended or superseded, which defines the term as
equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters or cabinets
associated with an antenna, located at the same fixed location as the antenna,
and, when collocated on a structure, is mounted or installed at the same time as
such antenna.
Antenna Facility means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(d),
as may be amended or superseded, which defines the term as an antenna and
associated antenna equipment.
Applicant means a person or entity that submits an application for a Small Wireless
Facility Permit under the provisions of this section and the agents, employees, and
contractors of such person or entity.
Co-location means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(g), as
may be amended or superseded, which defines that term as mounting or installing
an antenna facility on a pre-existing structure, and/or modifying a structure for the
purpose of mounting or installing an antenna facility on that structure.
Decorative Pole means any pole that includes decorative or ornamental features,
design elements and/or finials intended to enhance the appearance of the pole or
the public rights-of-way in which the pole is located.
Deployment means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(h), as
may be amended or superseded, which defines the term as placement,
construction, or modification of a personal wireless service facility.
Director means the Community Development Director for the City of Diamond Bar,
or his or her designee.
FCC means the Federal Communications Commission or its duly appointed
successor agency.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 125
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
7
Modification means any change to a small wireless facility that involves any of the
following: co-location, expansion, alteration, enlargement, intensification, or
augmentation, including, but not limited to, a change in size, shape, color, visual
design, or exterior material. Modification does not include repair, replacement, or
maintenance if those actions do not involve a change to the small wireless facility
involving any of the following: co-location, expansion, enlargement, intensification,
or augmentation.
New Pole means any pole erected or installed after the effective date of this
section. The term “New Pole” does not include a “Replacement Pole” as defined
in this section.
Pole means a single shaft of wood, steel, concrete, or other material capable of
supporting the equipment mounted thereon in a safe and adequate manner and
as required by provisions of this Code.
Public Right-of-Way or Right-of-Way means any public street, public way, public
alley, that is dedicated for street purposes.
Public Works Director means the Public Works Director of the City, or his or her
designee.
Replacement Pole means and shall only include a pole or structure that replaces
a pole in the exact same location in order to accommodate small wireless facilities.
Small wireless facility or facility means the same as defined by the FCC in 47
C.F.R. § 1.6002(l), as may be amended or superseded, which defines the term as
a facility that meets each of the following conditions:
(1) The facility is: (i) mounted on structures 50 feet o r less in height including
their antennas; or (ii) mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller
than other adjacent structures; or (iii) does not extend existing structures on
which it is located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10
percent, whichever is greater;
(2) Each antenna associated with any deployment, excluding associated
antenna equipment, is no more than three cubic feet in volume;
(3) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the
wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing
associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in
volume;
(4) The facility does not require antenna structure registration under 47 C.F.R.
Part 17;
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 126
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
8
(5) The facility is not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 C.F.R.
800.16(x); and
(6) The facility does not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation
in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in 47 C.F.R.
1.1307(b).
Structure means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(m), as
may be amended or superseded, which defines the term as a pole, tower, base
station, or other building, whether or not it has an existing antenna facility, that is
used or to be used for the provision of personal wireless service (whether on its
own or comingled with other types of services).
(d) Applicability. Notwithstanding any provision of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code to
the contrary, this section shall govern all applications for Small Wireless Facility
Permits in the City.
(e) Required approvals.
(1) A Small Wireless Facility Permit shall be required to locate or modify any
small wireless facility on a pole, new pole, replacement pole, or structure
located within the City, including without limitation on any public rights -of-
way, public property, or private property. No small wireless facility shall be
located or modified within the City without the issuance of an administrative
Small Wireless Facility Permit, as required by this section. The Director, in
consultation with the Public Works Director, shall have the authority to
approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for the
deployment or modification of a small wireless facility.
(2) Each Applicant for a Small Wireless Facility Permit pursuant to this section
proposed for location in or on any public right -of-way within the City shall
also submit an application for an Encroachment Permit pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 12.04 (Streets and Sidewalks) of this Code. The
application for an Encroachment Permit sh all be processed, reviewed, and
approved concurrently with the application for a Small Wireless Facility
Permit pursuant to the provisions of this section.
(3) An administrative approval granted under this section shall not confer any
exclusive right, privilege, license, or franchise to occupy or use the public
right-of-way of the City for delivery of telecommunication services of any
kind or for any other purposes.
(4) All required approvals under this section shall be processed in conformance
with the time periods established by applicable state and federal law, and
FCC regulations and orders.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 127
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
9
(5) Upon a showing by the Applicant that any requirement in this section would
prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
service through the wireless service provider's deployment of small
wireless facilities, the Director shall have the authority to modify or waive
such requirement.
(f) Application content. Each Applicant for a Small Wireless Facility Permit shall file a
written, signed, and verified application on such form as the Director may
prescribe, and shall provide the information, documents, and fees specified in this
subsection:
(1) Full name and contact information of the small wireless facility owner, small
wireless facility operator, agent (if any), and property owner, and related
letter(s) of authorization from the small wireless facility and/or property
owner.
(2) A full written description of the proposed small wireless facility, including its
purpose, specifications, and placement of backup generator (if applicable).
(3) A detailed site plan or photo simulation of the small wireless facility
containing the exact proposed location of the small wireless facility, and any
existing wireless facilities within a five hundred (500) foot radius of the
proposed location.
(4) Photographs of all proposed small wireless facility equipment and an
accurate visual impact analysis with photo simulations, including
reasonable line-of-sight locations from public streets, nearby vicinity, or
other adjacent viewpoints as may be required by the Director, in
consultation with the Public Works Director, and a map that shows the photo
location of each view angle.
(5) Building elevations and roof plan (for building- and/or rooftop-mounted
small wireless facilities) indicating exact location and dimensions of
equipment proposed. For all other small wireless facilities not mounted to a
building or rooftop, indicate surrounding grades, structures, and
landscaping from all sides.
(6) Proposed landscaping and/or nonvegetative screening plan for all aspects
of the small wireless facility.
(7) Written documentation demonstrating that the proposed location complies
with all applicable aesthetic and development standards set forth in this
section and that the proposed small wireless facility will be screened to the
greatest extent feasible in accordance with the design and developm ent
standards listed within this section.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 128
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
10
(8) If the application is for a small wireless facility that will be located within the
public right-of-way, the Applicant shall state the basis for its claimed right to
enter the right-of-way, and provide a copy of its certificate of public
convenience and necessity (CPCN), if a CPCN has been issued by the
California Public Utilities Commission.
(9) Evidence from the equipment manufacturer that the ambient noise emitted
from all proposed equipment will not, both individually and cumulatively,
exceed the applicable noise limits as found in Division 3 (Noise Control) of
Chapter 8.12 (Environmental Protection) of this Code.
(10) Evidence that demonstrates that the small wireless facility’s antennas do
not exceed three (3) cubic feet in volume per antenna, and all other
equipment (antenna equipment and accessory equipment) does not
collectively exceed twenty-eight (28) cubic feet in volume.
(11) An application and processing fee in an amount consistent with FCC
regulations as established by a resolution by the City Council for the
estimated cost of the City, including staff time, and all other costs of
whatever type or variety, incurred for the processing, review, commenting
upon, evaluation, and consideration of the small wireless facility application.
(12) A radio-frequency (RF) exposure compliance report prepared and certified
by an electrical engineer licensed by the State of California that certifies that
the proposed small wireless facility, as well as any collocated facilities, will
comply with applicable federal RF exposure standards and exposure limits.
(g) Design and development standards for small wireless facilities.
(1) Small wireless facilities shall be located so as not to cause any physical or
visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, inconvenience to the
public's use of the public right-of-way, or create safety hazards to
pedestrians and motorists.
(2) Small wireless facilities shall not be located within any portion of the public
right-of-way interfering with access to fire hydrants, fire stations, water
valves, underground vaults, valve housing structures, utility lines or
facilities, or any other vital public health and safety facility.
(3) The Applicant shall use screening and camouflage design techniques in the
design and placement of small wireless facilities to ensure such facilities
are as visually inconspicuous as possible.
(4) Small wireless facilities shall be sited at least five hundred (500) feet away
from other small wireless facilities to avoid an over-concentration of such
facilities, to preserve community aesthetics, and to avoid the creation of
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 129
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
11
potential hazards or inconvenience to the travelling public. Collocated small
wireless facilities on the same pole/structure are not required to meet this
minimum spacing standard with respect to one another.
(5) To preserve community aesthetics, all small wireless facilities, excluding
antennas and aboveground vents, shall be pole-mounted or placed
underground, flush to the finished grade, whenever there are no physical or
site constraints to make undergrounding infeasible, except as may be
determined by the Director, in consultation with the Public Works Director.
Infeasibility shall not be demonstrated by the mere cost to place the
equipment underground.
(6) If an Applicant proposes to replace a pole to accommodate the small
wireless facility, the replacement pole shall match the appearance of the
original pole, including height, width and silhouette to the extent feasible,
unless the Director, in consultation with the Public Works Director, finds that
another design accomplishes the objectives of this subsection.
(7) Small wireless facilities may incorporate reasonable and appropriate
security measures, such as fences, walls, and anti -climbing devices, to
prevent unauthorized access, theft, and vandalism. Security measures
must be designed to enhance concealment to the maximum extent feasible.
Security measures shall not include barbed wire, razor ribbon, electrified
fences or any similar security measures.
(8) Small wireless facilities shall not be installed on decorative poles, except as
may be determined by the Director, in consultation with the Public Works
Director.
(h) Installation and operation requirements for small wireless facilities.
(1) Small wireless facilities shall be operated in a manner so as to avoid any
significant adverse impacts caused by noise.
a. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power
outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between
the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
b. At no time shall equipment noise from any small wireless facility exceed
the applicable noise levels as established in Division 3 (Noise Control)
of Chapter 8.12 (Environmental Protection) of this Code.
(2) Small wireless facilities shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other
than certification, warning, or other signage required by law or permitted by
the City.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 130
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
12
(3) Small wireless facility equipment shall not be illuminated unless specifically
required by the Federal Aviation Administration, the FCC, or other
governmental agency.
(4) Only pole-mounted small wireless facilities shall be permitted in the public
right-of-way. All poles shall be designed to be the minimum functional
height and width required to support the proposed small wireless facility
installation and meet FCC requirements.
(5) Pole-mounted equipment shall be designed to occupy the least amount of
space in the public right-of-way that is technically feasible.
(6) If a small wireless facility is sited on the exterior of a pole, equipment shall
not be installed in such a manner that would preclude possible future co-
location by the same or other operators.
(7) Each antenna associated with any deployment shall be no more than three
(3) cubic feet in volume. All other equipment associated with the small
wireless facility, including associated antenna equipment and accessory
equipment, shall be no more than twenty-eight (28) cubic feet in volume.
(8) Small wireless facilities must be mounted on structures fifty (50) feet or less
in height including their antenna, or mounted on structures no more than
ten (10) percent taller than other adjacent structures, or which do not extend
existing structures on which the small wireless facility is located to a height
of more than fifty (50) feet or by more than ten (10) percent, whichever is
greater.
(9) Small wireless facilities shall be maintained in good working order and
condition and shall be fully operable at all times. Each small wireless facility
shall be clean and free of general dirt and grease; chipped, faded, peeling,
and cracked paint; rust and corrosion; cracks, dents, and discoloration;
missing, discolored, or damaged artificial foliage or other camouflage;
graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris; and damaged
structural parts.
(i) Conditions of approval for small wireless facilities. In addition to compliance with
the requirements of Section 22.42.135, approval of small wireless facilities shall
be subject to each of the following conditions of approval:
(1) In the event the deployment of a small wireless facility, as approved
pursuant to this section, requires a Building Permit under the provisions of
this Code, all conditions and restrictions imposed on the Small Wireless
Facility Permit and Encroachment Permit approved pursuant to the
provisions of this section shall be incorporated in, and made a condition of
such Building Permit. All conditions shall be binding as to the Applicant and
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 131
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
13
all successors in interest to permittee. The permittee shall construct, install,
and operate the small wireless facility in strict compliance with all approved
permits.
(2) The permittee shall submit and maintain current at all times basic c ontact
and site information on a form as may be provided by the Director, in
consultation with the Public Works Director. The permittee shall notify the
Director of any changes to the information submitted within seven (7) days
of any change, including change of the name or corporate legal status of
the owner or operator. This information shall include, but is not limited to,
the following:
a. Identity, including the name, address and 24 -hour local or toll-free
contact phone number of the permittee, the owner, the operator, and the
agent or person responsible for the maintenance of the small wireless
facility.
b. The corporate legal status of the owner of the small wireless facility,
including official identification numbers and FCC certification.
c. Name, address, and telephone number of the property owner if different
than the permittee.
(3) The permittee shall not place any small wireless facility in a manner that will
deny access to, or otherwise interfere with, any public utility, easement, or
right-of-way located on the site. The permittee shall allow the City and utility
providers reasonable access to, and maintenance of, all utilities and existing
public improvements within or adjacent to the site, including, but not limited
to, pavement, trees, public utilities, lighting, and public signage.
(4) At all times, all required notices and signs shall be posted on the site as
required by the FCC and California Public Utilities Commission, and as
approved by the City. The location and dimensions of a sign bearing the
emergency contact name and telephone number shall be posted pursuant
to the approved plans.
(5) At all times, the permittee shall ensure that the small wireless facility
complies with the most current regulatory and operational stand ards,
including, but not limited to, radio-frequency emissions standards, adopted
by the FCC and antenna height standards adopted by the Federal Aviation
Administration.
(6) The permittee shall assume full liability for damage or injury caused to any
property or person by the small wireless facility.
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 132
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
14
(7) The permittee shall agree to the following indemnity provision, as approved
by the City Attorney, which shall substantially read as follows: The permittee
shall agree to save, indemnify, and keep harmless the City and all its
officers, agents, employees, departments and agencies against all
liabilities, judgments, costs and expenses which may in any manner or form
accrue against the City or against any of its officers, agents, employees,
departments or agencies in consequence of the issuance or granting of a
Small Wireless Facility Permit or in consequence of the use or occupancy
of any sidewalk, street or other public place, or in any other wise by virtue
thereof, and will in all things strictly comply with the conditions of the Small
Wireless Facility Permit and with this Code, all ordinances, rules and
regulations of the City relating to the Small Wireless Facility Permit.
(8) All conditions of approval shall be binding as to the Applicant and all
successors in interest to the permittee.
(j) Additional conditions of approval for small wireless facilities in the public right -of-
way. In addition to the required approvals of Section 22.42.135, approval of small
wireless facilities in the public right-of-way shall be subject to the following
conditions of approval:
(1) The small wireless facility shall be subject to such conditions, changes or
limitations as are from time to time deemed necessary by the Director, in
consultation with the Public Works Director, for the purpose of:
a. Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare;
b. Preventing interference with pedestrian and vehicular traffic; and
c. Preventing damage to the public right-of-way or any property adjacent
to it.
(2) The permittee shall not move, alter, temporarily relocate, change, or
interfere with any existing structure, improvement, or property without the
prior written consent of the owner of that structure, improvement, or
property. No structure, improvement, or property owned by the City shall be
moved to accommodate a small wireless facility unless the Director, in
consultation with the Public Works Director, determines that such
movement will not adversely affect the City or any surrounding businesses
or residents, and the permittee pays all costs and expenses related to the
relocation of the City's structure, improvement, or property. Prior to
commencement of any work pursuant to an Encroachment Permit issued
for any small wireless facility within the public right-of-way, the permittee
shall provide the City with documentation establishing to the City's
satisfaction that the permittee has the legal right to use or interfere with any
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 133
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
15
other structure, improvement, or property within the public right-of- way to
be affected by the permittee's small wireless facility.
(3) The permittee shall repair, at its sole cost and expense, any damage including,
but not limited to subsidence, cracking, erosion, collapse, weakening, or loss
of lateral support to City streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, trees, parkways,
slopes, street lights, traffic signals, improvements of any kind or nature, or utility
lines and systems, underground utility lines and systems, or sewer systems
and sewer lines that result from any activities performed in connection with the
installation or maintenance of a small wireless facility in the public right -of-way.
The permittee shall restore such areas, structures, and systems to the condition
in which they existed prior to the installation or maintenance that necessitated
the repairs. In the event the permittee fails to complete such repair within 15
calendar days stated on a written notice by the Public Works Director, or such
shorter timeframe as the Public Works Director may provide in the event of
health and safety issues, the Public Works Director shall cause such repair to
be completed at permittee's sole cost and expense.
(4) The permittee shall modify, remove, or relocate its small wireless facility, or
portion thereof, without cost or expense to the City, if and when made
necessary by:
a. Any public improvement project, including, but not limited to, the
construction, maintenance, or operation of any underground or
aboveground public infrastructure including but not limited to sewers,
storm drains, conduits, gas, water, electric or other utility systems, or
pipes owned by the City or any other public agency;
b. Any abandonment of any street, sidewalk, or other public facility; or
c. Any change of grade, alignment or width of any street, sidewa lk, or other
public facility.
(5) Any modification, removal, or relocation of the small wireless facility shall
be completed within one hundred eighty (180) days of written notification by
the Director, in consultation with the Public Works Director, unless
exigencies dictate a different period for removal or relocation. Modification
or relocation of the small wireless facility shall require submittal, review, and
approval of a permit amendment pursuant to this Code. The permittee shall
be entitled, on permittee's election, to either a pro-rata refund of fees paid
for the original permit or to a new permit, without additional fee, at a location
as close to the original location as the standards set forth in this Code allow.
In the event the small wireless facility is not modified, removed, or relocated
within said period of time, the City may cause the same to be done at the
sole cost and expense of permittee. In the event of exigent circumstances,
as determined by the Director, in consultation with the Public Works
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 134
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
16
Director, the City may modify, remove, or relocate small wireless facilities
without prior notice to the permittee provided that the permittee is notified in
writing within a reasonable period thereafter.
(k) Abandonment or discontinuation of use.
(1) Small wireless facilities that have not provided wireless communication
services for a cumulative period of ninety (90) days in a one (1) year period
shall be considered abandoned and shall be removed promptly from the
premises no later than three (3) months after written notification is sent by
the Director to the operator of the small wireless facility and property owner.
Such removal shall be in accordance with proper health and safety
requirements and all ordinances, rules and regulations of the City. The
permittee shall send to the City a copy of the discontinuation notice required
by the California Public Utilities Commission or FCC at the time the notice
is sent to the regulatory agencies.
(2) Small wireless facilities that are abandoned but not removed within the
required three (3) month period from the date o f notice shall be in violation
of this section, and the operators of the small wireless facility and the
owners of the property shall be subject to pena lties for violations under the
enforcement and penalties provisions of this Code. The City may remove
all abandoned small wireless facilities following the three (3) month removal
period at the operators' expense. Facilitie s removed by the City shall be
stored for no less than fifteen (15) days and thereafter disposed of as
permitted by law.
(l) Appeals. A decision of the Director pursuant to this section may be appealed by
the Applicant or permittee to the City Manager pursuant to Chapter 22.74
(Appeals) of this Code, and such appeal shall be reviewed and decided in
conformance with the time periods and procedures established by applicable state
and federal law, and FCC regulations and orders.
SECTION III. Section 22.74.030 (Appeals of Decisions) of Chapter 22.74
(Appeals) of Title 22 (Development Code) of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code is hereby
revised to read as follows (deletions in strikethrough; additions in bold/underline):
Determinations and actions that may be appealed, and the authority to act on an appeal
shall be as follows:
(1) Director and hearing officer appeals. A decision rendered by the director or
hearing officer may be appealed to the commission ; except that a decision
by the director pursuant to Section 22.42.135 related to small wireless
facilities may be appealed to the city manager; and
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 135
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
17
(2) Commission appeals. A decision rendered by the commission may be
appealed to the council.
SECTION IV. Subsection (a) of Section 22.74.040 (Filing and Processing of
Appeals) of Chapter 22.74 (Appeals) of Title 22 (Development Code) of the Diamond Bar
Municipal Code is hereby revised to read as follows (deletions in strikethrough; additions
in bold/underline):
(a) Timing and form of appeal. Appeals shall be submitted in writing and filed with
the department or city clerk, as applicable, on a city application form, within
ten days after the date the decision is rendered by the director or the adoption
of the resolution by the hearing officer or commission. The appeal shall
specifically state the pertinent facts of the case and the basis for the appeal.
Appeals addressed to the commission or city manager shall be filed with the
department, while appeals addressed to the council shall be filed with the city
clerk. Appeals shall be accompanied by the filing fee set by the city's fee
resolution.
SECTION V. Table 4-1 (Review Authority) in Section 22.44.020 (Authority for Land
Use and Zoning Decisions) of Chapter 22.44 (Applications, Processing, and Fees) of Title
22 (Development Code) of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code is hereby amended to add
a new row for “Small Wireless Facility Permit”, to be placed in alphabetical order within
said Table, to read as follows (deletions in strikethrough; additions in bold/underline):
Type of Permit
or Decision
Director Hearing Officer Planning
Commission
City Council
Small
Wireless
Facility Permit
Final*
*A decision rendered by the director pursuant to Section 22.42.135 related to small
wireless facilities may be appealed to the city manager , whose decision shall be
final.
SECTION VI. Public Resources Code § 21065 defines "project" as "an activity
which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." The proposed Ordinance does
not have the potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, as the Ordinance
does not call for any change in the existing environmental conditions within the City. The
proposed Ordinance merely updates existing City regulations to reflect the FCC’s new
laws governing the deployment of small wireless facilities, which are already permitted
uses within the City. Accordingly, the Ordinance is not a "project" subject to CEQA.
(Public Resources Code § 21065; CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a).)
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 136
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
18
Even if the Ordinance could be construed to be a project subject to CEQA, the
proposed Ordinance is exempt because the proposed Ordinance merely updates existing
City regulations to reflect the FCC’s new laws governing the deployment of small wireless
facilities and does not authorize new programs or activities. The proposed Ordinance calls
for the continued operation of small wireless facilities involving no expansion of the
existing uses. As a result, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the
Class 1 exemption.
Moreover, CEQA’s Class 3 Exemption applies to the construction and location of
limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipm ent
and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one
use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15303.) The proposed Ordinance allows for the dep loyment of new,
small wireless facilities on pre-existing or new small structures within the City, therefore,
the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 3 exemption.
SECTION VII. Severability. If any section, clause, phrase, word or portion of this
Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted
this Ordinance and each other section, clause, phrase, word or portion thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions,
sentences, clauses, phrases, words or portions thereof be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION VIII. The City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption
of this Ordinance within 15 days after adoption, cause it to be published or posted in
accordance with California law, and it shall be effective 30 days after adoption pursuant
to Government Code Section 36937.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ___ day of ______, 2021.
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR:
__________________________
Nancy Lyons, Mayor
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 137
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
19
ATTEST:
I, Kristina Santana, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Diamond Bar held on the 3rd day of August 2021, and reintroduced at a regular meeting
of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 17th day of August, 2021, and
was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held
on the ___ day of ________, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
__________________________
Kristina Santana, City Clerk
4.3.a
Packet Pg. 138
Agenda #: 5.1
Meeting Date: August 3, 2021
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager
TITLE: ORDINANCE NO. 02 (2021) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 22
(DEVELOPMENT CODE) OF THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE
TO ADD NEW SECTION 22.42.135 (SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES),
AND TO AMEND SECTION 22.42.130 (RADIO AND TELEVISION
ANTENNAS AND WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA
FACILITIES), SECTION 22.44.020 (AUTHORITY FOR LAND USE AND
ZONING DECISIONS), SECTION 22.74.030 (APPEALS OF
DECISIONS), AND SECTION 22.74.040 (FILING AND PROCESSING
OF APPEALS), TO ENACT REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE
DEPLOYMENT, AUGMENTATION, AND RELOCATION OF SMALL
WIRELESS FACILITIES IN THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE
AND FEDERAL LAW.
STRATEGIC
GOAL:
Open, Engaged & Responsive Government
RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce first reading by title only, waive full reading of Ordinance No. 02 (2021), open
Public Hearing, receive public testimony, schedule the second reading and adoption at
the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND:
On September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) adopted its
Declaratory Ruling, Third Report, and Order (“Order”) in the matter of “Accelerating
Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment.”
The Order establishes a new category of “small wireless facilities,” and limits and
preempts the ability of cities to regulate the deployment of small wireless facilities, both
5.1
Packet Pg. 30
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 139
inside and outside of the public right-of-way, and imposes strict processing
requirements that cities must adhere to for small wireless facility applications. These
requirements are in addition to preexisting federal requirements that prevent cities from
adopting regulations that “effectively prohibit” the provision of wireless service. The
Order is intended to facilitate the spread, growth, and accumulation of small wireless
facilities over a short period of time to ensure deployment of new 5G technology that the
FCC claims will enable increased competition in healthcare, Internet of Things
applications and lifesaving car technologies, among other things, and create jobs,
possibly increasing the U.S. economy by as much as $100 billion by speeding up the
deployment of small wireless facilities by only one year.
To fully comply with the new FCC regulations and to minimize any potential conflicts
with telecommunication service providers, the proposed ordinance creates a new
section in the Development Code (Section 22.42.135) for the orderly, managed, and
efficient deployment of small wireless facilities. The ordinance includes an
administrative permit review process, submittal requirements, design and development
standards, installation and operation requirements, standard conditions of approval,
abandonment or discontinuation of use requirements, and an appeals process.
Current Process vs New Process
The City currently regulates all wireless telecommunication facilities pursuant to Section
22.42.130 (Radio and television antennas and wireless telecommunications antenna
facilities) of the Development Code. The purpose of Section 22.42.130 is to establish
development standards and land use controls for the installation and maintenance of
radio and television antennas and wireless telecommunications antenna facilities in the
City; however, the Development Code has not been updated to reflect the new legal
requirements for the deployment of small wireless facilities, as set forth by the FCC’s
Order. Under the current process, new wireless facilities on utility poles requires
Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit at a public hearing. The
proposed ordinance would exempt “small wireless facilities” from the requirements set
forth in Section 22.42.130 and enact a new Section 2 2.42.135, specifically governing
“small wireless facilities” as defined in the FCC’s Order. The new Section 22.42.135
would create an administrative permit review process for the deployment of all small
wireless facilities located within the City.
In addition to requiring small wireless facility applications to be processed
administratively, the Order also mandates reduced timeframes for processing such
applications. The “shot clock” periods for a public agency to review, comment upon,
and make a final determination on small wireless facility applications are: ninety (90)
days for new small wireless facilities; and sixty (60) days for collocation on preexisting
facilities. It should also be noted that a service provider can include multiple sites on
one application. The existing 150 and 90-day shot clocks periods for new and
collocated wireless telecommunications installations other than “small wireless facilities”
remain unchanged.
The FCC’s Order further limits the extent to which cities may impose fees on small
wireless facility deployments, including fees for processing applications, the use of the
public right-of-way, and the privilege of attaching or using fixtures and structures in the
5.1
Packet Pg. 31
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 140
public right-of-way that are owned or controlled by the City. If the proposed ordinance is
approved, staff will follow up with a recommended fee schedule for small wireless
facility deployments. The FCC’s Order establishes “safe harbor” fee amounts that are
presumed to be reasonable not-to-exceed amounts to cover the cost of processing such
applications. The safe harbor fees are as follows:
1. $500 for non-recurring fees, including a single up-front application that includes
up to five small wireless facilities, with an additional $100 for each small wireless
facility beyond five;
2. $1,000 for non-recurring fees for a new pole (i.e., not a collocation) intended to
support one or more small wireless facility; or
3. $270 per small wireless facility per year for all recurring fees, including any right-
of-way access fees or fees for attachment to City-owned structures in the right-
of-way.
Planning Commission Review
On July 13, 2021, after conducting a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution no. 2021-10 recommending by a 4-0 vote, with
Commissioner Garg absent, that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance
amending Title 22 (Attachment 2). The staff report and meeting minutes from that
meeting are attached to this report as Attachments 3 and 4 respectively.
One letter was received prior to the Planning Commission hearing in support of the
proposed ordinance (Attachment 5).
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Notice for this hearing was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspaper on
July 23, 2021, in a 1/8 page display. Pursuant to Planning and Zoning Law Government
Code Section 65091(a)(4), if the number of property owners to whom a public hearing
notice would be mailed is greater than 1,000, a local agency may provide notice by
placing a display advertisement of at least 1/8 page in one newspaper of general
circulation. A copy of the public notice was also posted at the City’s designated
community posting sites.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney’s Office drafted the attached ordinance, and has worked
collaboratively with wireless industry representatives to develop mutually acceptable
standards, as reflected in the draft ordinance.
PREPARED BY:
5.1
Packet Pg. 32
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 141
REVIEWED BY:
Attachments:
1. 5.1.a Draft Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
2. 5.1.b Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021-10
3. 5.1.c Planning Commission Staff Report (attachments not included) Dated July
13, 2021
4. 5.1.d Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Dated July 13, 2021
5. 5.1.e Letter from Michelle Brower (Verizon) Dated July 13, 2021
5.1
Packet Pg. 33
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 142
ORDINANCE NO. 02 (2021)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING TITLE 22 (DEVELOPMENT CODE) OF THE DIAMOND BAR
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD NEW SECTION 22.42.135 (SMALL
WIRELESS FACILITIES), AND TO AMEND SECTION 22.42.130 (RADIO
AND TELEVISION ANTENNAS AND WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA FACILITIES), SECTION 22.44.020
(AUTHORITY FOR LAND USE AND ZONING DECISIONS), SECTION
22.74.030 (APPEALS OF DECISIONS), AND SECTION 22.74.040
(FILING AND PROCESSING OF APPEALS), TO ENACT REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE DEPLOYMENT, AUGMENTATION, AND
RELOCATION OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES IN THE CITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission
(“FCC”) adopted its Declaratory Ruling, Third Report, and Order (“Order”) “In the Matter
of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure
Investment,” which established new limitations on local standards for the siting of, and
the processing of applications for, small wireless facilities by all local jurisdictions; and,
WHEREAS, the Order provides that all local jurisdictions must comply with various
restrictions on their exercise of aesthetic, zoning, public works, and fee authority when
considering applications for the installation of small wireless facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the Order is intended to facilitate the spread, growth, and
accumulation of small wireless facilities over a short period of time to ensure deployment
of 5G technology. The Order reduces the “shot clock” period allowable for cities to review,
comment upon, consider, and make a final determination on small wireless facility
applications for as many as 90 days for new facilities and as many as 60 days for
collocated and modified facilities; and,
WHEREAS, small wireless facilities are primarily installed within public rights-of-
way and as such create significant concerns regarding traffic and pedestrian safety,
aesthetics, protection and preservation of public property, and the health, safety, and
welfare of the general public; and,
WHEREAS, installation of small wireless facilities within the public right-of-way can
pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, including: disturbance to the right -
of-way through the installation and maintenance of wireless facilities; traffic and
pedestrian safety hazards due to the unsafe location of wireless facilities; land use
conflicts and incompatibilities, including excessive height of poles and towers; creation of
visual and aesthetic blights and potential safety concerns arising from excessive size,
heights, noise or lack of camouflaging of wireless facilities , including the associated
pedestals, meters, equipment and power generators; and the creation of unnecessary
visual and aesthetic blight by failing to utilize alternative technologies or capitalizing on
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 34
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 143
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
2
co-location opportunities, which may negatively impact the unique quality and character
of the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City currently regulates all wireless telecommunications antenna
facilities within specified land use zones of the City as provided in Section 22.42.130
(Radio and Television Antennas and Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Facilities) of
the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, which does not specifically address the deployment of
small wireless facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempts and declares
invalid all state rules that restrict entry or limit competition in both local and long-distance
telephone service; and,
WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) is primarily
responsible for the implementation of local telephone competition and the CPUC issues
certificates of public convenience and necessity to new entrants that are qualified to
provide competitive local telephone exchange services and related telecommunications
service, whether using their own facilities or the facilities or services provided by other
authorized telephone corporations; and,
WHEREAS, Section 234(a) of the California Public Utilities Code defines a
"telephone corporation" as "every corporation or person owning, controlling, operating, or
managing any telephone line for compensation within this state;” and,
WHEREAS, Section 616 of the California Public Utilities Code provides that a
telephone corporation "may condemn any property necessary for the construction and
maintenance of its telephone line;” and,
WHEREAS, many wireless service providers are eligible to utilize the public righ t-
of-way pursuant to a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, as issued by the
California Public Utilities Commission; and,
WHEREAS, Section 2902 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes
municipal corporations to retain their powers of control to supervise and regulate the
relationships between a public utility and the general public in matters affecting the health,
convenience, and safety of the general public, including matters such as the use and
repair of public streets by any public utility and the location of the poles, wires, mains, or
conduits of any public utility on, under, or above any public streets. The primary and
highest purpose of public streets, rights-of-way, roads, and highways is the safe and
efficient accommodation of the traveling public, including without limitation motor vehicles,
automobiles, trucks, buses and other modes of public transportation, bicycles,
pedestrians, and emergency and first responder vehicles. Street signs, street lights, and
drainage systems also provide services and enhancements that protect and serve the
traveling public. The City Council finds that all other uses of the public right-of-way are
ancillary and secondary to the primary purpose and use of the public right -of-way and will
only be allowed to the extent such secondary uses do not impede the traveling public or
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 35
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 144
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
3
compromise the safety of the members of the public and the residents and businesses of
the City; and,
WHEREAS, Section 7901 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes
telephone/telegraph corporations to construct telephone/telegraph lines upon any public
road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this state, and to erect
poles, posts, piers, or abatements for supporting the insulators, wires, and other
necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode
the public use of the road or highway or interrupt the navigation of the waters; and,
WHEREAS, Section 7901.1 of the California Public Utilities Code confirms the right
of municipalities to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which
roadways, highways, and waterways are accessed, which control must be applied to all
entities in an equivalent manner; and,
WHEREAS, Section 50030 of the California Government Code states that permit
fees imposed by a city for the placement, installation, repair, or upgrading of
telecommunications facilities, such as lines, poles, or antennas, by a telephone
corporation that has obtained all required authorizations from the CPUC and the FCC to
provide telecommunications services cannot exceed the reasonable costs of providing
service for which the fee is charged and cannot be levied for general revenue; and,
WHEREAS, state and federal law have changed substantially and the City is in
need of clear regulations for small wireless facility installations given the number of
anticipated applications and legal timelines upon which the City must act; and,
WHEREAS, the public right-of-way in the City is a uniquely valuable public
resource, closely linked with the City's scenic nature and rural character. The reasonably
regulated and orderly deployment of small wireless facilities in the public right -of-way is
desirable, and unregulated or disorderly deployment represents an ever-increasing threat
to the health, welfare, and safety of the community; and,
WHEREAS, the regulation of installations, including small wireless facilities, in the
public right-of-way is necessary to protect and preserve the aesthetics in the community,
as well as the values of properties within the City, and to ensure that such installations
are installed using the least intrusive means possible; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes its responsibilities under the Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and state law, and believes that it is acting consistent
with the current state of the law in ensuring that irreversible development activity does not
occur that would harm the public health, safety, or welfare; and,
WHEREAS, the City does not intend that this Ordinance prohibit or have the effect
of prohibiting the provision of telecommunications service; rather, this Ordinance includes
appropriate regulations to ensure that the deployment, augmentation, and relocation of
small wireless facilities in the City are conducted in such a manner as to lawfully balance
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 36
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 145
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
4
the legal rights of applicants under the Federal Telecommunications Act, the
rules/regulations promulgated thereunder, and the California Public Utilities Code, while
at the same time, protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and land
use concerns described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Subsection (b) of Section 22.42.130 (Radio and Television Antennas
and Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Facilities) of Chapter 22.42 (Standards for
Specific Land Uses) of Title 22 (Development Code) of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code
is hereby amended to read as follows (deletions shown in strikethrough; additions shown
in bold/underline):
“(b) Applicability. The standards of this section apply to all earth station
antennas, amateur radio station antennas, and wireless
telecommunications antenna facilities, except for small wireless facilities
governed by and subject to the provisions of Section 22.42.135, which
shall be exempt from and not governed by the provisions of this
section.
SECTION II. Section 22.42.135 (Small Wireless Facilities) of Chapter 22.42
(Standards for Specific Land Uses) of Title 2 2 (Development Code) is hereby added to
the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, which shall read as follows:
Section 22.42.135. – Small wireless facilities.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to:
(1) Provide a uniform and comprehensive set of regulations and standards for
the permitting, development, siting, deployment, design, operation, and
maintenance of small wireless facilities in the City.
(2) Establish clear local guidelines, standards, and time frames for the exercise
of local authority with respect to the regulation of small wireless facilities in
the City.
(3) Impose clear and reasonable requirements so that applications for small
wireless facilities will be processed in a consistent and timely manner. This
section imposes requirements that are necessary to protect public health,
safety, welfare, aesthetics, and provide for the orderly, managed, and
efficient deployment of small wireless facilities in accordance with state and
federal laws, rules, and regulations.
(4) Provide for the orderly, managed, and efficient deployment of small wireless
facilities in accordance with state and federal laws, rules, and regulations ,
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 37
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 146
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
5
and permit and manage reasonable access to public rights -of-way of the
City for telecommunications purposes on a competitively neutral basis.
(5) Enable the City to discharge its public trust responsibilities consistent with
rapidly evolving federal and state regulatory policies, industry competition,
and technological development through the encouragement of advanced
and competitive telecommunications services on the widest possible
equivalent basis to the businesses, institutions, and residents of the City
while continuing to fairly and responsibly protect the public health, safety,
and welfare.
(6) Promote and protect public health, safety, welfare, and the aesthetic quality
of the City consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General
Plan.
(7) Conserve the limited physical capacity of public rights-of-way held in public
trust by the City.
(8) Assure that the City’s current and ongoing costs of granting and regulating
private access to and use of public rights -of-way are fully paid by the
persons seeking such access and causing such costs while securing fair
and reasonable compensation for the City and the residents of the City for
permitting private use of public rights -of-way, within the limits established
by the FCC.
(b) Interpretation. This section is not intended nor shall it be interpreted to:
(1) Prohibit or effectively prohibit any small wireless service provider's ability to
deploy small wireless facilities.
(2) Prohibit or effectively prohibit any entity's ability to provide any interstate or
intrastate telecommunications service, subject to any competitively neutral
and nondiscriminatory rules or regulations for rights-of-way management.
(3) Unreasonably discriminate among providers of functio nally equivalent
services.
(4) Deny any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify small
wireless facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio-frequency
emissions to the extent that the small wireless facilities comply with the
FCC's regulations concerning such emissions.
(5) Prohibit any co-location or modification that the City may not deny under
federal or state law.
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 38
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 147
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
6
(c) Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following words and terms shall
have the meaning set forth herein unless the context clearly indicates or requires
a different meaning.
Accessory Equipment means any equipment, other than antenna equipment,
associated with the installation of a small wireless facility.
Antenna means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(b), as may
be amended or superseded, which defines that term as an apparatus designed for
the purpose of emitting radiofrequency radiation, to be operated or operating from
a fixed location, for the provision of personal wireless service and any commingled
information services.
Antenna Equipment means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §
1.6002(c), as may be amended or superseded, which defines the term as
equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters or cabinets
associated with an antenna, located at the same fixed location as the antenna,
and, when collocated on a structure, is mounted or installed at the same time as
such antenna.
Antenna Facility means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(d),
as may be amended or superseded, which defines the term as an antenna and
associated antenna equipment.
Applicant means a person or entity that submits an application for a Small Wireless
Facility Permit under the provisions of this section and the agents, employees, and
contractors of such person or entity.
Co-location means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(g), as
may be amended or superseded, which defines that term as mounting or installing
an antenna facility on a pre-existing structure, and/or modifying a structure for the
purpose of mounting or installing an antenna facility on that structure.
Decorative Pole means any pole that includes decorative or ornamental features,
design elements and/or finials intended to enhance the appearance of the pole or
the public rights-of-way in which the pole is located.
Deployment means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(h), as
may be amended or superseded, which defines the term as placement,
construction, or modification of a personal wireless service facility.
Director means the Community Development Director for the City of Diamond Bar,
or his or her designee.
FCC means the Federal Communications Commission or its duly appointed
successor agency.
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 39
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 148
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
7
Modification means any change to a small wireless facility that involves any of the
following: co-location, expansion, alteration, enlargement, intensification, or
augmentation, including, but not limited to, a change in size, shape, color, visual
design, or exterior material. Modification does not include repair, replacement, or
maintenance if those actions do not involve a change to the small wireless facility
involving any of the following: co-location, expansion, enlargement, intensification,
or augmentation.
New Pole means any pole erected or installed after the effective date of this
section. The term “New Pole” does not include a “Replacement Pole” as defined
in this section.
Pole means a single shaft of wood, steel, concrete, or other material capable of
supporting the equipment mounted thereon in a safe and adequate manner and
as required by provisions of this Code.
Public Right-of-Way or Right-of-Way means any public street, public way, public
alley, or public place, laid out, reserved, or dedicated for street, sidewalk, storm
drainage, bicycle path, or other public uses or purposes under the jurisdiction of
the City.
Public Works Director means the Public Works Director of the City, or his or her
designee.
Replacement Pole means and shall only include a pole or structure that replaces
a pole in the exact same location in order to accommodate small wireless facilities.
Small wireless facility or facility means the same as defined by the FCC in 47
C.F.R. § 1.6002(l), as may be amended or superseded, which defines the term as
a facility that meets each of the following conditions:
(1) The facility is: (i) mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including
their antennas; or (ii) mounted on structures no more than 10 percen t taller
than other adjacent structures; or (iii) does not extend existing structures on
which it is located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10
percent, whichever is greater;
(2) Each antenna associated with any deployment, excluding associa ted
antenna equipment, is no more than three cubic feet in volume;
(3) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the
wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre -existing
associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in
volume;
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 40
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 149
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
8
(4) The facility does not require antenna structure registration under 47 C.F.R.
Part 17;
(5) The facility is not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 C.F.R.
800.16(x); and
(6) The facility does not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation
in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in 47 C.F.R.
1.1307(b).
Structure means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(m), as
may be amended or superseded, which defines the term as a pole, towe r, base
station, or other building, whether or not it has an existing antenna facility, that is
used or to be used for the provision of personal wireless service (whether on its
own or comingled with other types of services).
(d) Applicability. Notwithstanding any provision of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code to
the contrary, this section shall govern all applications for Small Wireless Facility
Permits in the City.
(e) Required approvals.
(1) A Small Wireless Facility Permit shall be requ ired to locate or modify any
small wireless facility on a pole, new pole, replacement pole, or structure
located within the City, including without limitation on any public rights -of-
way, public property, or private property. No small wireless facility shall be
located or modified within the City without the issuance of an administrative
Small Wireless Facility Permit, as required by this section. The Director, in
consultation with the Public Works Director, shall have the authority to
approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for the
deployment or modification of a small wireless facility.
(2) Each Applicant for a Small Wireless Facility Permit pursuant to this section
proposed for location in or on any public right -of-way within the City shall
also submit an application for an Encroachment Permit pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 12.04 (Streets and Sidewalks) of this Code. The
application for an Encroachment Permit shall be processed, reviewed, and
approved concurrently with the application for a Small Wireless Facility
Permit pursuant to the provisions of this section.
(3) An administrative approval granted under this section shall not confer any
exclusive right, privilege, license, or franchise to occupy or use the public
right-of-way of the City for delivery of telecommunication services of any
kind or for any other purposes.
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 41
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 150
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
9
(4) All required approvals under this section shall be processed in conformance
with the time periods established by applicable state and federal law, and
FCC regulations and orders.
(5) Upon a showing by the Applicant that any requirement in this section would
prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
service through the wireless service provider's deployment of small
wireless facilities, the Director shall have the authority to modify or waive
such requirement.
(f) Application content. Each Applicant for a Small Wireless Facility Permit shall file a
written, signed, and verified application on such form as the Director may
prescribe, and shall provide the information, documents, and fees specified in this
subsection:
(1) Full name and contact information of the small wireless facility owner, small
wireless facility operator, agent (if any), and property owner, and related
letter(s) of authorization from the small wireless facility and/or property
owner.
(2) A full written description of the proposed small wireless facility, including its
purpose, specifications, and placement of backup generator (if applicable).
(3) A detailed site plan or photo simulation of the small wireless facility
containing the exact proposed location of the small wireless facility, and any
existing wireless facilities within a five hundred (500) foot radius of the
proposed location.
(4) Photographs of all proposed small wireless facility equipment and an
accurate visual impact analysis with photo simulations, including
reasonable line-of-sight locations from public streets, nearby vicinity, or
other adjacent viewpoints as may be required by the Director, in
consultation with the Public Works Director, and a map that shows the photo
location of each view angle.
(5) Building elevations and roof plan (for building- and/or rooftop-mounted
small wireless facilities) indicating exact location and dimensions of
equipment proposed. For all other small wireless facilities not mounted to a
building or rooftop, indicate surrounding grades, structures, and
landscaping from all sides.
(6) Proposed landscaping and/or nonvegetative screening plan for all aspects
of the small wireless facility.
(7) Written documentation demonstrating that the proposed location complies
with all applicable aesthetic and development standards set forth in this
section and that the proposed small wireless facility will be screened to the
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 42
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 151
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
10
greatest extent feasible in accordance with the design and development
standards listed within this section.
(8) If the application is for a small wireless facility that will be located within the
public right-of-way, the Applicant shall state the basis for its claimed right to
enter the right-of-way, and provide a copy of its certificate of public
convenience and necessity (CPCN), if a CPCN has been issued by the
California Public Utilities Commission.
(9) Evidence from the equipment manufacturer th at the ambient noise emitted
from all proposed equipment will not, both individually and cumulatively,
exceed the applicable noise limits as found in Division 3 (Noise Control) of
Chapter 8.12 (Environmental Protection) of this Code.
(10) Evidence that demonstrates that the small wireless facility’s antennas do
not exceed three (3) cubic feet in volume per antenna, and all other
equipment (antenna equipment and accessory equipment) does not
collectively exceed twenty-eight (28) cubic feet in volume.
(11) An application and processing fee in an amount consistent with FCC
regulations as established by a resolution by the City Council for the
estimated cost of the City, including staff time, and all other costs of
whatever type or variety, incurred for the processing, review, commenting
upon, evaluation, and consideration of the small wireless facility application.
(12) A radio-frequency (RF) exposure compliance report prepared and certified
by an electrical engineer licensed by the State of California that certifies that
the proposed small wireless facility, as well as any collocated facilities, will
comply with applicable federal RF exposure standards and exposure limits.
(g) Design and development standards for small wireless facilities.
(1) Small wireless facilities shall be located so as not to cause any physical or
visual obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, inconvenience to the
public's use of the public right-of-way, or create safety hazards to
pedestrians and motorists.
(2) Small wireless facilities shall not be located within any portion of the public
right-of-way interfering with access to fire hydrants, fire stations, water
valves, underground vaults, valve housing structures, utility lines or
facilities, or any other vital public health and safety facility.
(3) The Applicant shall use screening and camouflage design techniques in the
design and placement of small wireless facilities to ensure such facilities
are as visually inconspicuous as possible.
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 43
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 152
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
11
(4) Small wireless facilities shall be sited at least five hundred (500) feet away
from other small wireless facilities to avoid an over-concentration of such
facilities, to preserve community aesthetics, and to avoid the creation of
potential hazards or inconvenience to the travelling public. Collocated small
wireless facilities on the same pole/structure are not required to meet this
minimum spacing standard with respect to one another.
(5) To preserve community aesthetics, all small wireless facilities, excluding
antennas and aboveground vents, shall be pole-mounted or placed
underground, flush to the finished grade, whenever there are no physical or
site constraints to make undergrounding infeasible, except as may be
determined by the Director, in consultation with the Public Works Director.
Infeasibility shall not be demonstrated by the mere cost to place the
equipment underground.
(6) If an Applicant proposes to replace a pole to accommodate the small
wireless facility, the replacement pole shall match the appearance of the
original pole, including height, width and silhouette to the extent feasible,
unless the Director, in consultation with the Public Works Director, finds that
another design accomplishes the objectives of this subsection.
(7) Small wireless facilities may incorporate reasonable and appropriate
security measures, such as fences, walls, and anti -climbing devices, to
prevent unauthorized access, theft, and vandalism. Security measures
must be designed to enhance concealment to the maximum extent feasible.
Security measures shall not include barbed wire, razor ribbon, electrified
fences or any similar security measures.
(8) Small wireless facilities shall not be installed on decorative poles, except as
may be determined by the Director, in consultation with the Public Works
Director.
(h) Installation and operation requirements for small wireless facilities.
(1) Small wireless facilities shall be operated in a manner so as to avoid any
significant adverse impacts caused by noise.
a. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power
outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between
the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
b. At no time shall equipment noise from any small wireless facility exceed
the applicable noise levels as established in Division 3 (Noise Control)
of Chapter 8.12 (Environmental Protection) of this Code.
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 44
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 153
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
12
(2) Small wireless facilities shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other
than certification, warning, or other signage required by law or permitted by
the City.
(3) Small wireless facility equipment shall not be illuminated unless specifically
required by the Federal Aviation Administration, the FCC, or other
governmental agency.
(4) Only pole-mounted small wireless facilities shall be permitted in the public
right-of-way. All poles shall be designed to be the minimum functional
height and width required to support the proposed small wireless facility
installation and meet FCC requirements.
(5) Pole-mounted equipment shall be designed to occupy the least amount of
space in the public right-of-way that is technically feasible.
(6) If a small wireless facility is sited on the exterior of a pole, equipment shall
not be installed in such a manner that would preclude possible future co-
location by the same or other operators.
(7) Each antenna associated with any deployment shall be no more than three
(3) cubic feet in volume. All other equipment associated with the small
wireless facility, including associated antenna equipment and accessory
equipment, shall be no more than twenty-eight (28) cubic feet in volume.
(8) Small wireless facilities must be mounted on structures fifty (50) feet or less
in height including their antenna, or mounted on structures no more than
ten (10) percent taller than other adjacent structures, or which do not extend
existing structures on which the small wireless facility is located to a height
of more than fifty (50) feet or by more than ten (10) percent, whichever is
greater.
(9) Small wireless facilities shall be maintained in good working order and
condition and shall be fully operable at all times. Each small wireless facility
shall be clean and free of general dirt and grease; chipped, faded, peeling,
and cracked paint; rust and corrosion; cracks, dents, and discoloration;
missing, discolored, or damaged artificial foliage or other camouflage;
graffiti, bills, stickers, advertisements, litter and debris; and damaged
structural parts.
(i) Conditions of approval for small wireless facilities. In addition to compliance with
the requirements of Section 22.42.135, approval of small wireless facilities shall
be subject to each of the following conditions of approval:
(1) In the event the deployment of a small wireless facility, as approved
pursuant to this section, requires a Building Permit under the provisions of
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 45
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 154
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
13
this Code, all conditions and restrictions imposed on the Small Wireless
Facility Permit and Encroachment Permit approved pursuant to the
provisions of this section shall be incorporated in, and made a condition of
such Building Permit. All conditions shall be binding as to the Applicant and
all successors in interest to permittee. The permittee shall construct, install,
and operate the small wireless facility in strict compliance with all approved
permits.
(2) The permittee shall submit and maintain current at all times basic c ontact
and site information on a form as may be provided by the Director, in
consultation with the Public Works Director. The permittee shall notify the
Director of any changes to the information submitted within seven (7) days
of any change, including change of the name or corporate legal status of
the owner or operator. This information shall include, but is not limited to,
the following:
a. Identity, including the name, address and 24 -hour local or toll-free
contact phone number of the permittee, the owner, the operator, and the
agent or person responsible for the maintenance of the small wireless
facility.
b. The corporate legal status of the owner of the small wireless facility,
including official identification numbers and FCC certification.
c. Name, address, and telephone number of the property owner if different
than the permittee.
(3) The permittee shall not place any small wireless facility in a manner that will
deny access to, or otherwise interfere with, any public utility, easement, or
right-of-way located on the site. The permittee shall allow the City and utility
providers reasonable access to, and maintenance of, all utilities and existing
public improvements within or adjacent to the site, including, but not limited
to, pavement, trees, public utilities, lighting, and public signage.
(4) At all times, all required notices and signs shall be posted on the site as
required by the FCC and California Public Utilities Commission, and as
approved by the City. The location and dimensions of a sign bearing the
emergency contact name and telephone number shall be posted pursuant
to the approved plans.
(5) At all times, the permittee shall ensure that the small wireless facility
complies with the most current regulatory and operational stand ards,
including, but not limited to, radio-frequency emissions standards, adopted
by the FCC and antenna height standards adopted by the Federal Aviation
Administration.
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 46
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 155
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
14
(6) The permittee shall assume full liability for damage or injury caused to any
property or person by the small wireless facility.
(7) The permittee shall agree to the following indemnity provision, as approved
by the City Attorney, which shall substantially read as follows: The permittee
shall agree to save, indemnify, and keep harmless the City and all its
officers, agents, employees, departments and agencies against all
liabilities, judgments, costs and expenses which may in any manner or form
accrue against the City or against any of its officers, agents, employees,
departments or agencies in consequence of the issuance or granting of a
Small Wireless Facility Permit or in consequence of the use or occupancy
of any sidewalk, street or other public place, or in any other wise by virtue
thereof, and will in all things strictly comply with the conditions of the Small
Wireless Facility Permit and with this Code, all ordinances, rules and
regulations of the City relating to the Small Wireless Facility Permit.
(8) All conditions of approval shall be binding as to the Applicant and all
successors in interest to the permittee.
(j) Additional conditions of approval for small wireless facilities in the public right -of-
way. In addition to the required approvals of Section 22.42.135, approval of small
wireless facilities in the public right-of-way shall be subject to the following
conditions of approval:
(1) The small wireless facility shall be subject to such conditions, changes or
limitations as are from time to time deemed necessary by the Director, in
consultation with the Public Works Director, for the purpose of:
a. Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare;
b. Preventing interference with pedestrian and vehicular traffic; and
c. Preventing damage to the public right-of-way or any property adjacent
to it.
(2) The permittee shall not move, alter, temporarily relocate, change, or
interfere with any existing structure, improvement, or property without the
prior written consent of the owner of that structure, improvement, or
property. No structure, improvement, or property owned by the City shall be
moved to accommodate a small wireless facility unless the Director, in
consultation with the Public Works Director, determines that such
movement will not adversely affect the City or any surrounding businesses
or residents, and the permittee pays all costs and expenses related to the
relocation of the City's structure, improvement, or property. Prior to
commencement of any work pursuant to an Encroachment Permit issued
for any small wireless facility within the public right-of-way, the permittee
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 47
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 156
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
15
shall provide the City with documentation establishing to the City's
satisfaction that the permittee has the legal right to use or interfere with any
other structure, improvement, or property within the public right-of- way to
be affected by the permittee's small wireless facility.
(3) The permittee shall repair, at its sole cost and expense, any damage including,
but not limited to subsidence, cracking, erosion, collapse, weakening, or loss
of lateral support to City streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, trees, parkways,
slopes, street lights, traffic signals, improvements of any kind or nature, or utility
lines and systems, underground utility lines and systems, or sewer systems
and sewer lines that result from any activities performed in connection with the
installation or maintenance of a small wireless facility in the public right -of-way.
The permittee shall restore such areas, structures, and systems to the condition
in which they existed prior to the installation or maintenance that necessitated
the repairs. In the event the permittee fails to complete such repair within 15
calendar days stated on a written notice by the Public Works Director, or such
shorter timeframe as the Public Works Director may provide in the event of
health and safety issues, the Public Works Director shall cause such repair to
be completed at permittee's sole cost and expense.
(4) The permittee shall modify, remove, or relocate its small wireless facility, or
portion thereof, without cost or expense to the City, if and when made
necessary by:
a. Any public improvement project, including, but not limited to, the
construction, maintenance, or operation of any underground or
aboveground public infrastructure including but not limited to sewers,
storm drains, conduits, gas, water, electric or other utility systems, or
pipes owned by the City or any other public agency;
b. Any abandonment of any street, sidewalk, or other public facility; or
c. Any change of grade, alignment or width of any street, sidewa lk, or other
public facility.
(5) Any modification, removal, or relocation of the small wireless facility shall
be completed within one hundred eighty (180) days of written notification by
the Director, in consultation with the Public Works Director, unless
exigencies dictate a different period for removal or relocation. Modification
or relocation of the small wireless facility shall require submittal, review, and
approval of a permit amendment pursuant to this Code. The permittee shall
be entitled, on permittee's election, to either a pro-rata refund of fees paid
for the original permit or to a new permit, without additional fee, at a location
as close to the original location as the standards set forth in this Code allow.
In the event the small wireless facility is not modified, removed, or relocated
within said period of time, the City may cause the same to be done at the
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 48
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 157
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
16
sole cost and expense of permittee. In the event of exigent circumstances,
as determined by the Director, in consultation with the Public Works
Director, the City may modify, remove, or relocate small wireless facilities
without prior notice to the permittee provided that the permittee is notified in
writing within a reasonable period thereafter.
(k) Abandonment or discontinuation of use.
(1) Small wireless facilities that have not provided wireless communication
services for a cumulative period of ninety (90) days in a one (1) year period
shall be considered abandoned and shall be removed promptly from the
premises no later than three (3) months after written notification is sent by
the Director to the operator of the small wireless facility and property owner.
Such removal shall be in accordance with proper health and safety
requirements and all ordinances, rules and regulations of the City. The
permittee shall send to the City a copy of the discontinuation notice required
by the California Public Utilities Commission or FCC at the time the notice
is sent to the regulatory agencies.
(2) Small wireless facilities that are abandoned but not removed within the
required three (3) month period from the date of notice shall be in violation
of this section, and the operators of the small wireless facility and the
owners of the property shall be subject to pena lties for violations under the
enforcement and penalties provisions of this Code. The City may remove
all abandoned small wireless facilities following the three (3) month removal
period at the operators' expense. Facilitie s removed by the City shall be
stored for no less than fifteen (15) days and thereafter disposed of as
permitted by law.
(l) Appeals. A decision of the Director pursuant to this section may be appealed by
the Applicant or permittee to the City Manager pursuant to Chapter 22.74
(Appeals) of this Code, and such appeal shall be reviewed and decided in
conformance with the time periods and procedures established by applicable state
and federal law, and FCC regulations and orders.
SECTION III. Section 22.74.030 (Appeals of Decisions) of Chapter 22.74
(Appeals) of Title 22 (Development Code) of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code is hereby
revised to read as follows (deletions in strikethrough; additions in bold/underline):
Determinations and actions that may be appealed, and the authority to act on an appeal
shall be as follows:
(1) Director and hearing officer appeals. A decision rendered by the director or
hearing officer may be appealed to the commission ; except that a decision
by the director pursuant to Section 22.42.135 related to small wireless
facilities may be appealed to the city manager; and
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 49
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 158
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
17
(2) Commission appeals. A decision rendered by the commission may be
appealed to the council.
SECTION IV. Subsection (a) of Section 22.74.040 (Filing and Processing of
Appeals) of Chapter 22.74 (Appeals) of Title 22 (Development Code) of the Diamond Bar
Municipal Code is hereby revised to read as follows (deletions in strikethrough; additions
in bold/underline):
(a) Timing and form of appeal. Appeals shall be submitted in writing and filed with
the department or city clerk, as applicable, on a city application form, within
ten days after the date the decision is rendered by the director or the adoption
of the resolution by the hearing officer or commission. The a ppeal shall
specifically state the pertinent facts of the case and the basis for the appeal.
Appeals addressed to the commission or city manager shall be filed with the
department, while appeals addressed to the council shall be filed with the city
clerk. Appeals shall be accompanied by the filing fee set by the city's fee
resolution.
SECTION V. Table 4-1 (Review Authority) in Section 22.44.020 (Authority for Land
Use and Zoning Decisions) of Chapter 22.44 (Applications, Processing, and Fees) of Title
22 (Development Code) of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code is hereby amended to add
a new row for “Small Wireless Facility Permit”, to be placed in alphabetical order within
said Table, to read as follows (deletions in strikethrough; additions in bold/underline):
Type of Permit
or Decision
Director Hearing Officer Planning
Commission
City Council
Small
Wireless
Facility Permit
Final*
*A decision rendered by the director pursuant to Section 22.42.135 related to small
wireless facilities may be appealed to the city manager , whose decision shall be
final.
SECTION VI. Public Resources Code § 21065 defines "project" as "an activity
which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." The proposed Ordinance does
not have the potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, as the Ordinance
does not call for any change in the existing environmental conditions within the City. The
proposed Ordinance merely updates existing City regulations to reflect the FCC’s new
laws governing the deployment of small wireless facilities, which are already permitted
uses within the City. Accordingly, the Ordinance is not a "project" subject to CEQA.
(Public Resources Code § 21065; CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a).)
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 50
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 159
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
18
Even if the Ordinance could be construed to be a project subject to CEQA, the
proposed Ordinance is exempt because the proposed Ordinance merely updates existing
City regulations to reflect the FCC’s new laws governing the deployment of small wireless
facilities and does not authorize new programs or activities. The proposed Ordinance calls
for the continued operation of small wireless facilities involving no expansion of the
existing uses. As a result, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the
Class 1 exemption.
Moreover, CEQA’s Class 3 Exemption applies to the construction and location of
limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment
and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one
use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15303.) The proposed Ordinance allows for the deployment of new,
small wireless facilities on pre-existing or new small structures within the City, therefore,
the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 3 exemption.
SECTION VII. Severability. If any section, clause, phrase, word or portion of this
Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted
this Ordinance and each other section, clause, phrase, word or portion thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions,
sentences, clauses, phrases, words or portions thereof be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION VIII. The City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption
of this Ordinance within 15 days after adoption, cause it to be published or posted in
accordance with California law, and it shall be effective 30 days after adoption pursuant
to Government Code Section 36937.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _____ day of _______, 2021.
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR:
__________________________
Nancy A. Lyons, Mayor
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 51
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 160
Ordinance No. 02 (2021)
19
ATTEST:
I, Kristina Santana, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Diamond Bar held on the 3rd day of August, 2021, and was duly adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the ____ day of ______,
2021, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
__________________________
Kristina Santana, City Clerk
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 52
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 161
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 53
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 162
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 54
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 163
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 55
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 164
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 56
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 165
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 57
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 166
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 58
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 167
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 59
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 168
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 60
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 169
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 61
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 170
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 62
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 171
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 63
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 172
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 64
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 173
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 65
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 174
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 66
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 175
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 67
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 176
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 68
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 177
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 69
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 178
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 70
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 179
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 71
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 180
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 72
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 181
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 73
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 182
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 74
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 183
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 75
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 184
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8.3
MEETING DATE: July 13, 2021
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Code Amendment Planning Case
No. PL2021-44
PROJECT LOCATION:
Citywide
APPLICATION REQUEST: To add a new section 22.42.135 and to amend
sections 22.42.130, 22.42.020, 22.74.030, and
22.74.040 of Title 22 of the Diamond Bar
Municipal Code (“Development Code”) to enact
regulations governing the development,
augmentation, and relocation of small wireless
facilities in accordance with state and federal
law.
APPLICANT:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City of Diamond Bar Community Development
Department
Adopt the attached Resolution recommending
the City Council approve Development Code
Amendment Planning Case No. PL2021-44
The following report was prepared by Assistant City Attorney James Eggart.
SUMMARY:
The proposed amendments to the Development Code would enact separate regulations
governing the development, augmentation, and relocation of “small wireless facilities” in
the City consistent with federal law.
BACKGROUND:
On September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) adopted its
Declaratory Ruling, Third Report, and Order (“Order”) in the matter of “Accelerating
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ~ 21810 COPLEY DRIVE ~ DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 ~ TEL. (909) 839-7030 ~ FAX (909) 861-3117
8.3
Packet Pg. 138
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 76
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 185
Development Code Amendment Planning Case No. PL2021-44
Page 2 of 6
Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment.”
The Order establishes a new category of “small wireless facilities” and limits and
preempts the ability of cities to regulate the deployment of small wireless facilities, both
inside and outside of the public right-of-way, and imposes strict processing
requirements that cities must adhere to for small wireless facility applications. These
requirements are in addition to preexisting federal requirements that prevent cities from
adopting regulations that “effectively prohibit” the provision of wireless service. The
Order is intended to facilitate the spread, growth, and accumulation of small wireless
facilities over a short period of time to ensure deployment of new 5G technology that the
FCC claims will enable increased competition in healthcare, Internet of Things
applications and lifesaving car technologies, among other things, and create jobs,
possibly increasing the U.S. economy by as much as $100 billion by speeding up the
deployment of small wireless facilities by only one year.
To fully comply with the FCC’s new regulations and to minimize any potential conflicts
with telecommunication service providers, the proposed Ordinance creates an
administrative permit review process for the deployment of small wireless facilities
located within the City.
ANALYSIS:
Adoption Process
Before the City Council adopts an ordinance to amend the Development Code, the
Planning Commission must first conduct a public hearing to consider the proposed
amendments. The Commission then forwards its recommendations via a resolution
advising the Council whether or not the proposed amendments should be adopted.
Summary of the FCC’s Order
The FCC’s Order establishes a new category of “small wireless facilities,” which are
defined as follows:
• They are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas,
or no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or do not extend
existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or
by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;
• Each antenna is no more than three (3) cubic feet in volume, excluding
associated antenna equipment;
• All equipment associated with the antenna and any pre -existing associated
equipment is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; and
• The facilities do not expose people to radio frequency (RF) radiation in excess of
FCC standards.
8.3
Packet Pg. 139
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 77
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 186
Development Code Amendment Planning Case No. PL2021-44
Page 3 of 6
Under the FCC’s Order, local regulations of small wireless facilities concerning
aesthetics, undergrounding, and spacing must be reasonable, meaning technically
feasible and reasonably related to the harms created by unsightly deployments.
The Order also reduces the “shot clock” period allowable for cities to review, comment
upon, consider, and make a final determination on small wireless facility ap plications to
sixty (60) days for collocation on preexisting structures and ninety (90) days for new
builds.
Finally, the FCC’s Order further limits the extent to which cities may impose fees on
small wireless facility deployments, including fees for processing applications, the use of
the public right-of-way, and the privilege of attaching or using fixtures and structures in
the public right-of-way that are owned or controlled by the City. If the proposed
Ordinance is approved, Staff will recommend the City Council also adopt new fees for
small wireless facility deployments in line with the presumptively reasonable “safe
harbor” fee amounts that are established in the FCC’s Order.
Legal Challenges to FCC’s Order
Lawsuits were filed across the country by numerous local governments challenging
several components of the FCC’s Order and on August 12, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals issued a ruling in the consolidated litigation clarifying the scope of local
government authority to regulate small cell facilities (City of Portland et al v. United
States et al, 969 F.3d 1020).
The Court upheld most of the FCC’s Order, including the FCC’s requirements limiting
fees charged by local governments for the deployment of small wireless facilities and
access to the public rights-of-way and the FCC’s requirements pertaining to the
shortened shot clock timeframes. The Court, however, vacated a requirement in the
Order that aesthetic regulations on small wireless facilities be no more burdensome
than those applied to other technologies.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act specifies that state and local governments “shall not
unreasonably discriminate among functionally equivalent services.” (47 U.S.C.
332(c)(7)(B)(i)(l).) By preempting only local regulations that “unreasonably discriminate,”
Congress sought to preserve local flexibility to treat facilities that create different
aesthetic concerns differently, even if those facilities provide functionally equivalent
services. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the FCC’s Order exceeded the
“unreasonable discrimination” standard of the 1996 Telecommunications Act by
specifying that local aesthetic requirements placed on small cell facilities be “no more
burdensome” than other telecommunication technologies, and vacated this provision of
the Order. The result is that cities may impose aesthetic requirements specific to small
wireless facility deployments, as long as the requirements are technically feasible,
reasonably directed at remedying aesthetic harms, and do not unreasonably
discriminate between small wireless facilities and other wireless technologies.
8.3
Packet Pg. 140
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 78
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 187
Development Code Amendment Planning Case No. PL2021-44
Page 4 of 6
The coalition of local governments and local government associations that initiated the
litigation — including the League of California Cities — joined a petition seeking review
of the Ninth Circuit’s decision by the United States Supreme Court. However, on
June 28, 2021, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for review.
Current Enforcement
The City currently regulates all wireless telecommunication facilities pursuant to
Section 22.42.130 (Radio and television antennas and wireless telecommunications
antenna facilities) of the Development Code. The purpose of Section 22.42.130 is to
establish development standards and land use controls for the installation and
maintenance of radio and television antennas and wireless telecommunications antenna
facilities in the City; however, the Development Code has not been updated to reflect
the new legal requirements for the deployment of small wireless facilities, as set forth by
the FCC’s Order.
Proposed Development Code Amendments
Small wireless facilities are primarily installed within the public right-of-way and create
local concerns for traffic and pedestrian safety, aesthetics, protection and preservation
of public property, and the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. The
proposed Development Code amendments acknowledge the City’s need to provide for
the orderly, managed, and efficient deployment of small wireless facilities whi le
complying with the FCC’s Order.
The proposed Ordinance would exempt “small wireless facilities” from the requirements
set forth in Section 22.42.130 and enact a new Section 22.42.135 specifically governing
“small wireless facilities” as defined in the FCC’s Order. The new Section 22.42.135
would create an administrative permit review process for the deployment of small
wireless facilities located within the City. Specifically, a Small Wireless Facility Permit
will be required to locate or modify any small wireless facility on any property within the
City. The Community Development Director, in consultation with the Public Works
Director, will have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny any
application for a Small Wireless Facility Permit. Small wireless facilities that seek
deployment within the public rights-of-way would also be required to obtain an
Encroachment Permit pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 12.04 (Streets and
Sidewalks) of the Municipal Code.
The proposed Ordinance establishes objective criteria with respect to small wireless
facilities by creating a permitting process, a list of submittal requirements, design and
development standards, installation and operation requirements, standard conditions of
approval, abandonment or discontinuation of use requirements, and an appeals
process. Lastly, minor amendments are also proposed to Section 22.74.030 (Appeals
of Decisions) and Section 22.74.040 (Filing and Processing of Appeals) to provide that
appeals of the Community Development Director’s decision on a small wireless facility
permit determination would be made to the City Manager, in order to ensure that the
8.3
Packet Pg. 141
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 79
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 188
Development Code Amendment Planning Case No. PL2021-44
Page 5 of 6
City is able to comply with the short “shot clock” timeframes set forth in the FCC’s
Order.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Public Resources Code § 21065 defines "project" as "an activity which may cause either
a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment." The proposed Ordinance does not hav e the
potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, as the Ordinance does not call
for any change in the existing environmental conditions within the City . The proposed
Ordinance merely updates existing City regulations to reflect the FCC’s new laws
governing the deployment of small wireless facilities, which are already permitted uses
within the City. Accordingly, the Ordinance is not a "project" subject to CEQA. (Public
Resources Code § 21065; CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a).)
Even if the Ordinance could be construed to be a project subject to CEQA, the
proposed Ordinance is exempt because the proposed Ordinance merely updates
existing City regulations to reflect the FCC’s new laws governing the deployment of
small wireless facilities and does not authorize new programs or activities. The
proposed Ordinance calls for the continued operation of small wireless facilities
involving no expansion of the existing uses. As a result, the proposed Ordinance is
exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 1 exemption.
Moreover, CEQA’s Class 3 Exemption applies to the construction and location of limited
numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and
facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one
use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15303.) The proposed Ordinance allows for the deployment of
new, small wireless facilities on pre-existing or new small structures within the City,
therefore, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 3
exemption.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Notice for this hearing was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspaper on
July 2, 2021, in a 1/8 page display. Pursuant to Planning and Zoning Law Government
Code Section 65091(a)(4), if the number of property owners to whom a public hearing
notice would be mailed is greater than 1,000, a local agency may provide notice by
placing a display advertisement of at least 1/8 page in one newspaper of general
circulation. A copy of the public notice was also posted at the City’s designated
community posting sites.
PREPARED BY:
8.3
Packet Pg. 142
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 80
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 189
Development Code Amendment Planning Case No. PL2021-44
Page 6 of 6
REVIEWED BY:
Attachments:
A. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021-XX (Recommending Approval
of Development Code Amendment)
8.3
Packet Pg. 143
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 81
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 190
PLANNING COMMISSIONPAGE 6JULY 13, 2021
cleaned up in a timely manner as this would not reflect positively on the business.
Dr. Kumar also explained that hospitals and sick animals generally do not
produce a lot of noise.
Chair/Rawlings closed the public hearing.
C/Wolfe moved, C/Barlas seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No.
PL2020-120, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of
approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
Barias, Mok, Wolfe, Chair/Rawlings
None
VC/Garg
COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONERS
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
Development Code Amendment PL2021-44 - Under the authority of Diamond
Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.70, the City of Diamond Bar proposes to
amend the following sections of Title 22 of the DBMC (“Development Code") to
enact regulations governing the deployment, augmentation and relocation of
small wireless facilities in the City, in accordance with State and Federal law by
adding a new Section 22.42.135 and amending Sections 22.42.130, 22.44.020,
22.74.030 and 22.74.040.
8.3
CITYWIDEPROJECT ADDRESS:
City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department
C/Wolfe commented that the staff report had detailed information and requested
to forgo staff's presentation if there are no public comments.
APPLICANT:
Chair/Rawiings opened the public hearing.
Chair/Rawlings closed the public hearing.
C/Wolfe moved, C/Barias seconded, to adopt a Resolution recommending City
Council approval of Development Code Amendment (Planning Case
No. PL2021-44). Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
Barias, Mok, Wolfe, Chair/Rawlings
None
VC/Garg
COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONERS
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 82
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 191
5.1.e
Packet Pg. 83
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 192
Agenda #: 5.1
Meeting Date: August 17, 2021
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager
TITLE: CA LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES RESOLUTIONS AT THE 2021
ANNUAL CONFERENCE.
STRATEGIC
GOAL:
Open, Engaged & Responsive Government
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to the City’s Delegates on the proposed Resolutions to be considered
at the League of CA Cities General Assembly Meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Unknown but potentially significant. It is roughly estimated that between 30%-35%, or
$1.45 - $1.7 million, of annual sales tax generated could potentially shift to destinations
outside Diamond Bar.
BACKGROUND:
The League of California Cities (League) will be meeting in Sacramento for their Annual
Conference from September 22 - 24, 2021. Council Member Andrew Chou is the City’s
Delegate and Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Low is the Alternate Delegate. Council Member
Chou will be attending the conference. As the City’s Delegate, Council Member Chou
will have the opportunity to vote on matters presented at the General Assem bly Meeting
during the conference.
This year, there are two (2) Resolutions being presented to the General Assembly for
vote:
1. Online Sales Tax Equity - A Resolution calling for the State Legislature to pass
legislation that provides for a fair and equitable distribution of the Bradly Burns 1%
Local Sales Tax from In-State online purchases based on where the products are
shipped to; and
5.1
Packet Pg. 193
2. Securing Railroad Property Maintenance - A Resolution calling for the Governor
and State Legislature to provide necessary funding to the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) to fulfill its obligations to inspect, remove illegal dumping,
graffiti and homeless encampments to protect the public health and safety along the
railroad right-of-way.
A copy of the Resolution packet is included as Attachment 1. It is recommended that
the Council discuss and provide direction on the Resolutions so that Council Member
Chou can appropriately represent the City’s position at the General Assembly Meeting.
DISCUSSION:
1. Online Sales Tax Equity – Oppose Unless Amended
This Resolution in sponsored by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and supported by
a number San Gabriel Valley cities. Current policies by the California Department
of Tax and Fees (CDTFA) require that the 1% Bradley Burns local tax revenue (sales
tax) from in-state online retailers be allocated to the jurisdiction from which the
package was shipped, as opposed to going into a countywide pool, as is the practice
with out-of-state online retailers. Earlier this year, one of the largest online
retailers shifted its ownership structure and now operates as an in-state online
retailer, as well as an out-of-state online retailer. Whereas all sales tax revenue
generated by this retailer's sales previously went into a countywide pool and was
distributed amongst the jurisdictions in the pool, now the revenue from in-state sales
goes entirely to the jurisdiction where the fulfillment center is located and the
packages shipped from. Cities that do not have a fulfillment center now receive no
revenue from this retailer's online in-state transactions even though their packages
are delivered to locations within those cities' borders and paid for by residents in
those locations. Cities that abut jurisdictions with fulfillment centers experience
fulfillment centers' impacts just as much, such as increased truck traffic, air
pollution and declining road conditions.
This all-or-nothing practice has created clear winners and losers amongst cities as
the online sales tax revenue from large online retailers, that was once spread
amongst all cities in countywide pools, is now concentrated in select cities fortunate
enough to host a fulfillment center. This benefits only those few hosting
jurisdictions and is particularly unfair to cities who have no chance of ever hosting
a fulfillment center, such as those that are built out or are not situated along
major travel corridors. No/low property tax cities that rely heavily on sales tax
revenue are especially impacted as well as cities struggling to meet their RHNA
allocations that are being pressured by Sacramento to rezone precious commercial
parcels to residential.
While a destination-based approach may seem appropriate, there is currently no
information available to fully analyze the net benefit or impact to individual cities.
There is also no information that would suggest how much cities, such as Diamond
Bar, may gain or lose, based on the on -line shopping patterns of our residents.
Diamond Bar has a number of smaller point -of-sale businesses, primarily in the
business services and industry sectors, that ship goods to locations outside of the
5.1
Packet Pg. 194
City. Under the proposed destination-based approach, much of the sales tax
generated would go to other communities.
The proposed Resolution provides a good starting point for further discussions and
analysis, but it may be premature in asking for a formal action. There may also be
an opportunity to amend the Resolution to address the expressed concerns with the
larger retail fulfillment centers, but provide clarification to keep the existing point -of-
sale structure for smaller businesses or certain business sectors. Based on this, it is
recommended that the City Council take a position on this Resolution to oppose
unless amended.
2. Securing Railroad Property Maintenance - Support
This Resolution is sponsored by the City of South Gate, and supported by a number
of San Gabriel Valley cities. The right-of-way areas along the rail lines are becoming
increasingly used for illegal dumping, graffiti and homeless encampments. Rail
operators have admitted that they have insufficient funds set aside to clean up or
sufficiently police these right-of-way areas, despite reporting a net income of over
$13 billion in 2020. The CPUC budget does not provide the resources to oversee
whether rail operators are properly managing the right-of-way itself.
These rail lines are open and inviting to individuals to conduct illegal dumping, graffiti
buildings and structures along with inviting dozens of homeless encampments.
Similar to private property, cities cannot just go upon the property to remove bulky
items, trash, clean graffiti or remove encampments. Coordination and cooperation
with the rail operator is required, which can take weeks to accomplish, as smaller
cities do not have the staff nor the financial resources to maintain and clean
someone else’s property. In the meantime , residents or businesses that are within a
few hundred feet of the lines must endure the blight and smell. Trash is often blow n
from the right-of-way into residential homes or into the streets. Encampments can
be seen from the front doors of homes and businesses.
The State of California has record revenues to provide CPUC with funding not only
for safety oversight but ensuring right-of-way maintenance by operators is being
managed properly. Rail Operators should be required to set aside sufficient annual
funds to provide a regular cleanup of their right-of-way through the cities of
California. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council take a position to
support this Resolution.
PREPARED BY:
5.1
Packet Pg. 195
REVIEWED BY:
Attachments:
1. 5.1.a 2021-Resolutions-Packet
5.1
Packet Pg. 196
Annual Conference
Resolutions Packet
2021 Annual Conference Resolutions
September 22 - 24, 2021
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 197
INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES
RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET: The League of California Cities (Cal
Cities) bylaws provide that resolutions shall be referred by the president to an
appropriate policy committee for review and recommendation. Resolutions with
committee recommendations shall then be considered by the General
Resolutions Committee at the Annual Conference.
This year, two resolutions have been introduced for consideration at the Annual
Conference and referred to Cal Cities policy committees.
POLICY COMMITTEES: Three policy committees will meet virtually one week prior to
the Annual Conference to consider and take action on the resolutions. The sponsors
of the resolutions have been notified of the time and location of the meetings.
GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet at 1:00 p.m. on
Thursday, September 23, to consider the reports of the policy committees regarding
the resolutions. This committee includes one representative from each of Cal Cities
regional divisions, functional departments, and standing policy committees, as well
as other individuals appointed by the Cal Cities president. Please check in at the
registration desk for room location.
CLOSING LUNCHEON AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This meeting will be held at 12:30
p.m. on Friday, September 24, at the SAFE Credit Union Convention Center.
PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS: For those issues that develop after the normal 60-day
deadline, a petition resolution may be introduced at the Annual Conference
with a petition signed by designated voting delegates of 10 percent of all
member cities (48 valid signatures required) and presented to the Voting
Delegates Desk at least 24 hours prior to the time set for convening the Closing
Luncheon & General Assembly. This year, that deadline is 12:30 p.m., Thursday,
September 23. Resolutions can be viewed on Cal Cities Web site:
www.cacities.org/resolutions.
Any questions concerning the resolutions procedures may be directed to Meg
Desmond mdesmond@calcities.org.
1
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 198
GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within Cal Cities. The principal
means for deciding policy on the important issues facing cities is through Cal Cities
seven standing policy committees and the board of directors. The process allows
for timely consideration of issues in a changing environment and assures city
officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy decisions.
Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop Cal Cities
policy. Resolutions should adhere to the following criteria.
Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions
1.Only issues that have a direct bearing on municipal affairs should be
considered or adopted at the Annual Conference.
2.The issue is not of a purely local or regional concern.
3.The recommended policy should not simply restate existing Cal Cities policy.
4.The resolution should be directed at achieving one of the following
objectives:
(a)Focus public or media attention on an issue of major importance to
cities.
(b)Establish a new direction for Cal Cities policy by establishing general
principals around which more detailed policies may be developed by
policy committees and the board of directors.
(c)Consider important issues not adequately addressed by the policy
committees and board of directors.
2
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 199
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been
assigned.
Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action
1 2 3
1 - Policy Committee Recommendation
to General Resolutions Committee
2 - General Resolutions Committee
3 - General Assembly
HOUSING, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
2 Securing Railroad Property Maintenance
REVENUE & TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
1 Online Sales Tax Equity
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION & PUBLIC WORKS POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
2 Securing Railroad Property Maintenance
3
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 200
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued)
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been
assigned.
KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN
1. Policy Committee
A Approve
2. General Resolutions Committee
D Disapprove
3. General Assembly
N No Action
R Refer to appropriate policy
committee for study
ACTION FOOTNOTES
a Amend+
* Subject matter covered in another
resolution
Aa Approve as amended+
** Existing League policy Aaa Approve with additional
amendment(s)+
*** Local authority presently exists
Ra Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for study+
Raa Additional amendments and refer+
Da Amend (for clarity or brevity) and
Disapprove+
Na Amend (for clarity or brevity) and
take No Action+
W Withdrawn by Sponsor
Procedural Note:
The League of California Cities resolution process at the Annual Conference is guided
by the Cal Cities Bylaws.
4
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 201
1.RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (“CAL CITIES”) CALLING ON
THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT PROVIDES FOR A FAIR
AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BRADLEY BURNS 1% LOCAL SALES TAX
FROM IN-STATE ONLINE PURCHASES, BASED ON DATA WHERE PRODUCTS ARE
SHIPPED TO, AND THAT RIGHTFULLY TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE IMPACTS
THAT FULFILLMENT CENTERS HAVE ON HOST CITIES BUT ALSO PROVIDES A FAIR
SHARE TO CALIFORNIA CITIES THAT DO NOT AND/OR CANNOT HAVE A
FULFILLMENT CENTER WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION
Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials:
Cities: Town of Apple Valley; City of El Cerrito; City of La Canada Flintridge; City of La Verne;
City of Lakewood; City of Moorpark; City of Placentia; City of Sacramento
Referred to: Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee
WHEREAS, the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wayfair v. South Dakota clarified
that states could charge and collect tax on purchases even if the seller does not have a physical
presence in the state; and
WHEREAS, California cities and counties collect 1% in Bradley Burns sales and use tax
from the purchase of tangible personal property and rely on this revenue to provide critical
public services such as police and fire protection; and
WHEREAS, in terms of “siting” the place of sale and determining which jurisdiction
receives the 1% Bradley Burns local taxes for online sales, the California Department of Tax
and Fee Administration (CDTFA) determines “out-of-state” online retailers as those with no
presence in California that ship property from outside the state and are therefore subject to use
tax, not sales tax, which is collected in a countywide pool of the jurisdiction where the property
is shipped from; and
WHEREAS, for online retailers that have a presence in California and have a stock of
goods in the state from which it fulfills orders, CDTFA considers the place of sale (“situs”) as the
location from which the goods were shipped such as a fulfillment center; and
WHEREAS, in early 2021, one of the state’s largest online retailers shifted its ownership
structure so that it is now considered both an in-state and out-of-state retailer, resulting in the
sales tax this retailer generates from in-state sales now being entirely allocated to the specific
city where the warehouse fulfillment center is located as opposed to going into a countywide
pool that is shared with all jurisdictions in that County, as was done previously; and
WHEREAS, this all-or-nothing change for the allocation of in-state sales tax has created
winners and losers amongst cities as the online sales tax revenue from the retailer that was
once spread amongst all cities in countywide pools is now concentrated in select cities that host
a fulfillment center; and
WHEREAS, this has created a tremendous inequity amongst cities, in particular for cities
that are built out, do not have space for siting a 1 million square foot fulfillment center, are not
located along a major travel corridor, or otherwise not ideally suited to host a fulfillment center;
and
5
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 202
WHEREAS, this inequity affects cities statewide, but in particular those with specific
circumstances such as no/low property tax cities that are extremely reliant on sales tax revenue
as well as cities struggling to meet their RHNA obligations that are being compelled by the State
to rezone precious commercial parcels to residential; and
WHEREAS, the inequity produced by allocating in-state online sales tax revenue
exclusively to cities with fulfillment centers is exasperated even more by, in addition to already
reducing the amount of revenue going into the countywide pools, the cities with fulfillment
centers are also receiving a larger share of the dwindling countywide pool as it is allocated
based on cities’ proportional share of sales tax collected; and
WHEREAS, while it is important to acknowledge that those cities that have fulfillment
centers experience impacts from these activities and deserve equitable supplementary
compensation, it should also be recognized that the neighboring cities whose residents are
ordering product from that center now receive no revenue from the center’s sales activity
despite also experiencing the impacts created by the center, such as increased traffic and air
pollution; and
WHEREAS, the COVID-19 pandemic greatly accelerated the public’s shift towards
online purchases, a trend that is unlikely to be reversed to pre-pandemic levels; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Cal Cities calls on the State Legislature to
pass legislation that provides for a fair and equitable distribution of the Bradley Burns 1% local
sales tax from in-state online purchases, based on data where products are shipped to, and that
rightfully takes into consideration the impacts that fulfillment centers have on host cities but also
provides a fair share to California cities that do not and/or cannot have a fulfillment center within
their jurisdiction.
6
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 203
Background Information to Resolution
Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga
Background:
Sales tax is a major revenue source for most California cities. Commonly known as the local
1% Bradley-Burns tax, since the 1950’s, cities have traditionally received 1 cent on every dollar
of a sale made at the store, restaurant, car dealer, or other location within a jurisdiction’s
boundaries.
Over the years, however, this simple tax structure has evolved into a much more complex set of
laws and allocation rules. Many of these rules relate to whether or not a given transaction is
subject to sales tax, or to use tax – both have the same 1% value, but each applies in separate
circumstances. The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) is
responsible for administering this system and issuing rules regarding how it is applied in our
state.
The following chart created by HdL Companies, the leading provider of California sales tax
consulting, illustrates the complex structure of how sales and use tax allocation is done in
California, depending on where the transaction starts, where the goods are located, and how
the customer receives the goods:
With the exponential growth of online sales and the corresponding lack of growth, and even
decline, of shopping at brick and mortar locations, cities are seeing much of their sales tax
7
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 204
growth coming from the countywide sales tax pools, since much of the sales tax is now funneled
to the pools.
Recently, one of the world’s largest online retailers changed the legal ownership of its fulfillment
centers. Instead of having its fulfillment centers owned and operated by a third-party vendor,
they are now directly owned by the company. This subtle change has major impacts to how the
1% local tax is allocated. Following the chart above, previously much of the sales tax would
have followed the green boxes on the chart and been allocated to the countywide pool based on
point of delivery. Now, much of the tax is following the blue path through the chart and is
allocated to the jurisdiction in which the fulfillment center is located. (It should be noted that
some of the tax is still flowing to the pools, in those situations where the fulfillment center is
shipping goods for another seller that is out of state.)
This change has created a situation where most cities in California – more than 90%, in fact –
are experiencing a sales tax revenue loss that began in the fourth quarter of calendar year
2021. Many cities may not be aware of this impact, as the fluctuations in sales tax following the
pandemic shutdowns have masked the issue. But this change will have long-term impacts on
revenues for all California cities as all these revenues benefiting all cities have shifted to just a
handful of cities and counties that are home to this retailer’s fulfillment centers.
This has brought to light again the need to address the issues in how sales and use taxes are
distributed in the 21st century. Many, if not most cities will never have the opportunity have a
warehouse fulfillment center due to lack of space or not being situated along a major travel
corridor. These policies especially favor retailers who may leverage current policy in order to
negotiate favorable sales tax sharing agreements, providing more money back to the retailer at
the expense of funding critical public services.
With that stated, it is important to note the many impacts to the jurisdictions home to the
fulfillment centers. These centers do support the ecommerce most of us as individuals have
come to rely on, including heavy wear and tear on streets – one truck is equal to about 8,000
cars when it comes to impact on pavement – and increased air pollution due to the truck traffic
and idling diesel engines dropping off large loads. However, it is equally important that State
policies acknowledge that entities without fulfillment centers also experience impacts from
ecommerce and increased deliveries. Cities whose residents are ordering products that are
delivered to their doorstep also experience impacts from traffic, air quality and compromised
safety, as well as the negative impact on brick-and-mortar businesses struggling to compete
with the sharp increase in online shopping. These cities are rightfully entitled to compensation in
an equitable share of sales and use tax. We do not believe that online sales tax distribution
between fulfillment center cities and other cities should be an all or nothing endeavor, and not
necessarily a fifty-fifty split, either. But we need to find an equitable split that balances the
impacts to each jurisdiction involved in the distribution of products purchased online.
Over the years, Cal Cities has had numerous discussions about the issues surrounding sales
tax in the modern era, and how state law and policy should be revisited to address these issues.
It is a heavy lift, as all of our cities are impacted a bit differently, making consensus difficult. We
believe that by once again starting the conversation and moving toward the development of
laws and policies that can result in seeing all cities benefit from the growth taxes generated
through online sales, our state will be stronger.
It is for these reasons, that we should all aspire to develop an equitable sales tax distribution for
online sales.
8
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 205
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
Resolution No. 1
9
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 206
www.AppleValley.org
14955 Dale Evans Parkway • Apple Valley, California 92307 • 760.240.7000
July 19, 2021
Cheryl Viegas Walker, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear President Walker:
The Town of Apple Valley strongly supports the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s effort to submit a resolution
for consideration by the General Assembly at Cal Cities 2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento.
Current policies by the California Department of Tax and Fees (CDTFA) require that the one percent Bradley
Burns local tax revenue from in-state online retailers be allocated to the jurisdiction from which the package
was shipped from, as opposed to going into a countywide pool as is the practice with out-of-state online
retailers. Earlier this year, one of the largest online retailers shifted its ownership structure and now operates
as an in-state online retailer as well as out-of-state online retailer. Whereas, all sales tax revenue generated by
this retailer’s sales previously went into a countywide pool and was distributed amongst the jurisdictions in
the pool. Now the revenue from in-state sales goes entirely to the city where the fulfillment center is located,
and the packages shipped from. Cities that do not have a fulfillment center now receive no revenue from this
retailer’s online in-state sales transactions, even when the packages are delivered to locations within the cities’
borders and paid for by residents in those locations. Cities that border jurisdictions with fulfillment centers
also experience its impacts such as increased truck traffic, air pollution and declining road conditions.
This all-or-nothing practice has created clear winners and losers amongst cities as the online sales tax revenue
from large online retailers that was once spread amongst all cities in countywide pools is now concentrated in
select cities fortunate enough to host a fulfillment center. This has created a growing inequity amongst
California cities, which only benefits some and is particularly unfair to cities who have no chance of ever
obtaining a fulfillment center, such as those that are built out or are not situated along major travel corridors.
No/low property tax cities that rely on sales tax revenue are especially impacted as well as cities struggling to
meet their RHNA allocations that are being pressured by Sacramento to rezone precious commercial parcels
to residential.
The current online sales tax distribution policies are inherently unfair and exasperate the divide between the
winners and losers. Ultimately, the real winners may be the retailers, who leverage these policies to negotiate
favorable sales tax sharing agreements from a small group of select cities understandably wanting to host
fulfillment centers. The current online sales tax distribution policies unfairly divide local agencies, exacerbate
already difficult municipal finances, and in the end result in a net loss of local government sales tax proceeds
that simply serve to make private sector businesses even more profitable at the expense of everyone’s residents.
10
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 207
We can do better than this. And we should all aspire to develop an equitable sales tax distribution of online
sales that addresses the concerns noted above.
For these reasons, the Town of Apple Valley concurs that the resolution should go before the General
Assembly. If you have any questions regarding the Town’s position in this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact the Town Manager at 760-240-7000 x 7051.
Sincerely,
Curt Emick
Mayor
11
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 208
CITY HALL 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94530
Telephone (510) 215-4305 Fax (510) 215-4319 http://www.el-cerrito.org
July 21, 2021
Cheryl Viegas Walker, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Letter of Support for the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Resolution for Fair
and Equitable Distribution of the Bradley Burns 1% Local Sales Tax
Dear President Walker:
The City of El Cerrito supports the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s effort to submit a
resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the Cal Cities 2021 Annual
Conference in Sacramento.
Current policies by the California Department of Tax and Fees (CDTFA) require that the
1 percent Bradley Burns local tax revenue from in-state online retailers be allocated to
the jurisdiction from which the package was shipped from, as opposed to going into a
countywide pool as is the practice with out-of-state online retailers. Earlier this year, one
of the largest online retailers shifted its ownership structure and now operates as an in-
state online retailer as well as out-of-state online retailer. Previously, all sales tax revenue
generated by this retailer’s sales went into a countywide pool and was distributed
amongst the jurisdictions in the pool; now the revenue from in-state sales goes entirely to
the city where the fulfillment center is located and the packages are shipped from. Cities
that do not have a fulfillment center now receive no revenue from this retailer’s online in-
state sales transactions, even when the packages are delivered to locations within the
cities’ borders and paid for by residents in those locations. Cities that border jurisdictions
with fulfillment centers also experience its impacts such as increased truck traffic, air
pollution, and declining road conditions.
This all-or-nothing practice has created clear winners and losers amongst cities as the
online sales tax revenue from large online retailers that was once spread amongst all
cities in countywide pools is now concentrated in select cities fortunate enough to host a
fulfillment center. This has created a growing inequity amongst California cities, which
only benefits some and is particularly unfair to cities such as El Cerrito who have no
chance of ever obtaining a fulfillment center as we are a built out, four square mile, small
city. Additionally, cities not situated along major travel corridors and no/low property tax
cities that rely on sales tax revenue are especially impacted, as well as cities struggling
to build much needed affordable housing that may require rezoning commercial parcels
in order to meet their RHNA allocations.
12
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 209
City of El Cerrito
Re: Letter of Support – RC League Resolution
Page 2 of 2
The current online sales tax distribution policies are inherently unfair and exasperate the
divide between the winners and losers. Ultimately, the real winners may be the retailers,
who leverage these policies to negotiate favorable sales tax sharing agreements from a
small group of select cities understandably wanting to host fulfillment centers. The current
online sales tax distribution policies serve to divide local agencies, exacerbate already
difficult municipal finances, and in the end results in a net loss of local government sales
tax proceeds that simply serve to make private sector businesses even more profitable
at the expense of everyone’s residents. We can do better, and we should all aspire to
develop an equitable sales tax distribution of online sales that addresses the concerns
noted above.
For these reasons, the City of El Cerrito concurs that the resolution should go before the
General Assembly.
Sincerely,
Paul Fadelli, Mayor
City of El Cerrito
cc: El Cerrito City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
13
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 210
145.1.aPacket Pg. 211
155.1.aPacket Pg. 212
CITY HALL
3660 "D" Street. La Verne, California 91750-3599
www.cityof laverne.org
SST€RCIT ES
July 19,2021
Cheryl Viegas Walker, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear President Walker:
The City of La Verne strongly supports the City of Rancho Cucamonga's effort to submit
a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League's 2021 Annual
Conference in Sacramento.
Current policies by the California Department of Tax and Fees (CDTFA) require that the
1 percent Bradley Burns local tax revenue from in-state online retailers be allocated to
the jurisdiction from which the package was shipped from, as opposed to going into a
countywide pool as is the practice with oulof-state online retailers. Earlier this year, one
of the largest online retailers shifted its ownership structure and now operates as an in-
state online retailer as well as outof-state online retailer. Whereas all sales tax revenue
generated by this retaileis sales previously went into a countywide pool and was
distributed amongst the jurisdictions in the pool, now the revenue from in-state sales
goes entirely to the city where the fulfillment center is located, and the packages shipped
from. Cities that do not have a fulfillment center now receive no revenue from this
retailer's online in-state sales transactions, even when the packages are delivered to
locations within the cities'borders and paid for by residents in those locations. cities
that border jurisdictions with fulfillment centers also experience its impacts such as
increased truck traffic, air pollution, and declining road conditions.
This all-or-nothing practice has created clear winners and losers amongst cities as the
online sales tax revenue from large online retailers that was once spread amongst all
cities in countywide pools is now concentrated in select cities fortunate enough to host a
fulfillment center. This has created a growing inequity amongst california cities, which
only benefits some and is particularly unfair to cities which have no chance of ever
obtaining a futfillment center, Such as those that are built out or are not situated along
major travel corridors. No/low property tax cities that rely on sales tax revenue are
General Administration 909/596-8726 . Water Customer Service 909/596-8744 . Community Services 90S/596'8700
Public Works 909/596-8741 . Finance 909/596-8716 . Community Development 909/596'8706 . Building 909/596-8713
P0lice Depanment 909/596-1913 r Fire Department 909/596-5991 . Gene.al Fax 909/596-8737
Crrv or LaVBRNE
16
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 213
July 19,2021
Re: Online Sales Tax Equity Support
Page 2
especially impacted as well as cities struggling to meet their RHNA allocations that are
being pressured by Sacramento to rezone precious commercial parcels to residential.
The cunent online sales tax distribution policies are inherently unfair and exacerbate the
divide between the winners and losers. Ultimately, the real winners may be the retailers,
who leverage these policies to negotiate favorable sales tax sharing agreements from a
small group of select cities understandably wanting to host fulfillment centers. The
current online sales tax distribution policies unfairiy divide local agencies, exacerbate
already difficult municipal finances, and in the end, result in a net loss of local
government sales tax proceeds that simply serve to make private sector businesses
even more profitable at the expense of everyone's residents. We can do better than
this. And we should all aspire to develop an equitabte sales tax distribution of online
sales that addresses the concerns noted above.
For these reasons, the city of La Verne concurs that the resolution should go before the
General Assembly.
Sincerely,
Bob Russi
City Manager
City of La Verne
17
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 214
18
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 215
CITY OF MOORPARK
JANICE S. PARVIN
Mayor
DR. ANTONIO CASTRO
Councilmember
CHRIS ENEGREN
Councilmember
DANIEL GROFF
Councilmember
DAVID POLLOCK
Councilmember
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021
Main City Phone Number (805) 517-6200 | Fax (805) 532-2205 | moorpark@moorparkca.gov
July 14, 2021 TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY
Cheryl Viegas-Walker, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear President Walker:
The City of Moorpark strongly supports the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s effort to submit a
resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2021 Annual
Conference in Sacramento.
Current policies of the California Department of Tax and Fees (CDTFA) require that the one
percent Bradley Burns local tax revenue from in-state online retailers be allocated to the
jurisdiction from which the package was shipped, as opposed to going into a countywide pool
as is the practice with out-of-state online retailers. Earlier this year, one of the largest online
retailers shifted its ownership structure and now operates both as an in-state online retailer
and as an out-of-state online retailer. Whereas all sales tax revenues generated by this
retailer’s sales previously went into countywide pools and were distributed amongst the
jurisdictions in the pool, sales tax revenues from in-state sales now go entirely to the city
where the fulfillment center is located and the package is shipped from. Cities that do not
have a fulfillment center now receive no sales tax revenue from this retailer’s online in-state
sales transactions, even when the packages are delivered to locations within the cities’
borders and paid for by residents in those locations. Cities that border jurisdictions with
fulfillment centers also experience its impacts such as increased truck traffic, air pollution,
and deteriorating road conditions.
This all-or-nothing practice has created clear winners and losers amongst cities as the online
sales tax revenues from large online retailers that were once spread amongst all cities in
countywide pools are now concentrated in select cities fortunate enough to host a fulfillment
center. This has created a growing inequity amongst California cities, which only benefits
some and is particularly unfair to cities who have no chance of ever obtaining a fulfillment
center, such as those that are built out or are not situated along major travel corridors.
No/low property tax cities that rely on sales tax revenue are especially impacted, as well as
19
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 216
Letter of Support
Page 2
cities struggling to meet their RHNA allocations that are being pressured by Sacramento to
rezone limited commercial properties for residential land uses.
The current online sales tax distribution policies are inherently unfair and exasperate the
divide between the winners and losers. Ultimately, the real winners may be the retailers, who
leverage these policies to negotiate favorable sales tax sharing agreements from a small
group of select cities understandably wanting to host fulfillment centers. The current online
sales tax distribution policies unfairly divide local agencies, exacerbate already difficult
municipal finances, and ultimately result in a net loss of local government sales tax proceeds
that simply serve to make private sector businesses more profitable at the expense of
everyone’s residents. We can do better than this, and we should all aspire to develop an
equitable sales tax distribution of online sales that addresses the concerns noted above.
For these reasons, the City of Moorpark concurs that the resolution should go before the
General Assembly at the 2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento.
Sincerely,
Janice S. Parvin
Mayor
cc: City Council
City Manager
20
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 217
*****
The People are the City
Mayor
CRAIG S. GREEN
Mayor Pro Tem
CHAD P. WANKE
Councilmembers:
RHONDA SHADER
WARD L. SMITH
JEREMY B. YAMAGUCHI
City Clerk:
ROBERT S. MCKINNELL
City Treasurer
KEVIN A. LARSON
City Administrator
DAMIEN R, ARRULA
401 East Chapman Avenue - Placentia, California 92870
July 14,2021
Cheryl Viegas Walker, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear President Walker:
The City of Placentia strongly supports the City of Rancho Cucamonga's effort to submit
a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League's 2021 Annual
Conference in Sacramento.
Current policies by the California Department of Tax and Fees (CDTFA) require that the
1 percent (1%) Bradley Burns local tax revenue from in-state online retailers be allocated
to the jurisdiction from which the package was shipped from, as opposed to going into a
countywide pool as is the practice with out-of-state online retailers. Earlier this year, one
of the largest online retailers shifted its ownership structure and now operates as an in-
state online retailer as well as out-of-state online retailer. Whereas, all sales tax revenue
generated by this retailer's sales previously went into a countywide pool and was
distributed amongst the jurisdictions in the pool, now the revenue from in-state sales goes
entirely to the city where the fulfillment center is located, and the packages shipped from.
Cities that do not have a fulfillment center now receive no revenue from this retailer's
online in-state sales transactions, even when the packages are delivered to locations
within the cities' borders and paid for by residents in those locations. Cities that border
jurisdictions with fulfillment centers also experience its impacts such as increased truck
traffic, air pollution and declining road conditions.
This all-or-nothing practice has created clear winners and losers amongst cities as the
online sales tax revenue from large online retailers that was once spread amongst all
cities in countywide pools is now concentrated in select cities fortunate enough to host a
fulfillment center. This has created a growing inequity amongst California cities, which
only benefits some and is particularly unfair to cities who have no chance of ever obtaining
a fulfillment center, such as those that are built out or are not situated along major travel
corridors. No/low property tax cities that rely on sales tax revenue are especially impacted
as well as cities struggling to meet their RHNA allocations that are being pressured by
Sacramento to rezone precious commercial parcels to residential.
The current onfine sales tax distribution policies are inherently unfair and exasperate the
divide between the winners and losers. Ultimately, the real winners may be the retailers,
who leverage these policies to negotiate favorable sales tax sharing agreements from a
small group of select cities understandably wanting to host fulfillment centers. The21
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 218
Letter of Support: City of Rancho Cucamonga
July 14,2021
Page2 of 2
current onl¡ne sales tax distribution policies unfairly divide local agencies, exacerbate
already difficult municipal finances, and in the end result in a net loss of local government
sales tax proceeds that simply serve to make private sector businesses even more
profitable at the expense of everyone's residents. We can do better than this. And we
should all aspire to develop an equitable sales tax distribution of online sales that
addresses the concerns noted above.
For these reasons, the City of Placentia concurs that the resolution should go before the
General Assembly. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact
me at (714) 993-8117 or via email at administration@placentia.oro.
Sincerely,
Damien R. Arrula
City Administrator
22
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 219
23
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 220
24
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 221
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1
Staff: Nicholas Romo, Legislative Affairs, Lobbyist
Committee: Revenue and Taxation
Summary:
This Resolution calls on the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) to request the
Legislature to pass legislation that provides for a fair and equitable distribution of the
Bradley Burns 1% local sales tax from in-state online purchases, based on data where
products are shipped to, and that rightfully takes into consideration the impacts that
fulfillment centers have on host cities but also provides a fair share to California cities
that do not and/or cannot have a fulfillment center within their jurisdiction.
Background:
The City of Rancho Cucamonga is sponsoring this resolution to “address the issues in
how sales and use taxes are distributed in the 21st century.”
The City notes that “sales tax is a major revenue source for most California cities.
Commonly known as the local 1% Bradley-Burns tax, since the 1950’s, cities have
traditionally received 1 cent on every dollar of a sale made at the store, restaurant, car
dealer, or other location within a jurisdiction’s boundaries. Over the years, however, this
simple tax structure has evolved into a much more complex set of laws and allocation
rules. Many of these rules relate to whether or not a given transaction is subject to
sales tax, or to use tax – both have the same 1% value, but each applies in separate
circumstances.
Recently, one of the world’s largest online retailers changed the legal ownership of its
fulfillment centers. Instead of having its fulfillment centers owned and operated by a
third-party vendor, they are now directly owned by the company. This subtle change
has major impacts to how the 1% local tax is allocated.
This change has created a situation where most cities in California – more than 90%, in
fact – are experiencing a sales tax revenue loss that began in the fourth quarter of
calendar year 2021. Many cities may not be aware of this impact, as the fluctuations in
sales tax following the pandemic shutdowns have masked the issue. But this change
will have long-term impacts on revenues for all California cities as all these revenues
benefiting all cities have shifted to just a handful of cities and counties that are home to
this retailer’s fulfillment centers.”
The City’s resolution calls for action on an unspecified solution that “rightfully takes into
consideration the impacts that fulfillment centers have on host cities but also provides a
fair share to California cities that do not and/or cannot have a fulfillment center within
their jurisdiction,” which aims to acknowledge the actions taken by cities to alleviate
poverty, catalyze economic development, and improve financial stability within their
communities through existing tax sharing and zoning powers.
25
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 222
Ultimately, sponsoring cities believe “that by once again starting the conversation and
moving toward the development of laws and policies that can result in seeing all cities
benefit from the growth taxes generated through online sales, our state will be stronger.”
Sales and Use Tax in California
The Bradley-Burns Uniform Sales Tax Act allows all local agencies to apply its own
sales and use tax on the same base of tangible personal property (taxable goods). This
tax rate currently is fixed at 1.25% of the sales price of taxable goods sold at retail
locations in a local jurisdiction, or purchased outside the jurisdiction for use within the
jurisdiction. Cities and counties use this 1% of the tax to support general operations,
while the remaining 0.25% is used for county transportation purposes.
In California, all cities and counties impose Bradley-Burns sales taxes. California
imposes the sales tax on every retailer engaged in business in this state that sells
taxable goods. The law requires businesses to collect the appropriate tax from the
purchaser and remit the amount to the California Department of Tax and Fee
Administration (CDTFA). Sales tax applies whenever a retail sale is made, which is
basically any sale other than one for resale in the regular course of business. Unless
the person pays the sales tax to the retailer, they are liable for the use tax, which is
imposed on any person consuming taxable goods in the state. The use tax rate is the
same rate as the sales tax rate.
Generally, CDTFA distributes Bradley‑Burns tax revenue based on where a sale took
place, known as a situs‑based system. A retailer’s physical place of business—such as
a retail store or restaurant—is generally the place of sale. “Sourcing” is the term used by
tax practitioners to describe the rules used to determine the place of sale, and therefore,
which tax rates are applied to a given purchase and which jurisdictions are entitled to
the local and district taxes generated from a particular transaction.
California is primarily an origin-based sourcing state – meaning tax revenues go to the
jurisdiction in which a transaction physically occurs if that can be determined. However,
California also uses a form of destination sourcing for the local use tax and for district
taxes (also known as “transactions and use taxes” or “add-on sale and use taxes”). That
is, for cities with local add-on taxes, they receive their add-on rate amount from remote
and online transactions.
Generally, allocations are based on the following rules:
•The sale is sourced to the place of business of the seller - whether the product is
received by the purchaser at the seller’s business location or not.
•If the retailer maintains inventory in California and has no other in state location,
the source is the jurisdiction where the warehouse is situated. This resolution is
concerned with the growing amount of online retail activity being sourced to cities
with warehouse/fulfillment center locations.
•If the business’ sales office is located in California but the merchandise is
shipped from out of state, the tax from transactions under $500,000 is allocated
26
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 223
via the county pools. The tax from transactions over $500,000 is allocated to the
jurisdiction where the merchandise is delivered.
•When a sale cannot be identified with a permanent place of business in the state,
the sale is sourced to the allocation pool of the county where the merchandise
was delivered and then distributed among all jurisdictions in that county in
proportion to ratio of sales. For many large online retailers, this has been the
traditional path.
Online Sales and Countywide Pools
While the growth of e-commerce has been occurring for more than two decades, led by
some of the largest and most popular retailers in the world, the dramatic increase in
online shopping during the COVID-19 pandemic has provided significant revenue to
California cities as well as a clearer picture on which governments enjoy even greater
benefits.
In the backdrop of booming internet sales has been the steady decline of brick-and-
mortar retail and shopping malls. For cities with heavy reliance on in-person retail
shopping, the value of the current allocation system has been diminished as their
residents prefer to shop online or are incentivized to do so by retailers (during the
COVID-19 pandemic, consumers have had no other option but to shop online for certain
goods). All the while, the demands and costs of city services continue to grow for cities
across the state.
As noted above, the allocation of sales tax revenue to local governments depends on
the location of the transaction (or where the location is ultimately determined). For in-
person retail, the sales tax goes to the city in which the product and store are located - a
customer purchasing at a register. For online sales, the Bradley Burns sales tax
generally goes to a location other than the one where the customer lives – either to the
city or county where an in-state warehouse or fulfillment center is located, the location
of in-state sales office (ex. headquarters) or shared as use tax proceeds amongst all
local governments within a county based on their proportionate share of taxable sales.
Under current CDTFA regulations, a substantial portion of local use tax collections are
allocated through a countywide pool to the local jurisdictions in the county where the
property is put to its first functional use. The state and county pools constitute over 15%
of local sales and use tax revenues. Under the pool system, the tax is reported by the
taxpayer to the countywide pool of use and then distributed to each jurisdiction in that
county on a pro-rata share of taxable sales. If the county of use cannot be identified, the
revenues are distributed to the state pool for pro-rata distribution on a statewide basis.
Concentration of Online Sales Tax Revenue and Modernization
Sales tax modernization has been a policy goal of federal, state, and local government
leaders for decades to meet the rapidly changing landscape of commercial activity and
ensure that all communities can sustainably provide critical services.
27
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 224
For as long as remote and internet shopping has existed, policy makers have been
concerned about their potential to disrupt sales and use tax allocation procedures that
underpin the funding of local government services. The system was designed in the
early twentieth century to ensure that customers were paying sales taxes to support
local government services within the community where the transactions occurred
whether they resided there or not. This structure provides benefit to and recoupment for
the public resources necessary to ensure the health and safety of the community
broadly.
City leaders have for as long been concerned about the loosening of the nexus between
what their residents purchase and the revenues they receive. Growing online shopping,
under existing sourcing rules, has led to a growing concentration of sales tax revenue
being distributed to a smaller number of cities and counties. As more medium and large
online retailers take title to fulfillment centers or determine specific sales locations in
California as a result of tax sharing agreements in specific cities, online sales tax
revenue will be ever more concentrated in a few cities at the control of these
companies. Furthermore, local governments are already experiencing the declining
power of the sales tax to support services as more money is being spent on non-taxable
goods and services.
For more on sales and use tax sourcing please see Attachment A.
State Auditor Recommendations
In 2017, the California State Auditor issued a report titled, “The Bradley-Burns Tax and
Local Transportation Funds, noting that:
“Retailers generally allocate Bradley Burns tax revenue based on the place of sale,
which they identify according to their business structure. However, retailers that make
sales over the Internet may allocate sales to various locations, including their
warehouses, distribution center, or sales offices. This approach tends to concentrate
Bradley Burns tax revenue into the warehouses’ or sales offices’ respective
jurisdictions. Consequently, counties with a relatively large amount of industrial space
may receive disproportionately larger amounts of Bradley Burns tax, and therefore Local
Transportation Fund, revenue.
The State could make its distribution of Bradley Burns tax revenue derived from online
sales more equitable if it based allocations of the tax on the destinations to which goods
are shipped rather than on place of sale.”
The Auditor’s report makes the following recommendation:
“To ensure that Bradley‑Burns tax revenue is more evenly distributed, the Legislature
should amend the Bradley‑Burns tax law to allocate revenues from Internet sales based
on the destination of sold goods rather than their place of sale.”
28
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 225
In acknowledgement of the growing attention from outside groups on this issue, Cal
Cities has been engaged in its own study and convening of city officials to ensure
pursued solutions account for the circumstances of all cities and local control is best
protected. These efforts are explored in subsequent sections.
Cal Cities Revenue and Taxation Committee and City Manager Working Group
In 2015 and 2016, Cal Cities’ Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee held extensive
discussions on potential modernization of tax policy affecting cities, with a special
emphasis on the sales tax. The issues had been identified by Cal Cities leadership as a
strategic priority given concerns in the membership about the eroding sales tax base
and the desire for Cal Cities to take a leadership role in addressing the associated
issues. The policy committee ultimately adopted a series of policies that were approved
by the Cal Cities board of directors. Among its changes were a recommended change
to existing sales tax sourcing (determining where a sale occurs) rules, so that the point
of sale (situs) is where the customer receives the product. The policy also clarifies that
specific proposals in this area should be carefully reviewed so that the impacts of any
changes are fully understood. See “Existing Cal Cities Policy” section below.
Cal Cities City Manager Sales Tax Working Group Recommendations
In the Fall of 2017, the Cal Cities City Managers Department convened a working group
(Group) of city managers representing a diverse array of cities to review and consider
options for addressing issues affecting the local sales tax.
The working group of city managers helped Cal Cities identify internal common ground
on rapidly evolving e-commerce trends and their effects on the allocation of local sales
and use tax revenue. After meeting extensively throughout 2018, the Group made
several recommendations that were endorsed unanimously by Cal Cities’ Revenue and
Taxation Committee at its January, 2019 meeting and by the board of directors at its
subsequent meeting.
The Group recommended the following actions in response to the evolving issues
associated with e-commerce and sales and use tax:
Further Limiting Rebate Agreements: The consensus of the Group was that:
•Sales tax rebate agreements involving online retailers should be prohibited going
forward. They are inappropriate because they have the effect of encouraging
revenue to be shifted away from numerous communities and concentrated to the
benefit of one.
•Any type of agreement that seeks to lure a retailer from one community to
another within a market area should also be prohibited going forward. Existing
law already prohibits such agreements for auto dealers and big box stores.
Shift Use Tax from Online Sales, including from the South Dakota v. Wayfair Decision
Out of County Pools: The Group’s recommendation is based first on the principle of
“situs” and that revenue should be allocated to the jurisdiction where the use occurs.
Each city and county in California imposed a Bradley Burns sales and use tax rate
29
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 226
under state law in the 1950s. The use tax on a transaction is the rate imposed where
the purchaser resides (the destination). These use tax dollars, including new revenue
from the South Dakota v. Wayfair decision, should be allocated to the destination
jurisdiction whose Bradley Burns tax applies and not throughout the entire county.
•Shift of these revenues, from purchases from out of state retailers including
transactions captured by the South Dakota v. Wayfair decision, out of county
pools to full destination allocation on and after January 1, 2020.
•Allow more direct reporting of use taxes related to construction projects to
jurisdiction where the construction activity is located by reducing existing
regulatory threshold from $5 million to $100,000.
Request/Require CDTFA Analysis on Impacts of Sales Tax Destination Shifts: After
discussion of numerous phase-in options for destination sourcing and allocation for
sales taxes, the Group ultimately decided that a more complete analysis was needed to
sufficiently determine impacts. Since the two companies most cities rely on for sales
tax analysis, HdL and MuniServices, were constrained to modeling with transaction and
use tax (district tax) data, concerns centered on the problem of making decisions
without adequate information. Since the CDTFA administers the allocation of local
sales and use taxes, it is in the best position to produce an analysis that examines:
•The impacts on individual agencies of a change in sourcing rules. This would
likely be accomplished by developing a model to examine 100% destination
sourcing with a report to the Legislature in early 2020.
•The model should also attempt to distinguish between business-to-consumer
transactions versus business-to-business transactions.
•The model should analyze the current number and financial effects of city and
county sales tax rebate agreements with online retailers and how destination
sourcing might affect revenues under these agreements.
Conditions for considering a Constitutional Amendment that moves toward destination
allocation: Absent better data on the impacts on individual agencies associated with a
shift to destination allocation of sales taxes from CDTFA, the Group declined to
prescribe if/how a transition to destination would be accomplished; the sentiment was
that the issue was better revisited once better data was available. In anticipation that
the data would reveal significant negative impacts on some agencies, the Group desired
that any such shift should be accompanied by legislation broadening of the base of
sales taxes, including as supported by existing Cal Cities policy including:
•Broadening the tax base on goods, which includes reviewing existing exemptions
on certain goods and expanding to digital forms of goods that are otherwise
taxed; and
•Expanding the sales tax base to services, such as those commonly taxed in
other states.
This Resolution builds upon previous work that accounts for the impacts that distribution
networks have on host cities and further calls on the organization to advocate for
changes to sales tax distribution rules.
30
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 227
The Resolution places further demands on data collected by CDTFA to establish a “fair
and equitable distribution of the Bradley Burns 1% local sales tax from in-state online
purchases.” Such data is proposed to be collected by SB 792 (Glazer, 2021). More
discussion on this topic can be found in the “Staff Comments” section.
Staff Comments:
Proposed Resolution Affixes Equity Based, Data Driven Approach to Existing Cal
Cities Policy on Sales Tax Sourcing
The actions resulting from this resolution, if approved, would align with existing policy
and efforts to-date to modernize sales tax rules. While not formalized in existing Cal
Cities policy or recommendations, city managers and tax practitioners generally have
favored proposals that establish a sharing of online sales tax revenues rather than a full
destination shift. City leaders and practitioners across the state have acknowledged
during Cal Cities Revenue and Taxation and City Manager’s working group meetings
that the hosting of fulfillment centers and ancillary infrastructure pose major burdens on
local communities including detrimental health and safety impacts. This
acknowledgement has moved mainstream proposals such as this one away from full
revenue shifts towards an equity-based, data driven approach that favors revenue
sharing. This Resolution would concretely affix this approach as Cal Cities policy.
More Data is Needed to Achieve Equity Based Approach
A major challenge is the lack of adequate data to model the results of shifting in-state
online sale tax revenues. Local government tax consultants and state departments
have limited data to model the effects of changes to sales tax distribution because their
information is derived only from cities that have a local transactions and use tax (TUT).
Tax experts are able to model proposed tax shifts using TUTs since they are allocated
on a destination basis (where a purchaser receives the product; usually a home or
business). However, more than half of all cities, including some larger cities, do not
have a local TUT therefore modeling is constrained and incomplete.
Efforts to collect relevant sales tax information on the destination of products purchased
online are ongoing. The most recent effort is encapsulated in SB 792 (Glazer, 2021),
which would require retailers with online sales exceeding $50 million a year to report to
CDTFA the gross receipts from online sales that resulted in a product being shipped or
delivered in each city. The availability of this data would allow for a much more
complete understanding of online consumer behavior and the impacts of future
proposed changes to distribution. SB 792 (Glazer) is supported by Cal Cities following
approval by the Revenue and Taxation Committee and board of directors.
Impact of Goods Movement Must Be Considered
As noted above, city leaders and practitioners across the state acknowledge that the
hosting of fulfillment centers and goods movement infrastructure pose major burdens on
local communities including detrimental health, safety, and infrastructure impacts. Not
least of which is the issue of air pollution from diesel exhaust. According to California
Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA):
31
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 228
“Children and those with existing respiratory disease, particularly asthma, appear to be
especially susceptible to the harmful effects of exposure to airborne PM from diesel
exhaust, resulting in increased asthma symptoms and attacks along with decreases in
lung function (McCreanor et al., 2007; Wargo, 2002). People that live or work near
heavily-traveled roadways, ports, railyards, bus yards, or trucking distribution centers
may experience a high level of exposure (US EPA, 2002; Krivoshto et al., 2008). People
that spend a significant amount of time near heavily-traveled roadways may also
experience a high level of exposure. Studies of both men and women demonstrate
cardiovascular effects of diesel PM exposure, including coronary vasoconstriction and
premature death from cardiovascular disease (Krivoshto et al., 2008). A recent study of
diesel exhaust inhalation by healthy non-smoking adults found an increase in blood
pressure and other potential triggers of heart attack and stroke (Krishnan et al., 2013)
Exposure to diesel PM, especially following periods of severe air pollution, can lead to
increased hospital visits and admissions due to worsening asthma and emphysema-
related symptoms (Krivoshto et al., 2008). Diesel exposure may also lead to reduced
lung function in children living in close proximity to roadways (Brunekreef et al., 1997).”
The founded health impacts of the ubiquitous presence of medium and heavy-duty
diesel trucks used to transport goods to and from fulfillment centers and warehouses
require host cities to meet increased needs of their residents including the building and
maintenance of buffer zones, parks, and open space. While pollution impacts may
decline with the introduction of zero-emission vehicles, wide scale adoption by large
distribution fleets is still in its infancy. Furthermore, the impacts of heavy road use
necessitate increased spending on local streets and roads upgrades and maintenance.
In addition, many cities have utilized the siting of warehouses, fulfillment centers, and
other heavy industrial uses for goods movements as key components of local revenue
generation and economic development strategies. These communities have also
foregone other land uses in favor of siting sales offices and fulfillment networks.
All said, however, it is important to acknowledge that disadvantaged communities
(DACs) whether measured along poverty, health, environmental or education indices
exist in cities across the state. For one example, see: California Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) CalEnviroScreen. City officials may consider how
cities without fulfillment and warehouse center revenues are to fund efforts to combat
social and economic issues, particularly in areas with low property tax and tourism-
based revenues.
The Resolution aims to acknowledge these impacts broadly (this analysis does not
provide an exhaustive review of related impacts) and requests Cal Cities to account for
them in a revised distribution formula of the Bradley Burns 1% local sales tax from in-
state online purchases. The Resolution does not prescribe the proportions.
Clarifying Amendments
Upon review of the Resolution, Cal Cities staff recommends technical amendments to
provide greater clarity. To review the proposed changes, please see Attachment B.
32
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 229
Fiscal Impact:
Significant but unknown. The Resolution on its own does not shift sales tax revenues. In
anticipation and mitigation of impacts, the Resolution requests Cal Cities to utilize online
sales tax data to identify a fair and equitable distribution formula that accounts for the
broad impacts fulfillment centers involved in online retail have on the cities that host
them. The Resolution does not prescribe the revenue distribution split nor does it
prescribe the impacts, positive and negative, of distribution networks.
Existing Cal Cities Policy:
•Tax proceeds collected from internet sales should be allocated to the location
where the product is received by the purchaser.
•Support as Cal Cities policy that point of sale (situs) is where the customer
receives the product. Specific proposals in this area should be carefully
reviewed so that the impacts of any changes are fully understood.
•Revenue from new regional or state taxes or from increased sales tax rates
should be distributed in a way that reduces competition for situs-based revenue.
(Revenue from the existing sales tax rate and base, including future growth from
increased sales or the opening of new retail centers, should continue to be
returned to the point of sale.)
•The existing situs-based sales tax under the Bradley Burns 1% baseline should
be preserved and protected.
•Restrictions should be implemented and enforced to prohibit the enactment of
agreements designed to circumvent the principle of situs-based sales and
redirect or divert sales tax revenues from other communities, when the physical
location of the affected businesses does not change. Sales tax rebate
agreements involving online retailers are inappropriate because they have the
effect of encouraging revenue to be shifted away from numerous communities
and concentrated to the benefit of one. Any type of agreement that seeks to lure
a retailer from one community to another within a market area should also be
prohibited going forward.
•Support Cal Cities working with the state California Department of Tax and Fee
Administration (CDTFA) to update the county pool allocation process to ensure
that more revenues are allocated to the jurisdiction where the purchase or first
use of a product occurs (usually where the product is delivered). Use Tax
collections from online sales, including from the South Dakota v Wayfair
Decision, should be shifted out of county pools and allocated to the destination
jurisdiction whose Bradley Burns tax applies and not throughout the entire
county.
Support:
The following letters of concurrence were received:
Town of Apple Valley
City of El Cerrito
City of La Canada Flintridge
City of La Verne
City of Lakewood
33
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 230
City of Moorpark
City of Placentia
City of Sacramento
34
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 231
Sales Tax Sourcing –6 –February 12, 2018
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
35
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 232
Sales Tax Sourcing – 7 – February 12, 2018
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
36
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 233
Sales Tax Sourcing –8 –February 12, 2018
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Courtesy of HdL Companies
37
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 234
Sales Tax Sourcing – 9 – February 12, 2018
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Tax Incentive Programs, Sales Tax Sharing Agreements
In recent years, especially since Proposition 13 in 1978, local discretionary (general purpose revenues) have
become more scarce. At the same time, options and procedures for increasing revenues have become more
limited. One outcome of this in many areas has been a greater competition for sales and use tax revenues.
This has brought a rise in arrangements to encourage certain land use development with rebates and
incentives which exploit California’s odd origin sales tax sourcing rules.
The typical arrangement is a sales tax sharing agreement in
which a city provides tax rebates to a company that agrees to
expand their operations in the jurisdiction of the city. Under
such an arrangement, the company generally agrees to make
a specified amount of capital investment and create a specific
number of jobs over a period of years in exchange for
specified tax breaks, often property tax abatement or some
sort of tax credit. In some cases, this has simply taken the
form of a sales office, while customers and warehouses and
the related economic activity are disbursed elsewhere in the
state. In some cases the development takes the form of
warehouses, in which the sales inventory, owned by the
company, is housed.6
Current sales tax incentive agreements in California rebate
amounts ranging from 50% to 85% of sales tax revenues back
to the corporations.
Today, experts familiar with the industry believe that
between 20% to 30% of local Bradley-Burns sales taxes paid
by California consumers is diverted from local general funds
back to corporations; over $1 billion per year.
Moving to Destination Sourcing: The Concept7
A change from origin sourcing rules to destination sourcing rules for the local tax component of California’s
sales tax would improve overall revenue collections and distribute these revenues more equitably among all
of the areas involved in these transactions.
A change from origin based sourcing to destination based sourcing would have no effect on state tax
collections. However, it would alter the allocations of local sales and use tax revenues among local agencies.
Most retail transactions including dining, motor fuel purchases, and in-store purchases would not be
affected. But in cases where the property is received by the purchaser in a different jurisdiction than where
the sales agreement was negotiated, there would be a different allocation than under the current rules.
6 See Jennifer Carr, “Origin Sourcing and Tax Incentive Programs: An Unholy Alliance” Sales Tax Notes; May 27, 2013.
7 The same issues that are of concern regarding the local sales tax do not apply to California’s Transactions and Use Taxes
(“Add-on sales taxes”) as these transactions, when not over the counter, are generally allocated to the location of use or, as in
the case of vehicles, product registration. There is no need to alter the sourcing rules for transactions and use taxes.
The Source of Origin Based Sourcing
Problems
Where other than over-the-counter sales are
concerned origin sourcing often causes a
concentration of large amounts of tax revenue in
one location, despite the fact that the economic
activity and service impacts are also occurring in
other locations.
The large amounts of revenue concentrated in a
few locations by California’s “warehouse rule”
origin sourcing causes a concentration of
revenue far in excess of the service costs
associated with the development.
In order to lure jobs and tax revenues to their
communities, some cities have entered into
rebate agreements with corporations. This has
grown to such a problem, that 20% to 30% of
total local taxes paid statewide are being rebated
back to corporations rather than funding public
services.
38
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 235
Sales Tax Sourcing –12 –February 12, 2018
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Destination Sourcing Scenario 1: Full-On
39
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 236
Sales Tax Sourcing – 13 – February 12, 2018
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Destination Sourcing Scenario 2: Split Source
mjgc
40
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment B
RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (“CAL CITIES”)
CALLING ON THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT PROVIDES
FOR A FAIR AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BRADLEY BURNS 1% LOCAL
SALES TAX FROM IN-STATE ONLINE PURCHASES, BASED ON DATA WHERE
PRODUCTS ARE SHIPPED TO, AND THAT RIGHTFULLY TAKES INTO
CONSIDERATION THE IMPACTS THAT FULFILLMENT CENTERS HAVE ON HOST
CITIES BUT ALSO PROVIDES A FAIR SHARE TO CALIFORNIA CITIES THAT DO NOT
AND/OR CANNOT HAVE A FULFILLMENT CENTER WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION
WHEREAS, the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wayfair v. South Dakota clarified that states
could charge and collect tax on purchases even if the seller does not have a physical presence in the state;
and
WHEREAS, California cities and counties collect 1% in Bradley Burns sales and use tax from the
purchase of tangible personal property and rely on this revenue to provide critical public services such as
police and fire protection; and
WHEREAS, in terms of “siting” the place of sale and determining which jurisdiction receives the
1% Bradley Burns local taxes for online sales, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration
(CDTFA) determines “out-of-state” online retailers as those with no presence in California that ship
property from outside the state and are therefore subject to use tax, not sales tax, which is collected in a
countywide pool of the jurisdiction where the property is shipped from; and
WHEREAS, for online retailers that have a presence in California and have a stock of goods in the
state from which it fulfills orders, CDTFA considers the place of sale (“situs”) as the location from which
the goods were shipped such as a fulfillment center; and
WHEREAS, in early 2021, one of the state’s largest online retailers shifted its ownership structure
so that it is now considered both an in-state and out-of-state retailer, resulting in the sales tax this retailer
generates from in-state sales now being entirely allocated to the specific city cities where the warehouse
fulfillment centers is are located as opposed to going into a countywide pools that is are shared with all
jurisdictions in those counties that County, as was done previously; and
WHEREAS, this all-or-nothing change for the allocation of in-state sales tax has created winners
and losers amongst cities as the online sales tax revenue from the retailer that was once spread amongst
all cities in countywide pools is now concentrated in select cities that host a fulfillment centers; and
WHEREAS, this has created a tremendous inequity amongst cities, in particular for cities that are
built out, do not have space for siting a 1 million square foot fulfillment centers, are not located along a
major travel corridor, or otherwise not ideally suited to host a fulfillment center; and
WHEREAS, this inequity affects cities statewide, but in particular those with specific
circumstances such as no/low property tax cities that are extremely reliant on sales tax revenue as well
as cities struggling to meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations that are being
compelled by the State to rezone precious commercial parcels to residential; and
41
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment B
WHEREAS, the inequity produced by allocating in-state online sales tax revenue exclusively to
cities with fulfillment centers is exasperated even more by, in addition to already reducing the amount of
revenue going into the countywide pools, the cities with fulfillment centers are also receiving a larger
share of the dwindling countywide pool as it is allocated based on cities’ proportional share of sales tax
collected; and
WHEREAS, while it is important to acknowledge that those cities that have fulfillment centers
experience impacts from these activities and deserve equitable supplementary compensation, it should
also be recognized that the neighboring cities whose residents are ordering products from those that
centers now receive no Bradley Burns revenue from the center’s sales activity despite also experiencing
the impacts created by them center, such as increased traffic and air pollution; and
WHEREAS, the COVID-19 pandemic greatly accelerated the public’s shift towards online
purchases, a trend that is unlikely to be reversed to pre-pandemic levels; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Cal Cities calls on the State Legislature to pass legislation
that provides for a fair and equitable distribution of the Bradley Burns 1% local sales tax from in-state
online purchases, based on data where products are shipped to, and that rightfully takes into
consideration the impacts that fulfillment centers have on host cities but also provides a fair share to
California cities that do not and/or cannot have a fulfillment center within their jurisdiction.
42
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 239
2.A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE TO
PROVIDE NECCESARY FUNDING FOR CUPC TO FUFILL ITS OBLIGATION TO
INSPECT RAILROAD LINES TO ENSURE THAT OPERATORS ARE REMOVING
ILLEGAL DUMPING, GRAFFITI AND HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS THAT DEGRADE
THE QAULITY OF LIFE AND RESULTS IN INCREASED PUBLIC SAFETLY CONCERNS
FOR COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ABUTT THE RAILROAD RIGHT-
OF-WAY.
Source: City of South Gate
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials:
Cities: City of Bell Gardens; City of Bell; City of Commerce; City of Cudahy; City of El Segundo;
City of Glendora; City of Huntington Park; City of La Mirada; City of Long Beach; City of
Lynwood; City of Montebello; City of Paramount; City of Pico Rivera
Referred to: Housing, Community and Economic Development; and Transportation,
Communications and Public Works
WHEREAS, ensuring the quality of life for communities falls upon every local
government including that blight and other health impacting activities are addressed in a timely
manner by private property owners within its jurisdictional boundaries for their citizens,
businesses and institutions; and
WHEREAS, Railroad Operators own nearly 6,000 miles of rail right-of-way throughout
the State of California which is regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration and/or the
California Public Utilities Commission for operational safety and maintenance; and
WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is the enforcing agency
for railroad safety in the State of California and has 41 inspectors assigned throughout the entire
State to inspect and enforce regulatory compliance over thousands of miles of rail line; and
WHEREAS, areas with rail line right-of-way within cities and unincorporated areas are
generally located in economically disadvantaged zones and/or disadvantaged communities of
color where the impact of blight further lowers property values and increases the likelihood of
unsound sanitary conditions and environmental impacts upon them; and
WHEREAS, many communities are seeing an increase in illegal dumping, graffiti upon
infrastructure and homeless encampments due to the lax and inadequate oversight by
regulatory agencies; and
WHEREAS, local governments have no oversight or regulatory authority to require
operators to better maintain and clean their properties as it would with any other private property
owner within its jurisdictional boundaries. Thus such local communities often resort to spending
their local tax dollars on cleanup activities or are forced to accept the delayed and untimely
response by operators to cleaning up specific sites, and;
WHEREAS, that railroad operators should be able to provide local communities with a
fixed schedule in which their property will be inspected and cleaned up on a reasonable and
regular schedule or provide for a mechanism where they partner with and reimburse local
governments for an agreed upon work program where the local government is enabled to
remove items like illegal dumping, graffiti and encampments; and
43
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 240
WHEREAS, the State has made it a priority to deal with homeless individuals and the
impacts illegal encampments have upon those communities and has a budgetary surplus that
can help fund the CPUC in better dealing with this situation in both a humane manner as well a
betterment to rail safety.
RESOLVED, at the League of California Cities, General Assembly, assembled at the
League Annual Conference on September 24, 2021, in Sacramento, that the League calls for
the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League and other stakeholders to provide
adequate regulatory authority and necessary funding to assist cities with these railroad right-of-
way areas so as to adequately deal with illegal dumping, graffiti and homeless encampments
that proliferate along the rail lines and result in public safety issues. The League will work with
its member cities to educate federal and state officials to the quality of life and health impacts
this challenge has upon local communities, especially those of color and/or environmental and
economic hardships.
44
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 241
Background Information to Resolution
Source: City of South Gate
Background:
The State of California has over 6,000 miles of rail lines, with significant amount running through
communities that are either economically disadvantaged and/or disadvantaged communities of
color. While the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has primary oversight of rail operations,
they delegate that obligation to the State of California for lines within our State. The
administration of that oversight falls under the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
The CPUC has only 41 inspectors covering those 6,000 miles of railroad lines in the
State of California. Their primary task is ensuring equipment, bridges and rail lines are
operationally safe.
The right-of-way areas along the rail lines are becoming increasingly used for illegal dumping,
graffiti and homeless encampments. Rail operators have admitted that they have insufficient
funds set aside to clean up or sufficiently police these right-of-way areas, despite reporting a net
income of over $13 billion in 2020. CPUC budget does not provide the resources to oversee
whether rail operators are properly managing the right-of-way itself.
The City of South Gate has three rail lines traversing through its city limits covering about 4
miles. These lines are open and inviting to individuals to conduct illegal dumping, graffiti
buildings and structures along with inviting dozens of homeless encampments. As private
property, Cities like ourselves cannot just go upon them to remove bulky items, trash, clean
graffiti or remove encampments. We must call and arrange for either our staff to access the site
or have the rail operator schedule a cleanup. This can take weeks to accomplish, in the
meantime residents or businesses that are within a few hundred feet of the line must endure the
blight and smell. Trash is often blown from the right-of-way into residential homes or into the
streets. Encampments can be seen from the front doors of homes and businesses.
South Gate is a proud city of hard working-class residents, yet with a median household income
of just $50,246 or 65% of AMI for Los Angeles County, it does not have the financial resources
to direct towards property maintenance of any commercial private property. The quality of life of
communities like ours should not be degraded by the inactions or lack of funding by others.
Cities such as South Gate receive no direct revenue from the rail operators, yet we deal with
environmental impacts on a daily basis, whether by emissions, illegal dumping, graffiti or
homeless encampments.
The State of California has record revenues to provide CPUC with funding nor only for safety
oversight but ensuring right-of-way maintenance by operators is being managed properly. Rail
Operators should be required to set aside sufficient annual funds to provide a regular cleanup of
their right-of-way through the cities of California.
45
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 242
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
Resolution No. 2
46
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 243
47
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 244
48
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 245
49
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 246
July 20, 2021
Cheryl Viegas Walker
President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Railroad Oversight Annual Conference Resolution
President Walker:
The City of Commerce supports the City of South Gate’s effort to submit a resolution for
consideration by the General Assembly at the League of California Cities’ (“League”) 2021 Annual
Conference in Sacramento.
The City’s resolution seeks to address a critical issue within communities, especially disadvantaged
communities of color that are home to the State’s freight rail lines. While I am supportive of the
economic base the railroad industry serves to the State, their rail lines have often become places
where illegal dumping is a constant problem and our growing homeless population call home. The
impact of these activities further erode the quality of life for our communities, increase blight,
increase unhealthy sanitation issues and negatively impact our ability to meet State water quality
standards under the MS4 permits.
As members of the League, our City values the policy development process provided to the General
Assembly. We appreciate your time on this issue. Please feel free to contact Edgar Cisneros, City
Manager, via email at ecisneros@ci.commerce.ca.us or at 323-722-4805, should you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Mayor Leonard Mendoza
CC: Blanca Pacheco, President, Los Angeles County Division c/o
Jennifer Quan, Executive Director, Los Angeles County Division, jquan@cacities.org
CITY OF COMMERCE
2535 Commerce Way • Commerce, California 90040 • (323) 722-4805 • FAX (323) 726-6231
50
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 247
CITY OF CUDAHY CALIFORNIA
Incorporated November 10, 1960
5220 Santa Ana Street
Cudahy, California 90201
(323)773-5143
July 21, 2021
Cheryl Viegas Walker
President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: City of South Gate Annual Conference Resolution
Dear President Walker:
The City of Cudahy supports the City of South Gate's effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the
General Assembly at the League's 2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento.
The City of South Gate's resolution seeks to address a critical issue within communities, especially those of
economic disadvantage and disadvantage communities of color that are home to the State's freight rail lines.
While supportive of the economic base the industry serves to the State; their rail lines have often become
places where illegal dumping is a constant problem and our growing homeless population call home. These
impacts of these activities further erode the quality of life for our communities, increase blight, increase
unhealthy sanitation issues and negatively impact our ability to meet State water quality standards under the
MS4 permits.
As members of the League our city values the policy development process provided to the General Assembly.
We appreciate your time on this issue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call my office at
323-773-5143.
Si re
Jose Gonzalez
Mayor
CC: Chris Jeffers, City Manager, City of South Gate
51
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 248
4'='
Office of the Mayor
July 16, 2021
Elected Officials:
Drew Boyles.
Mayor
Chrs Plmentel
Mayor Pro Tem
Caro/ Pkszkuk,
Councrl Member
Sco( Nlcol,
Council Membgr
Lance Gkoux,
Councll Member
Tracy Weaver,
Ciky Clerk
Ma[[hew Rabinson.
City Treasurer
Cheryl Viegas Walker
President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: City of South Gate Annual Conference Resolution
President Walker:
Appointed Officials:
The City of EI Segundo supports the Los Angeles County Division's City of South Gate's
effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League's
2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento.
Scoff Mlmick,
Crty Manager
Mark D. Hensley,
CrtyAtlorney
Department Directors:
Barbara Voss
Deputy Cffy Manager
Joseph Lllllo,
Flnance
Chrts rMnovan,
Flre Chlef
Chades Mallory,
Informakron Technology
Services
Meltssa McCollum,
Communlky Services
Rebecca Redyk,
Human Resources
Dams Cook,
Inkerlm Development Servlces
Jamre Bermudez,
{merim Police Chlef
Elras Sassoon,
Public Works
The City's resolution seeks to address a critical issue within communities, especially those
of economic disadvantage and disadvantage communities of color that are home to the
State's freight rail lines. While supportive of the economic base the industry serves to the
State, their rail lines have often become places where illegal dumping is a constant problem
and our growing homeless population call home. The impact of these activities further
erodes the quality of life for our communities, increases blight, increases unhealthy
sanitation issues, and negatively impacts our ability to meet State water quality standards
under the MS4 permits.
As members of the League, our City values the policy development process provided to the
General Assembly. We appreciate your time on this issue. Please feel free to contact El
Segundo Public Works Director Elias Sassoon at 310-524-2356, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Mayor of EI Segundo
www elsequndo.ora
www.elsequndobusrness.com
www.elsequndol00.orq
CC:City Council, City of EI Segundo
Blanca Pacheco, President, Los Angeles County Division c/o
Jennifer Quan, Executive Director, Los Angeles County Division, jquanpcacities.orq
Jeff Kiernan, League Regional Public Affairs Manager (via email)
350 Main Street, El Segundo, California 90245-3813
Phone (310) 524-2302 Fax (340) 322-7137
52
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 249
CITY OF GLENDORA CJTY I-IALL (020) 9'l4-8200
July 14, 2021
116 East Fool)iill 131vt, Cilendora, California 9'l741
xviiayv.ci.glenilorci.ca.us
Cheryl Viegas Walker, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: SUPPORT FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH GATE'S ANNUAL
CONFERENCE RESOLUTION
Dear President Walker:
The City of Glendora is pleased to support the City of South Gate's effort to submit a resolution
for consideration by the General Assembly at the Leaguc of Califorriia Cities' 2021 Annual
Conference in Sacramento.
The City of South Gate's resolution seeks to address a critical issue that many communities, smal)
and large, are experiencing along active transportation corridors, particularly rail lines. Given the
importance and growth of the ports and logistics sector, and the economic support they provide,
we need to do more to ensure that conflicts are appropriately addresscd and mitigated to ensure
they do not become attractive nuisances. Our cities are experiencing increasing amounts of illegal
dumping (trash and debris) and the establishment of encampments by individuals cxperiencing
homelessness along roadways, highways and rail lines. Such situations create unsafe conditions -
safety, health and sanitation - that impact quality of life even as we collectively work to address
this challenge in a coordinated and responsible manner.
As members of the League of California Cities, Glendora vaiues the policy development process
provided to the General Assembly and strongly support consideration of this issue. Your attention
to this matter is greatly appreciated. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact
Adam Raymond, City Manager, at aravi'rioml@citvoi-slendor.i.org or (626) 914-8201.
K'aren K. Davis
Mayor
C: Blanca Pacheco, President, Los Angeles County Division c/o
Jcnnifcr Quan, Executive Director, Los Angeles County Division, jquan@cacities.org
PRIDE OF THE FOOTHIt[S
53
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 250
54
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 251
CITY OF LA MIRADA
DEDICATED TOSERVICE
July 19, 2021
Cheryl Viegas Walker
President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, California 95814
L.1 kffiaJa, C alilcnua 90f;38
PO Hm )'28
La llnad:i, C alil'orm.i 911637-082:'
Phl-lnc 1-i(i2)94al-tllll F.l% i51)21')43-1-lti4
iii.xii cuyotlamuada i)Ig
SUBJECT: LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR CITY OF SOUTH GATE'S PROPOSED
RESOLUTION AT CALCITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE
President Walker:
The City of La Mirada supports the City of South Gate's effort to submit a resolution for
consideration by the General Assembly at the League's 2021 Annual Conference in
Sacramento.
The City of South Gate's resolution seeks to address a critical issue within communities
that are home to the State's freight rail lines. While the City of La Mirada is supportive of
the economic base the railroad industry serves to the State, the rail lines have become
places where illegal dumping and a growing homeless population are significant
problems The negative impact of these illegal activities decreases the quality of life for
the La Mirada community, increases blight and unhealthy sanitation issues, and
negatively impacts the City's ability to meet State water quality standards under the MS4
permits
As members of the League, the City of La Mirada values the policy development process
provided to the General Assembly. We appreciate your consideration on this issue.
Please feel free to contact Assistant City Manager Anne Haraksin at (562) 943-0131 if
you have any questions
Sincerely,
C TY OF LA M RADA
Ed
Mayor
cc. Blanca Pacheco, President,
Jennifer Quan, Executive Director,
Los Angeles County Division c/o
Los Angeles County Division, jquan@cacities.org
Lcl Eng. Edl-i
"}l il Ijl
-\ntlioni.'.-\ Okm, DPPD
hl.ia.ui Pmi:m
Sieie L)c Ruse. L) hlin
l l1llliil memlx't
.)oluq Lcysis, Esil
let ul IILII :iienilic i
Jefl- BIIS nion
Cll' M+m.tyei55
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 252
Office of the City Manager
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 570-6711 FAX (562) 570-7650
July 22, 2021
Cheryl Viegas Walker
President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Support for City of South Gate Resolution—Cleanup Activities on Rail Operator Properties
Dear President Walker,
On behalf of the City of Long Beach, I write to support the City of South Gate’s proposed resolution for
the League of California Cities’ (League) 2021 Annual Conference. This resolution seeks to direct the
League to adopt a policy urging State and federal governments to increase oversight of rail operators’
land maintenance. The City is a proponent of increased maintenance along railways and believes a
League advocacy strategy would help expedite regional responses.
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the public health and safety concerns on rail rights-of-way,
as trash, debris, and encampments have increased exponentially. These challenges erode the quality
of life for our communities, increase blight, and contribute to public health and sanitation issues. To
address these concerns, the City has engaged directly with regional partners to prioritize ongoing
maintenance and cleanups, and has invested $4 million in the Clean Long Beach Initiative as part of the
City’s Long Beach Recovery Act to advance economic recovery and public health in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
The City of South Gate’s proposed resolution would further advance these efforts for interjurisdictional
coordination. The increased oversight proposed by the resolution will help support better coordination
and additional resources to address illegal dumping and encampments along private rail operator
property. This is a critical measure to advance public health and uplift our most vulnerable
communities. For these reasons, the City supports the proposed League resolution.
Sincerely,
THOMAS B. MODICA
City Manager
cc: Blanca Pacheco, President, Los Angeles County Division c/o
Jennifer Quan, Executive Director, Los Angeles County Division, jquan@cacities.org
56
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 253
City oJ Lynwood!*dLYNWOOD
I
lncorporated 1921
11330 Bullis Road, Lyowood, CA90262
[310) 603-0220 x 200
CITY OF SOUTH GATE ANNUAL CONFERNCE RESOLUTION
luly 20,2027
Cheryl Viegas Walker
President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
President Walker:
The City of Lynwood supports the City of South Gate's effort to submit a resolution for
consideration by the General Assembly at the League's 2021 Annual Conference in
Sacramento.
The City's resolution seeks to address a critical issue within communities, especially those of
economic disadvantage and disadvantage communities of color that are home to the State's
freight rail lines. While supportive of the economic base the industry serves to the State, their
rail lines have often become places where illegal dumping is a constant problem and our
growing homeless population call home. These impact of these activities further erode the
quality of life for our communities, increase blight, increase unhealthy sanitation issues and
negatively impact our ability to meet State water quality standards under the MS4 permits.
As members of the League our city values the policy development process provided to the
General Assembly. We appreciate your time on this issue. Please feel free to contact Ernie
Hernandez at (310) 603-0220 ext. 200, ifyou have any questions.
Sincerel v,
na,M yor
CC: Blanca Pacheco, President, Los Angeles County Division c/o
fennifer Quan, Executive Director, Los Angeles County Division, jquan@cacities.org
OFFICE OF TH E
MAYOR
MARISELA SANTANA
RE: City ofSouth Gate Annual Conference Resolution
I
l
57
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 254
58
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 255
CITY
BRENDA OLMOS
Mayor
VILMA CUELLAR ST ALLINGS
Vice Mayor
ISABEL AGUAYO
Councilmember
Safe, Healthy, and Attractive LAURIE GUILLEN
Councilmember
PEGGY LEMONS
Councilmembet
July 19, 2021
Cheryl Viegas Walker
President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SUPPORT FOR ANNUAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION
President Walker:
The City of Paramount supports the City of South Gate's effort to submit a resolution for
consideration by the General Assembly at the League's 2021 Annual Conference in
Sacramento. The proposed resolution is attached
South Gate's resolution seeks to address a critical issue within communities, especially
those of economic disadvantage and disadvantage communities of color that are home
to the State's freight rail lines. While supportive of the economic boon the freight
industry serves to the State, their rail line rights of way have often become places where
illegal dumping is a constant problem and where our growing homeless populations
reside. The impact of these activities further erode the quality of life for our
communities, increase blight, increase unhealthy sanitation issues and negatively
impact our ability to meet State water quality standards under the MS4 permits.
As a member of the California League of Cities, the City of Paramount values the policy
development process provided to the General Assembly. We appreciate your time on
this issue. Please feel free to contact City Manager John Moreno at (562) 220-2222 if
you have any questions.
Dedicated to providing fiscally responsible services that maintain a vibrant community.
16400 Colorado Avenue a Paramount, CA 90723-5012 - Ph 562-220-2000 a paramountcity.com
[lfacebook.com/CityofParamountl !instagram.com/paramountpostsl C) youtube.com/CityofParamount
59
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 256
Steve Carmona
City Manager
City of Pico Rivera
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
6615 Passons Boulevard - Pico Rivera, California 90660
(562) 801-4371
Web.' yi'svw.pico-ris'era.oryq e-mail.' scastro@pico-rivertt.orq
City Council
Raul Elias
Mayor
Dr. Monica Sanchez
MayorPro Tem
Gustavo V. Camacho
Counci/member
Andrew C. Lara
Councilmember
Erik Lutz
Counci/member
CITY OF SOUTH GATE ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTION
July 14, 2021
Cheryl Viegas Walker
President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: City of South Gate Annual Conference Resolution
President Walker:
The City of Pico Rivera supports the City of South Gate's effort to submit a resolution for
consideration by the General Assembly at the League's 2021 Annual Conference in
Sacramento.
The City's resolution seeks to address a critical issue within communities, especially
those of economic disadvantage and disadvantaged communities of color that are home
to the State's freight rail lines. While supportive of the economic base the industry serves
to the State; their rail lines have often become places where illegal dumping is a constant
problem and our growing homeless population call home. The impact of these activities
further erodes the quality oflife for our communities, increases blight, increases unhealthy
sanitation issues, and negatively impacts our ability to meet State water quality standards
under the MS4 permits.
As members of the League, our City values the policy development process provided to
the General Assembly. We appreciate your time on this issue. Please feel free to
contact Steve Carmona at (562) 801-4405 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
ia a l' ;, . . - % - -
City Manager
City of Pico Rivera
CC: Blanca Pacheco, President, Los Angeles County Division c/o
Jennifer Quan, Executive Director, Los Angeles County Division, jquan@cacities.org
60
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 257
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 2
Staff: Damon Conklin, Legislative Affairs, Lobbyist
Jason Rhine, Assistant Director, Legislative Affairs
Caroline Cirrincione, Policy Analyst
Committees: Transportation, Communications, and Public Works
Housing, Community, and Economic Development
Summary:
The City of South Gate submits this resolution, which states the League of California Cities
should urge the Governor and the Legislature to provide adequate regulatory authority and
necessary funding to assist cities with railroad right-of-way areas to address illegal dumping,
graffiti, and homeless encampments that proliferate along the rail lines and result in public
safety issues.
Background:
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Railroad Oversight
The CPUC’s statewide railroad safety responsibilities are carried out through its Rail Safety
Division (RSD). The Railroad Operations and Safety Branch (ROSB), a unit of RSD, enforces
state and federal railroad safety laws and regulations governing freight and passenger rail in
California.
The ROSB protects California communities and railroad employees from unsafe practices on
freight and passenger railroads by enforcing rail safety laws, rules, and regulations. The ROSB
also performs inspections to identify and mitigate risks and potential safety hazards before they
create dangerous conditions. ROSB rail safety inspectors investigate rail accidents and safety-
related complaints and recommend safety improvements to the CPUC, railroads, and the
federal government as appropriate.
Within the ROSB, the CPUC employs 41 inspectors who are federally certified in the five
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) railroad disciplines, including hazardous materials,
motive power and equipment, operations, signal and train control, and track. These inspectors
perform regular inspections, focused inspections, accident investigations, security inspections,
and complaint investigations. In addition, the inspectors address safety risks that, while not
violations of regulatory requirements, pose potential risks to public or railroad employee safety.
CPUC’s Ability to Address Homelessness on Railroads
Homeless individuals and encampments have occupied many locations in California near
railroad tracks. This poses an increased safety risk to these homeless individuals of being
struck by trains. Also, homeless encampments often create unsafe work environments for
railroad and agency personnel.
While CPUC cannot compel homeless individuals to vacate railroad rights-of-way or create
shelter for homeless individuals, it has the regulatory authority to enforce measures that can
reduce some safety issues created by homeless encampments. The disposal of waste materials
or other disturbances of walkways by homeless individuals can create tripping hazards in the
vicinity of railroad rights-of-way. This would cause violations of Commission GO 118-A, which
sets standards for walkway surfaces alongside railroad tracks. Similarly, tents, wooden
structures, and miscellaneous debris in homeless encampments can create violations of
61
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 258
Commission GO 26-D, which sets clearance standards between railroad tracks, and structures
and obstructions adjacent to tracks.
Homelessness in California
According to the 2020 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, there has
been an increase in unsheltered individuals since 2019. More than half (51 percent or 113,660
people) of all unsheltered homeless people in the United States are found in California, about
four times as high as their share of the overall United States population.
Many metro areas in California lack an adequate supply of affordable housing. This housing
shortage has contributed to an increase in homelessness that has spread to railroad rights-of-
way. Homeless encampments along railroad right-of-way increase the incidents of illegal
dumping and unauthorized access and trespassing activities. Other impacts include train
service reliability with debris strikes, near-misses, and trespasser injuries/fatalities. As of April
2021, there have been 136 deaths and 117 injuries reported by the Federal Railroad
Administration over the past year. These casualties are directly associated with individuals who
trespassed on the railroad.
Cities across the state are expending resources reacting to service disruptions located on the
railroad’s private property. It can be argued that an increase in investments and services to
manage and maintain the railroad’s right-of-way will reduce incidents, thus enhancing public
safety, environmental quality, and impacts on the local community.
State Budget Allocations – Homelessness
The approved State Budget includes a homelessness package of $12 billion. This consists of a
commitment of $1 billion per year for direct and flexible funding to cities and counties to address
homelessness. While some details related to funding allocations and reporting requirements
remain unclear, Governor Newsom signed AB 140 in July, which details key budget allocations,
such as:
• $2 billion in aid to counties, large cities, and Continuums of Care through the Homeless
Housing, Assistance and Prevention grant program (HHAP);
• $50 million for Encampment Resolution Grants, which will help local governments
resolve critical encampments and transitioning individuals into permanent housing; and
• $2.7 million in onetime funding for Caltrans Encampment Coordinators to mitigate safety
risks at encampments on state property and to coordinate with local partners to connect
these individuals to services and housing.
The Legislature additionally provided $2.2 billion specifically for Homekey with $1 billion
available immediately. This funding will help local governments transition individuals from
Project Roomkey sites into permanent housing to minimize the number of occupants who exit
into unsheltered homelessness.
With regards to this resolution, the State Budget also included $1.1 billion to clean trash and
graffiti from highways, roads, and other public spaces by partnering with local governments to
pick up trash and beautify downtowns, freeways, and neighborhoods across California. The
program is expected to generate up to 11,000 jobs over three years.
Cities Railroad Authority
A city must receive authorization from the railroad operator before addressing the impacts made
by homeless encampments because of the location on the private property. Additionally, the city
62
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 259
must coordinate with the railroad company to get a flagman to oversee the safety of the work
crews, social workers, and police while on the railroad tracks.
A city may elect to declare the encampment as a public nuisance area, which would allow the
city to clean up the areas at the railroad company’s expense for failing to maintain the tracks
and right-of-way. Some cities are looking to increase pressure on railroad operators for not
addressing the various homeless encampments, which are presenting public safety and health
concerns.
Courts have looked to compel railroad companies to increase their efforts to address homeless
encampments on their railroads or grant a local authority’s application for an Inspection and
Abatement Warrant, which would allow city staff to legally enter private property and abate a
public nuisance or dangerous conditions.
In limited circumstances, some cities have negotiated Memoranda of Understandings (MOU)
with railroad companies to provide graffiti abatement, trash, and debris removal located in the
right-of-way, and clean-ups of homeless encampments. These MOUs also include local law
enforcement agencies to enforce illegally parked vehicles and trespassing in the railroad’s right-
of-way. MOUs also detailed shared responsibility and costs of providing security and trash
clean-up. In cases where trespassing or encampments are observed, the local public works
agency and law enforcement agency are notified and take the appropriate measures to remove
the trespassers or provide clean-up with the railroad covering expenses outlined in the MOU.
Absent an MOU detailing shared maintenance, enforcement, and expenses, cities do not have
the authority to unilaterally abate graffiti or clean-up trash on a railroad’s right-of-way.
Fiscal Impact:
If the League of California Cities were to secure funding from the state for railroad clean-up
activities, cities could potentially save money in addressing these issues themselves or through
an MOU, as detailed above. This funding could also save railroad operators money in
addressing concerns raised by municipalities about illegal dumping, graffiti, and homeless
encampments along railroads.
Conversely, if the League of California Cities is unable to secure this funding through the
Legislature or the Governor, cities may need to consider alternative methods, as detailed above,
which may include significant costs.
Existing League Policy:
Public Safety:
Graffiti
The League supports increased authority and resources devoted to cities for abatement of
graffiti and other acts of public vandalism.
Transportation, Communications, and Public Works
Transportation
The League supports efforts to improve the California Public Utilities Commission’s ability to
respond to and investigate significant transportation accidents in a public and timely manner to
improve rail shipment, railroad, aviation, marine, highway, and pipeline safety
63
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 260
Housing, Community, and Economic Development
Housing for Homeless
Homelessness is a statewide problem that disproportionately impacts specific communities. The
state should make funding and other resources, including enriched services, and outreach and
case managers, available to help assure that local governments have the capacity to address
the needs of the homeless in their communities, including resources for regional collaborations.
Homeless housing is an issue that eludes a statewide, one-size-fits-all solution, and
collaboration between local jurisdictions should be encouraged.
Staff Comments:
Clarifying Amendments
Upon review of the Resolution, Cal Cities staff recommends technical amendments to provide
greater clarity. To review the proposed changes, please see Attachment A.
The committee may also wish to consider clarifying language around regulatory authority and
funding to assist cities with these efforts. The resolution asks that new investments from the
state be sent to the CPUC to increase their role in managing and maintaining railroad rights-of-
ways and potentially to cities to expand their new responsibility.
The committee may wish to specify MOUs as an existing mechanism for cities to collaborate
and agree with railroad operators and the CPUC on shared responsibilities and costs.
Support:
The following letters of concurrence were received:
City of Bell Gardens
City of Bell
City of Commerce
City of Cudahy
City of El Segundo
City of Glendora
City of La Mirada
City of Paramount
City of Pico Rivera
City of Huntington Park
City of Long Beach
City of Lynwood
City of Montebello
64
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 261
2.A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE TO
PROVIDE NECCESARY NECESSARY FUNDING FOR CUPC THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC) TO FUFILL ITS OBLIGATION TO INSPECT
RAILROAD LINES TO ENSURE THAT OPERATORS ARE REMOVING ILLEGAL
DUMPING, GRAFFITI AND HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS THAT DEGRADE THE
QAULITY QUALITY OF LIFE AND RESULTS IN INCREASED PUBLIC SAFETLY
SAFETY CONCERNS FOR COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ABUTT THE
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Source: City of South Gate
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
Cities: City of Bell Gardens; City of Bell; City of Commerce; City of Cudahy; City of El Segundo;
City of Glendora; City of Huntington Park; City of La Mirada; City of Long Beach; City of
Lynwood; City of Montebello; City of Paramount; City of Pico Rivera
Referred to: Housing, Community and Economic Development; and Transportation,
Communications and Public Works
WHEREAS, ensuring the quality of life for communities falls upon every local
government including that blight and other health impacting activities are addressed in a timely
manner by private property owners within its jurisdictional boundaries for their citizens,
businesses and institutions; and
WHEREAS, Railroad Operators own nearly 6,000 miles of rail right-of-way throughout
the State of California which is regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration and/or the
California Public Utilities Commission CPUC for operational safety and maintenance; and
WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is the enforcing agency
for railroad safety in the State of California and has 41 inspectors assigned throughout the entire
State to inspect and enforce regulatory compliance over thousands of miles of rail line; and
WHEREAS, areas with rail line right-of-way within cities and unincorporated areas are
generally located in economically disadvantaged zones and/or disadvantaged communities of
color where the impact of blight further lowers property values and increases the likelihood of
unsound sanitary conditions and environmental impacts upon them; and
WHEREAS, many communities are seeing an increase in illegal dumping, graffiti upon
infrastructure and homeless encampments due to the lax and inadequate oversight by
regulatory agencies; and
WHEREAS, local governments have no oversight or regulatory authority to require
operators to better maintain and clean their properties as it would with any other private property
owner within its jurisdictional boundaries. Thus such local communities often resort to spending
their local tax dollars on cleanup activities or are forced to accept the delayed and untimely
response by operators to cleaning up specific sites, and;
WHEREAS, that railroad operators should be able to provide local communities with a
fixed schedule in which their property will be inspected and cleaned up on a reasonable and
regular schedule or provide for a mechanism where they partner with and reimburse local
governments for an agreed upon work program where the local government is enabled to
remove items like illegal dumping, graffiti and encampments; and
65
ATTACHMENT A
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 262
WHEREAS, the State has made it a priority to deal with homeless individuals and the
impacts illegal encampments have upon those communities and has a budgetary surplus that
can help fund the CPUC in better dealing with this situation in both a humane manner as well as
a betterment to rail safety.
RESOLVED, at the League of California Cities, General Assembly, assembled at the
League Cal Cities Annual Conference on September 24, 2021, in Sacramento, that the Cal
Cities League calls for the Governor and the Legislature to work with the Cal Cities League and
other stakeholders to provide adequate regulatory authority and necessary funding to assist
cities with these railroad right-of-way areas so as to adequately deal with illegal dumping, graffiti
and homeless encampments that proliferate along the rail lines and result in public safety
issues. The Cal Cities League will work with its member cities to educate federal and state
officials to the quality of life and health impacts this challenge has upon local communities,
especially those of color and/or environmental and economic hardships.
66
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 263
� W y
W z
I- O
Q =
W
Q
d
O
f—