The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/21/1992CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Mayor — Jay C. Kim Mayor Pro Tem — Phyllis E. Papen Councilman — John A. Forbing Councilman — Gary H. Werner Councilman — Gary G. Miller City Council Chambers are located at: South CoastAir Quality Management DistrictAuditoiium 21865 East Copley Drive ease re an. orn smo in , eatin or' rin in ' in a ounce am ers MEETING DATE: July 21, 1992 Terrence L. Belanger Acting City Manager Andrew V. Arczynski City Attorney MEETINGTIME: closed Session - 5:00 p.m. Lynda Burgess Regular Session - 6:00 p.m. City Clerk The City of Diamond Bar uses RECYCLED paper and encourages you to do the same. THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY JONES INTERCABLE FOR AIRING ON CHANNEL 51, AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. 1. 5:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION: Personnel - G.C. Section 54957.6 Litigation - G.C. Section 54956.9 Next Resolution No. 92-45 Next Ordinance No. 03(1992) 2. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MAYOR KIM ROLL CALL: Councilmen Forbing, Miller, Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Mayor Kim 3. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Councilmembers are for Council discussion. Direction may be given at this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a future meeting. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on this agenda. Please complete a Speaker's Card and give it to the City Clerk (completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the Citv Council. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. 5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1.1 CONCERT IN THE PARK - July 22, 1992 - 6:30 - 8:00 p.m., Kelela Band (Pop Rock), Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Rd. 5.1.2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - July 23, 1992 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr 5.1.3 PLANNING COMMISSION - July 27, 1992 - 7:00 P.M., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.4 CONCERT IN THE PARK - July 29, 1992 - 6:30 - 8:00 p.m., Mike Henebry Orchestra (Big Band), Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Rd. 5.1.5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - August 4, 1992 - 6:00 P.M. AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. JULY 21, 1992 5.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES PAGE 2 5.2.1 REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 16, 1992 5.2.2 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 23, 1992 5.2.3 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 30, 1992 5.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Approve Warrant Register dated July 21, 1992 in the amount of $535,541.40. 5.4 RECEIVE & FILE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5.4.1 MEETING OF MAY 4, 1992 5.4.2 MEETING OF MAY 18, 1992 5.4.3 MEETING OF MAY 21, 1992 5.5 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING NO RIGHT TURN ON RED REGULATION AT THE GRAND AVENUE AND LONGVIEW DRIVE INTERSECTION IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - There is restricted visibility for motorists making a right turn from southbound Longview Dr. at Grand Ave. The horizontal curve restricts the visibility and was discussed by the Traffic & Transportation Commission. The Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends the installation of a "No Right Turn on Red" sign on Longview Dr. at Grand Ave. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 92 -XX authorizing the installation of a "No Right Turn on Red" sign on Longview Dr. at Grand Ave. 5.6 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING A NO U-TURN REGULATION ON SUNSET CROSSING ROAD AND ALSO ON IRONBARK DRIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - To improve safety and traffic circulation, the Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends the installation of "No U -Turn" signs at key locations on Ironbark Dr. and Sunset Crossing Rd. The need to install "No U -Turn" signs on both Ironbark Dr. and Sunset Crossing Rd. evolved from the numerous undesirable U-turns that were observed during peak school hours as parents pick-up and drop-off their children. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 92 -XX authorizing the installation of "No U -Turn" signs at key locations on Ironbark Dr. and Sunset Crossing Rd. 5.7 NOTICE OF COMPLETION - ACCEPTANCE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT - The Council, at their meeting of December 3, 1991, awarded a contract for installation of playground equipment at LMD # 39 Mini -Park at Softwind and Stardust to MD Structural Contractors in the amount of $12,587.88. Installation of the equipment has been completed and may now be accepted by the City. JULY 21, 1992 PAGE 3 Recommended Action: Accept the work performed by MD Structural Contractors and authorize the City Clerk to file the proper Notice of Completion. 6. OLD BUSINESS: 6.1 POMONA VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES AGREEMENT - SUPPLEMENT #1 - Annually the City Council is requested to review the Agreement for Animal Control Services with Pomona Valley Humane Society and approve the annual supplemental payment. Continued from July 7. Recommended Action: Approve Supplement No. 1 to the Agreement for Animal Control Services between the City and the Pomona Valley Humane Society. 6.2 SELECTION OF CONSULTANT FOR SEWER SYSTEM IN "THE COUNTRY" - To better identify construction alternatives and to complete a preliminary cost estimate for installing a sanitary sewer system, a feasibility study needs to be completed. Based on the City Council's previous authorization to proceed on July 7, 1992, a determination needs to be made regarding selection of a consultant to complete the feasibility study. Recommended Action: Award authorization to execute an agreement with Dwight French & Associates in an amount not to exceed $13,174 plus authorize an additional amount of up to $5,000 to be approved by the City Manager. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 8. ADJOURNMENT: THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY JONES INTERCABLE FOR AIRING ON CHANNEL 51, AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. 1. 5:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION: Personnel - G.C. Section 54957.6 Litigation - G.C. Section 54956.9 Next Resolution No. 92-45 Next Ordinance No. 03(1992) 2. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MAYOR KIM ROLL CALL: Councilmen Forbing, Miller, Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Mayor Kim 3. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Councilmembers are for Council discussion. Direction may be given at this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a future meeting. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on this agenda. Please complete a Speaker's .. .. -__ — - -i- . -4 .-,f thi; fnrm is voluntary) There is a five minute maximum time 11m1L when addressing the City Council. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. 5.1 SCHEDULE 5.1.1 OF FUTURE EVENTS: CONCERT IN THE PARK - July 22, 1992 - 6:30 - 8:00 p.m., Kelela Band (Pop Rock), Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Rd. 5.1.2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - July 23, 1992 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.3 PLANNING COMMISSION - July 27, 1992 - 7:00 P.M., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.4 CONCERT IN THE PARK - July 29, 1992 - 6:30 - 8:00 p.m., Mike Henebry Orchestra (Big Band), Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs 5.1.5 Rd. CITY COUNCIL MEETING - August 4, 1992 - 6:00 P.M. AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. JULY 21, 1992 PAGE 2 5.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 5.2.1 REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 16, 1992 5.2.2 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 23, 1992 5.2.3 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 30, 1992 5.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Approve Warrant Register dated July 21, 1992 in the amount of $535,541.40. 5.4 RECEIVE & FILE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5.4.1 MEETING OF MAY 4, 1992 5.4.2 MEETING OF MAY 18, 1992 5.4.3 MEETING OF MAY 21, 1992 5.5 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING NO RIGHT TURN ON RED REGULATION AT THE GRAND AVENUE AND LONGVIEW DRIVE INTERSECTION IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - There is restricted visibility for motorists making a right turn from southbound Longview Dr. at Grand Ave. The horizontal curve restricts the visibility and was discussed by the Traffic & Transportation Commission. The Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends the installation of a "No Right Turn on Red" sign on Longview Dr. at Grand Ave. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 92 -XX authorizing the installation of a "No Right Turn on Red" sign on Longview Dr. at Grand Ave. 5.6 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING A NO U-TURN REGULATION ON SUNSET CROSSING ROAD AND ALSO ON IRONBARK DRIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - To improve safety and traffic circulation, the Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends the installation of "No U -Turn" signs at key locations on Ironbark Dr. and Sunset Crossing Rd. The need to install "No U -Turn" signs on both Ironbark Dr. and Sunset Crossing Rd. evolved from the numerous undesirable U-turns that were observed during peak school hours as parents pick-up and drop-off their children. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 92 -XX authorizing the installation of "No U -Turn" signs at key locations on Ironbark Dr. and Sunset Crossing Rd. 5.7 NOTICE OF COMPLETION - ACCEPTANCE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT - The Council, at their meeting of December 3, 1992, awarded a contract for installation of playground equipment at LMD # 39 Mini -Park at Softwind and Stardust to MD Structural Contractors in the amount of $12,587.88. Installation of the equipment has been completed and may now be accepted by the City. JULY 21, 1992 6. 7. PAGE 3 Recommended Action: Accept the work performed by MD Structural Contractors and authorize the City Clerk to file the proper Notice of Completion. OLD BUSINESS: 6.1 POMONA VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES AGREEMENT - SUPPLEMENT #1 - Annually the City Council is requested to review the Agreement for Animal Control Services with Pomona Valley Humane Society and approve the annual supplemental payment. Continued from July 7. Recommended Action: Approve Supplement No. 1 to the Agreement for Animal Control Services between the City and the Pomona Valley Humane Society. 6.2 SELECTION OF CONSULTANT FOR SEWER SYSTEM IN "THE COUNTRY" - To better identify construction alternatives and to complete a preliminary cost estimate for installing a sanitary sewer system, a feasibility study needs to be completed. Based on the City Council's previous authorization to proceed on July 7, 1992, a determination needs to be made regarding selection of a consultant to complete the feasibility study. Recommended Action: Award authorization to execute an agreement with Dwight French & Associates in an amount not to exceed $13,174 plus authorize an additional amount of up to $5,000 to be approved by the City Manager. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 8. ADJOURNMENT: � 1�� I � 16 VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL F* I IF TO: CITY CLERK FROM: 14L Ri//��/L DATE: -7 2 ADDRESS: 2-3-75.3 GcL )E v �� n R PHONE: D/q�ta ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: �, Co M wl ,E.v f .� IN FAVOR OF/AGAINST? I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect mY name and address as written above. Signat re _ VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: DATE: ADDRESS: �yG' �� /�1E5 PHONE: ORGANIZATION: Cd �C` ►Q �� Lbs 7 A� AGENDA #/SUBJECT: J' j;� r in ,u N C- IN FAVOR OF/AGAINST? —--- I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature CITY OF DIAMOND BAR VOUCHER REGISTER APPROVAL The attached listings of vouchers dated July 21, 1992 have been audited approved and recommended for payment. Payments are hereby allowed from the following funds in these amounts: FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION 001 General Fund 138 LLAD #38 Fund 139 LLAD #39 Fund 141 LLAD #41 Fund 250 CIP Fund TOTAL ALL FUNDS APPROVED BY: oann M. Gitmed Senior Accountant Acting City Manager AMOUNT $ Son. a s 8,460.84 2,389.89 3,169.69 14,987.26 Sag, ll1,c�� —Phyllis E. Paper Mayor Pro Tem (�t /�— Jay C. Kim Mayor R:iN T !fit i5:S4 07.16;a2 l _ '. a - y A- `h L.............�� YE03R AMU Vi CA - — ACCiLVi GJ. -X -%C ?AiCH ?J,.iYE-v a,3Y -._ .4'.J;._ 5.h.. _ V 7'a:kaan err:•+^si: -e^�-r `ar�aar,�:� 201-4022-4220 ?3 :-8i 21 �7ii6 36L?, tnFral .., aat:on :..- &81-, 28-4t2 ;; it 3b .. ... 07.'15 W 38 3rec �e,al SvcG-a.;�e ; TOTAL D1;E VcV7UR --------. 7•%-5?,`:5 Markman Arczyrski Hanson 4ark*an Arc 001-4820-4828 22 287110 01/16 06/33 Basic Sacs -June -'"t`NR&M cVC[i 081-4023-4828 76 22121C 87.1116 06130 6ereral Litigation -Jure 138-4538-4028 1 28121r 07.116 86738 Dist t38 Svcs -FY 91-92 36°•a8 139-4539-4820 1 28/2.10 87/16 06/38 Dist 39 Svcs -FY 91-92 141-4541-4828 1 207210 07,16 06%30 Dist 41 Svcs -FY 91-92 188.08 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------- > �OLO,00 Ncsrat, May 081-3418 384 217 287214 07116 46/38 4281 Recreation Refund 25.83 IOTAL DUE VENDUA-------; 25.00 Planning Network PlanningNv 345.88 081-4218-4228 58 247210 07/16 86138 96951 Prof Svcs -June 081-4216-4228 59 ?01210 81116 06/34 98953 Prof Svcs -June 2,938.01 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 3,275.09 Public Emp1 Retirement PERS 041-2118-1048 184 20121D 01!16 86138 Emplyr 6ontrib-PP 14 2,692.24 06/34/92 080x212980 401-2110-1288 105 28121D 01116 66134 Eaoloyee Contrit-PP14 ' 2,365.23 46/38/92 0800012981 041-2118-1088 166 21721D 87/16 06138 Eaplyr Contrib-PP13 2,746.12 06/38/92 "0012"79 021-2110-1008 181 20I21D 01/16 66/36 Eaployee Contrit-PP13 21414.36 06/38/92 83080!2919 TUTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----> 18,228.88 TOTAL tUE VENDOR --------> 0.04 R 6 D Blueprint N�OElue 12.39 081-4444-1200 16 2CAlt 07116 66136 1350 Maps -Eger Prep 081-4510-2118 19 20721C 07116 83/30 7350 Blueprint Modifications 25.87 TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------> 38.26 Recognition Inc 001-4095-1244 Recoglnc 28 24721C 01/1359 07/16 06130 5065 city Seal Awards 41108.47 TOTAL DUE VEMOR------> 4,108.81 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL DRAFT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JUNE 16, 1992 1. CLOSED SESSION: Personnel - G.C. Section 54957.6 Litigation - G.C. Section 54956.9 2. CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: No reportable action taken. M/Kim called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Kim. Mayor Kim, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen Forbing, Miller and Werner. Also present were Terrence Belanger, Acting City Manager; Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney; James DeStefano, Director of Community Development; George Wentz, Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 3. COUNCIL COMMENTS: C/Werner complimented staff on the General Plan summary that was mailed to the community. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs Dr., asked that Item 5.6, City Attorney Contract, be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He further stated that, for the record, if a new Councilmember is needed due to Mr. Kim's election to Congress, selection should be by appointment of the next highest vote getter from the November 1991 election. This would save the City money as well as criticism. 5. Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., stated that he was extremely disappointed in the manner in which campaigns were handled during the June 2nd election. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Miller moved, C/Werner seconded to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 5.6. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Miller, Werner, MPT/Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1.1 Planning Commission - June 22, 1992 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.2 City Council Draft General Plan Public Hearing - June 23, 1992 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. (Land Use). JUNE 16, 1992 PAGE 2 Parks & Recreation Commission - June 25, 1992 - 7:00 P.M. 5.1.3 _ AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.4 City Council Draft General Plan Public Hearing June 29, 1992 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. (Resource Management and Housing Elements).1992 _ Sycamore 5.1.5 Concert in the Park - July 1, Kick -Off Canyon Park - 6:30 p.m. - 8:00 P.M., Concert" All Southern California Concert/ Patriotic Music 5.1.6 July 3, 1992 - City Offices Closed for 4th of July Holiday. 5.2 WARRANT REGISTER - Approved Warrant Register dated June 16, 1992 in the amount of $2,231,385.70. 5.3 SCJPIA MEMBERSHIP, CITY OF BUELLTON - Authorized consent form as the City's C/Forbing to execute the delegate to the Authority. 5.4 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 92-36 ENTITLED: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING AND ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1992 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1993 INCLUDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS, SPECIAL FUNDS AND CAPIT DEPARTMENTS, DIVISIONS, IMPROVEMENTS AND OBJECTS NAND FUNDS ACCOUTS,PURPOSES THEREIN SET FORTH. 5.5 ARTISTIC LANDSCAPE -PURCHASE, INSTALL PARKWAY TREES - Awarded contract to Artistic Landscape and Engineering, Inc. in the 00. 5.7 ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION, NO: 92-37, ENTITLED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RATIFYINGINSTALLATION THEFCITAYFFIC CNTROL OF DOAMOND BAR=GES AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.6 CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT - ACM/Belanger /nfor anincrease ted thin the the City Attorney submitted a proposal 250 to $5,500. In monthly contract maximum from $5, ested an increase in the addition, the proposal requ hourly rate charged for litigation and representation services not covered in the monthly maximum. C/Werner stated that the City Attorney had incurred costs exceeding the monthly maximum by up to 80% during the ot fully past year. The $250 increasethe City Attorney rforeSthe ext ted a would n remunerate services provided to the City. JUNE 16, 1992 6. 7. PAGE 3 M/Kim stated that, due to the present condition offthe economy and the possibility of budget cutbacks, that any increase in the contract was inappropriate at this time. Al Rumpill,in3958 the GoldenSprings, .expressed opposition to increase ract amount Clair Harmony, 24139 Afamado, inquired into how much the City expended for City Attorney advice regarding potential conflict of interest on the trash issue by MPT/Papen. He also requested information on how many hours the City had been billed for personal advice to Councilmembers. CA/Arczynski stated that advising Councilmembers regard- ing potential conflicts of interest does not constitute personal advice and that he does not give personal advice to any member of the Council. Following discussion, C/Werner moved, C/Miller seconded to approve the agreement and fee increase services. Mar With Arczynski, Hanson & King for basic motion carried: the following Roll Call vote, AYES: COUNCILMEN - MP, Forbing, T/PapenWerner NOES: COUNCILMEN - M/Kim ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None OLD BUSINESS: 6.1 POMONA VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES AGREEMENT - SUPPLEMENT rENT #1 - Due to a lack of matter reports dwas received regarding1992. ices rendere, continued to July 7, NEW BUSINESS: 7.1 RESOLUTION NO. 92-38: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF DIVISION UNDER PROTEST. OF TITLE 1 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, MPT/Papen moved, C/Miller seconded to adopt Resolution No. 92-38 at ons Limit at $11,the 7 rotested Fiscal Year 92-93 Appropri62,247. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Forbing, Miller, MPT/Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None JUNE 16, 1992 PAGE 4 RECESS: M/Kim recessed the meeting at 6:35 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Kim reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. g, PUBLIC HEARING: 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as matters can be heard. 8.1 LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 38, ANNEXING TO - M/Kim opened the Public Hearing. In response to Don Gravdahl's question, ACM/Belanger stated that it is proposed that landscaping an scapin period of years the annexed areas would take p p in order to keep the assessment rate at $15.00. Mr. Gravdahl pointed out that the mobile home park in the annexed area covers two parcels of land and wondered whether assessments would be based on the number of homes rather than on the number of parcels. ACM/Belanger explained that State law does not permit the City to discriminate obasis for assessmentser of by parcelunits on a parcel but only provides With no further testimony offered, M/Kim closed the Public Hearing. CA/Arczynski advised that the following corrections to the proposed Resolution should o ed made: P be 2,endedf paragraph 2, the words "is app Paragraph 3 should be deleted with paragraphs 4 and 5 renumbered to 3 and 4. C/Miller moved, MPT/Papen seconded to adopt Resolution No. 92-39, as amended, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ANNEXING TO THE NG ASSESSMENT TRICT CITY OF DIAMOND BAR With the following Roll Call Vote, motion 38. carri d COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Miller, Werner, AYES: MPT/Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 8.2 LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 38, LEVYING ASSESSMENT - M/Kim opened the Public Hearing. Don Gravdahl, 23988 Minnequa, received clarification regarding certain items included in Attachment 1 to the Resolution. With no further testimony offered, M/Kim closed the Public Hearing. JUNE 16, 1992 PAGE 5 Following discussion, C/Werner moved, C/Miller seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 92-40 with Attachment 1, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1992-93.With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Miller, Werner, Forbing, MPT/Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 8.3 SOURCE REDUCTION, RECYCLING & HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE - Asst. to CM/Butzlaff indicated that the Negative Declaration for the Source Reduction and Recycling and Household Hazardous Waste Element had been circulated through the State clearinghouse pursuant to CEQA regulations. Two comments had been received --one from the Department of Transportation and one from the State integrated Waste Management Board. Both comments were responded to and are attached to the Negative Declaration. M/Kim opened the Public Hearing. Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr., suggested that the City contract with local service stations for receipt of used motor oil from residents. Asst. to CM/Butzlaff stated that residents are permitted to dispose of up to four quarts of used motor oil by contacting waste haulers. The oil must be placed in resealable plastic containers marked "waste motor oil." He announced that a Household Hazardous Waste roundup will be held at Citrus College on July 25th during which residents can dispose of up to five gallons or 50 lbs. of hazardous wastes. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., stated that he had previously contacted Western Waste to pick up used motor oil and that they did not pick it up. M/Kim asked Mr. Butzlaff to look into this matter. Stan Granger, 2300 Gold Nugget, stated that he would notify staff of service stations within the City that accept used motor oil from residents. With no further testimony offered, M/Kim closed the Public Hearing. Regarding C/Werner's questions about the greenwaste recovery program, Asst. to CM/Butzlaff indicated that the program is not scheduled for implementation until late 1993-94; however, the actual date will be dependent on what the Waste Board determines is the appropriate use JUNE 16, 1992 PAGE 6 for greenwaste at the landfill. C/Miller moved, MPT/Papen seconded to adopt Resolution No. 92-41 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENT AND A HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT, AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Forbing, Miller, MPT/Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 8.4 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - DRAFT GENERAL PLAN - CDD/DeStefano reported that this Hearing was scheduled to review the Health and Safety Element, comprised of the Noise and Safety Elements, which are required to be included in the General Plan. Excerpts of these elements were provided to the Council and public along with the environmental assessment and impact report which provide background information on the Plan for Health and Safety. David Hudson, Project Manager, The Planning Network, stated that the Plan for Health and Safety contains provisions relating to protection of life, health and property from natural and man-made hazards in the community. It is designed to identify areas where public and private decisions on land use need to be sensitive to hazardous conditions caused by slope instabilities, seismic activity, flood, fire and wind. The element covers several subjects: geology and seismicity, flooding, fire protection services, crime and crime prevention services, emergency services and facilities, hazardous materials, air quality and noise. The existing setting section describes what now exists in the City, identifies the hazards in the community and sets the basis for determining what type of policies are needed in the future. The section also contains general information regarding development constraints on property now developed or that may be developed in the future. M/Kim opened the Public Hearing. Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs, thanked the Council and staff for the General Plan Summary which was mailed to all households. Gary Neely, 344 Canoecove Dr., discussed the feasibility of locating a state college or university in the Tres Hermanos Ranch area and requested that this subject be re -instated in the Plan. JUNE 16, 1992 PAGE 7 Martha Bruske, 600 S. Great Bend Dr., also thanked the Council for the General Plan Summary. She suggested that the City consider requiring fire -retardant roofing materials in the future and the immediate implementation of a weed abatement program. Regarding the construction of a hospital, she did not feel it necessary since, in her opinion, many residents belong to health maintenance organizations. With no further testimony offered, M/Kim closed the Public Hearing. C/Miller requested staff to contact the Federal Emergency Management Administration to review the geology and seismics addressed in Page 2 as relates to Brea Canyon and Lycoming. He felt that wording on Page 10, Section 1.10.3 was ambiguous and suggested changing the statement from "projects are defined as actions having the potential to increase the projected CNEL noise levels by more than 1dB" to "projects are defined as actions having the potential to unreasonably increase the projected CNEL noise levels." CDD/DeStefano recommended revision to the language in 1.10.3 that refers to the CEQA process of analysis of new projects with respect to noise generation or mitigation necessary upon existing noise sensitive land uses to "where feasible," "where reasonable" or "encouragement." MPT/Papen suggested that Page 4-11 include an asterisk for the public's benefit indicating "a 24-hour average" so that the guidelines are more understandable. C/Werner requested that wording regarding emergency services on Page IV -7, Strategies 1.1.1 be more specific. Following discussion, it was agreed that C/Werner would meet with staff to develop more appropriate language for this section. Following discussion regarding Section 1.1.2, it was agreed that wording be included to indicate "consistent with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code." C/Werner indicated that the word "ensure" was used too much and requested staff to substitute more appropriate wording throughout the Element. In addition, he requested that the terms "evacuation" and "ambulance services" be included in the wording for Objective 1.6. He further suggested development of a Strategy 1.6.2 to "promote" the development of a hospital in the City. In response to MPT/Papen's concern regarding the lack of L.A. County Flood Control District Inventory on Page IV -7, Strategy 1.2.2, CDD/DeStefano stated an up-to-date master plan does not appear to be available but that he would look into the matter and report back to Council. JUNE 16, 1992 PAGE 8 MPT/Papen addressed Page IV -8, objective 1.4 by stating that the City belongs to the L.A. county indicate t at the District but that the Plan appeared GPAC felt that the City should create its own fire district and establish its own fire department. She further indicated concern with the response time in wildland areas. Following discussion, C/Miller suggested that the wording regarding resonbe time insert dllleavinglanremoreas e removeleewayd for that language response time, generally. M/Kim discussed costs for requiring developers to obtain urban runoff stormwater discharge pr, hes questioned outlined on the Page IV -9, Section 1.8.3. Further, necessity of a City-wide system of bikeways and pedestrian trails. Mr. Hudson advised that the idea is to make sure to provide alternative modes of transportationand to provide an opportunity to use bikeways and pedestrian alternatives to reduce the amount of emissions by cars off the road. C/Werner suggested that under objective 1.9, the word "shall" be replaced with "should" and requested that all "shall,s be replaced. CDD/DeStefano recommended that each subject be considered on a case-by-case basis for a determination as to when "shall" or "should" would be used. C/Miller stated that the City does not currently have the funds to design or implement pedestrian trails as called for in Section 1.9.1. CDD/DeStefano explained that the intent was to provide a non-polluting transportation alternative and that there was discussion within the Resource Management Element regarding some sort of pedestrian linkage from p to park. This item is different in that it is more related to improving air quality. M/Kim requested that Section 1.9.1 be deleted. ACM/Belanger suggested "promote the provision of non- polluting alternatives such as bikeway and pedestrian trails." M/Kim re -opened the Public Hearing. With no testimony offered, M/Kim closed the Public Hearing. JUNE 16, 1992 9. 10. PAGE 9 MPT/Papen moved, C/Werner seconded to approve the draft Plan for Health Call vote,motionety carri ed d. With the following Rol AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Miller, Werner, MPT/Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Miller stated that he had received a number of calls of COse ti ern tanksom residents in the areathe andeaskedde of that the Country regarding p staff provide Council with a recommendation regarding the partial moratorium to stop building until implementation of a p put them on an assessment district has been developed to sewer. ort ACM/Belanger stated a rep atter aand bthat it wou een received d be from the consultant hired for agenda for discussion on July 7, 1992. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Kim adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. to June 23, at 7:00 p e pin the ublic Hearingregarding the DAuditorium, 218Land UseE. Element to continue to continue th of the General Plan. ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk I . 2. HZHUTES Or TUB CITY COVWI-ZtL DRAIrr.ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JUNE 23, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Kim called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. at the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Mayor Kim. ROLL CALL: Mayor Kim, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen Forbing, Miller and Werner. Also present were Acting City Manager Terrence Belanger; City Attorney Andrew V. Arczynski; Community Development Director James DeStefano; Public Works Director/ City Engineer George Wentz; Parks & Recreation Director Bob Rose and City Clerk Lynda Burgess. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters can be heard. 2.1 Draft General Plan - Lloyd Zola, Planning Network, stated that one of the major issues of the Land Use Element is the disposition of existing open lands within the community. The Planning Commission recommended that property under public ownership should be designated as open space while those privately -owned properties should be handled as restrictions to open space through zoning rather than as a General Plan issue. Also identified is lands to be used for commercial purposes and that a recommended goal of the City is to identify the means by which the City can generate more sales tax without adding to the traffic problems. The Land Use Element also deals with the relationship of land use to natural and man-made environments. The Planning Commission recommended that the land use maximum in Tonner Canyon have a density of one unit per acre, and a density maximum of three units per acre in Tres Hermanos. Another Planning Commission recommendation is that the City take an active role in regional land use planning to ensure that surrounding communities fulfill their responsibilities toward mitigating the impacts of development including traffic mitigation measures. M/Kim made the following corrections: Percent Of Residential, in Table 1-1, page I-3, should accurately indicate 90.6%; and (RLM) on page I-10, strategy 1.1.1c., should indicate Low Medium Residential. He asked about the status of the City's entry monument signs, and whether Southern California Edison has a program laid out for the City in regard to undergrounding of utility lines. ACM/Belanger explained that the entry monument sign proposal is on hold until final decision on the State budget and its JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 2 impact on the City. Southern California Edison plans to underground some of the overhead lines along Diamond Bar Blvd. from Sunset Crossing toward Temple, on the east side of the street, using monies collected through the Public Utilities Commission. M/Kim opened the Public Hearing. Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs Dr., referring to property bordered on the west by Golden Springs Dr., east of Armitos, south of Carpio, designated as property #10 on the downzoning study chart, requested a change in the land use designation from RLM back to OS, for the following reasons: any further development would result in an increase of traffic in an area already congested; the area has a 65 decibel level; the land is unstable; there is a natural catch drain basin at the farthest eastern end of the property and the area should be made into a park. He suggested that an ingress/egress road be built for the new high school, running parallel to the 60 fwy. with a cul-de-sac at the end. CDD/DeStefano, in response to MPT/Papen's inquiry, explained that the property indicated is one large lot, with one house currently on it, currently zoned R-1 10,000. The Planning Commission classified the property as RLM, allowing up to 6 DU/acre, which is consistent with the surrounding neighbor- hood, as was recommended by the GPAC. C/Miller asked if the City zones the property as a park, it could be considered inverse condemnation, and if the City would be required, by law, to purchase the property. CA/Arczynski stated that, if the City's General Plan desig- nates a specific piece of property as open space with a park designation without providing some type of viable economic use of the property, the City may run the risk of an inverse condemnation action and buy that property eventually. The existing use has to be taken into account, and the fact that there is something on the property, by definition, means that there is some economic value to it. C/Miller asked whether there is a balancing risk, from a neighborhood standpoint, if it is zoned for single family development, consistent with the neighborhood, that the property would some day be developed. CA/Arczynski explained that there is always that risk, even if it is classified OS because someone could also ask for changes to that designation. CDD/DeStefano explained that the General Plan is a visionary statement for a 20 -year period. The purpose of the Land Use Element is to establish land use classifications consistent with the policy of the community, with that 20 year vision in mind. The goals and objectives contained within the element JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 3 are best represented graphically by the land use map. The actual implementation of the General Plan is handled through such enabling legislation as the Zoning Code and the Subdivision Map Act. He further explained that the net effect of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council is an overall lowering of densities within the community, with the exception of Tres Hermanos and Tonner Canyon, which are being proposed as specific plans by the Planning Commission. Al Rumpilla indicated that the land owner was aware that the property was designated as open space, and came before MAC in 1987 requesting a zone change to be able to develop a mini mall. C/Miller requested CDD/DeStefano to verify the prior zoning of the property and to bring back the information at the next meeting. Clair Harmony, 24139 Afamado, noted that Page I-6 indicates that surplus lots should be developed. He suggested that a stronger statement be made that defers in favor of all implied or expressed County restrictions, since that land was not intended to be filled in when the County originally approved those developments. The reclaimed water lake in Tres Hermanos should be treated and should be checked if it is environ- mentally acceptable to have an untreated lake upstream from a fresh water reservoir. Is another hotel and golf course in Diamond Bar economically viable, as suggested in Tres Hermanos. Instructions for the specific plan in Tonner Canyon does not create a distinction between the present region, designated a significant ecological area, and the plans for a general increase in density and a highway. Tonner Canyon highway would become another freeway bypass from the 60 to the 57 freeway, which would increase traffic in Diamond Bar, and increase the fire hazard for Tonner Canyon. Undefined terms and misleading words for Tonner Canyon is unacceptable and we can no longer support annexation of this sphere of influence unless the City continues to protect it. ACM/Belanger explained that the Tonner Canyon property lies within the County of Los Angeles, and the major property owner is the Los Angeles County Council of the Boy Scouts of America. The ultimate use of the Tonner Canyon property is going to be determined by either the City of Diamond Bar or the County of Los Angeles, depending upon which one agrees with the owner of the land as to its ultimate disposition. The underlying reason why the property has been given the lowest possible density, with a General Plan designation of specific zoning, was to allow the City the greatest flexibility in dealing with Tonner Canyon, without discouraging the Boy Scouts of America from the possibility of annexation. CDD/DeStefano read Page I-15 in the Land Use Element and JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 4 pointed out that there is additional discussion contained within the Open Space and Conservation Element regarding the need to preserve the remaining biological resources and the means for accomplishing those goals. C/Miller read an article fromBrea Future" published by the City of Brea pertaining to Tonner Canyon. He pointed out that the designation that the Planning Commission of Diamond Bar has suggested to City Council is less dense than what Brea has suggested to their City Council. If the City indicates that we do not want to do anything with the Boy Scout property but preserve it entirely as a nature preserve, then they will not want to become part of the City of Diamond Bar and they will deal with the County of Los Angeles. MPT/Papen, in response to the issue of a roadway through Tonner Canyon, stated that the General Plan calls for a transportation corridor and not a major highway. The City has discussed the possibility of bringing up an alternative mode of transportation, such as a light rail/monorail system, from the Anaheim transportation center up the 57 freeway and possibly out Tonner Canyon, as an effective way to alleviate traffic. This is a tri -County issue, not a Diamond Bar/Los Angeles County issue. Don Schad, noting that the City does not have a tree ordinance, stated that the City will never have a complete General Plan until it protects the natural wilderness areas of vegetation, trees and all wilderness. He requested that the City post "Deer Crossing" signs by the two reservoirs just west of Brea Canyon Rd. because it is a natural migrating path for deer. C/Werner pointed out that the City does have a tree ordinance in place, for smaller developments, dealing primarily with oak trees. Larger developments would trigger a review of all trees and all natural resources on a piece of property. David Reynolds stated that, in order to provide a decent quality of life, we need to maintain open natural spaces within the basin area. If the input of concerned citizens continues without heed, then the quality of life will continue to decay. He suggested that Tonner Canyon be designated as a protected area and, at some point, be acquired by the State to protect the community's well being while serving a portion of the BSA's financial interests. David Arajo, 3206 Falcon Ridge, stated that the GPAC advised, in various areas of the draft General Plan, the importance of maintaining, in tact and undisturbed, those environmentally sensitive areas that Diamond Bar has been entrusted with. He pointed out that the developers knew that they were investing in a sensitive ecological area at the time of their purchase in Tonner Canyon. JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 5 Eileen Ansari, 1823 S. Cliffbranch Dr., suggested that, since the BSA has lost money every year at the Firestone Boy Scout Reservation, it would behoove Diamond Bar to ask the Boy Scouts to give Diamond Bar the property, to make it into a nature conservancy for our children. William Gross, 21637 High Bluff Rd., presented a letter to staff from Paul and Pam Delgado. He stated that the City Council has consistently disregarded public input on the Tonner Canyon issue. We need a proactive City Council supporting our ecological area of Tonner Canyon. Mary Busse, representing several people from the Diamond Ridge tract, requested an update to the Site D property, as well as the park bond issue that was to be on the June ballot, but was not. She stated that they desire some' input as to the development of the site for a park and a recreational facility. ACM/Belanger stated that the General Plan designates that site as PF (Public Facilities), with the intent of making it into a park and incorporating in it other facilities such as a community center. The City is not in a relationship with Walnut Valley Unified School District to make a proposal to fund the purchase and development of that site. He explained that the County of Los Angeles elected to set the park bond issue over to the November, 1992 election. MPT/Papen asked whether the WVUSD had taken Site D off the surplus property list and if negotiations have ceased. ACM/Belanger stated that, to staff's understanding, they are not in any kind of active involvement of development interests on that property. At the time that their surplus land committee was considering that particular property, the City of Diamond Bar and residents indicated that we are not interested in the kind of development proposal being proposed. The ultimate determination was to not proceed with the development of that site for residential purposes. Linda Grave, 1147 N. Del Sol Ln., noting that it is a popular trend in the State to control growth within cities, suggested that Diamond Bar follow suit. David Craig, 227 N. Pintado Dr., 15 years old, stated that he is upset because his class can no longer have overnight field trips to Firestone because it has been closed for development. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., stated that the first 27 pages of the General Plan has 30 items that promote development, destroy the environment and grant the City the power to impose taxes. The Planning Commission has accommodated the 11 developers that had written requesting special consideration to develop, despite GPAC's recommendation for the past two years of lowering the density JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 6 to 1 DU/ 2 1/2 acres. He stated that Significant Ecological are supposed to be protected, yet the Council Areas (SEA) ng for development on his approved Mr. Buffington's proposal property in SEA 15. Tonnerhere are no Canyon, but Provisions in the rather provisions tohave Plan to preserve the General Plan fit developer's desires. ACM/Belanger explained that eneighborhoods to the property benefit assessment district had been imposed in residential owners, primarily within new subdivisions, for the pen oseof those landowners paying for the maintenance of op Pa areas and small park areas that specifically benefit their ced in property. The ben are not imposed on the cit assessment ommunityas eatn the General Plan, large. Connie Ward, 24141 Silverspray Dr., stated that theacGoand lden Springs and Carpio property had always been inquiries: n s does the not R-1. She made the followinges, the taxpayer; and developer pay for relocating pipes, taxpayer; if where will the water that flows down Golden Springs g there is development. She noted that there is already too much traffic in the area. Lydia Plunk, 522 Deerfoot, Parks & Recreation Commissioner, stated that the issue is not assimple what a enhances being pro - development or anti -development, the community. There is a consensus as to the protect some of the open PaCesnd desire of the community to p Greg Hummel, 23239 Iron Horse Canyon Rd., former member of GPAC, stated: the intent of GPAC's proceedings was to establish a plan that would thejust County continue to the status impose new of development imposed by restrictions and standards to set Diamond Bar apart as a unique community; the GPAC designated Tonner Canyon as 1 DU/2 1/2 acres, and that standard should be reestablished; the community newsletter should be issued on a monthly basis to encourage Conservancy, any input; ho organization that should der competeswith the Nature Conserv y, developers for purchasing land as a means for protecting the Firestone property; he is opposed to a transportation corridor through Tonner Canyon as a solution to the City's traffic problem; Tonner Canyon should be designated as a significant ecological area to discourage development. William Zalewski, 21244 Chirping Sparrow Rd., questioned the RLM designation, 6 DU/acre, for the Chirping Sparrow Rd. area and other areas in town as similar developments in Diamond Ridge are designated � •HeT Thereshould if d be some he would consistency be able to these designate piece of subdivide, if so desired, since he has a larger p' property. CDD/DeStefano explained that GPAC designated requhe iring rdown consistent with their existing land use, req g a JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 7 zoning for much of Diamond Bar's single family neighborhoods. The Planning Commission, in order to avoid the extent of the down zoning that would have been necessary, recommended that the properties, within presently developed residential neighborhoods, be designated consistent with their existing zoning. Since the General Plan is a broad approach, there may be properties that do not fit the designation given to them. There may be opportunities for future subdivision on some of those properties that are larger scale, if they meet specific development standards, as well as the policies contained in the adopted General Plan. Annie Burke, 612 Chaparral Dr., complained that residents did not receive sufficient notice of the June 9, 1992 meeting. She requested that the Council have more respect for the citizen's intelligence, that they can deal with the complexities of issues facing the City. She noted that progress and growth for Diamond Bar does not have to equal expansion. There should be more emphasis on traffic management and encouraging environmentally benign businesses to locate in Diamond Bar to develop a good financial basis, not encouraging more roads and housing developments that can't support themselves. Wildlife does not recognize boundaries, therefore, all of Tonner Canyon needs to be protected, not just SEA'S. RECESS: M/Kim recessed the meeting at 9:40 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Kim reconvened the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Eileen Ansari read a poem written by Mr. Steve Schmous regarding the oak tree and the natural environment. Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr., stated that the City and San Bernardino County have an agreement to form a benefit assessment district for Tonner Canyon. C/Miller stated that the goal was to only assess those projects that would be developed contiguous to Tonner Canyon, not the entire communities of either Chino Hills or Diamond Bar. James Roberts, 32627 Bower Cascade, expressed concern that the earth's environment is being destroyed and that the Council is not responding to citizen concerns. C/Forbing pointed out that the reason people moved out here was because they did not want to live in high rise tenements in urban areas. It is the choice of the people in Diamond Bar to live in large homes on large lots and to discourage multiple dwellings and highrises. The Council has participated in workshops to improve the economic conditions in this community. He further stated that if there was a benefit assessment district, Diamond Bar could afford to buy Site D tomorrow. Furthermore, unless a conservancy can offer JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 8 $100,000 million for Tonner Canyon, the City Council has no way to do anything about what is developed. The General Plan needs to be sensible and allow the Boy Scouts to see their way clear into annexing into Diamond Bar, which will give the Council some control and participate in the planned growth of Tonner Canyon. Kathy Wong, 828 Del Sol Ln., pointed out that we all have to realize that we need to work together, not be adversaries, and realize that these plans are going to cost a lot of money, requiring sacrifices. Dave Reynolds, 1160C N. Golden Springs, stated that Tonner Canyon is very critical to wildlife. Clair Harmony asked whether there is a plan regarding an assessment district to buy the school district site that the citizens do not know about and what investigation was done with the Boy Scouts of America. He stated that there is a legal concept of the sphere of influence and a proactive Council is desired; a road in Tonner Canyon is not needed to maintain control; some members of the Council attended community meetings a year before incorporation that restricted discussion on the concept of incorporation; and we need to learn from the youth how to be environmentalists and conserve what little open space is left in Diamond Bar. MPT/Papen clarified that the meeting referred to by Mr. Harmony was sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. The Board of Directors took a nonpolitical position on the issue of incorporation because they did not want it to affect the business community, and have their customers split. William Zalewski, 21244 Chirping Sparrow Rd., suggested that it may be appropriate to work with the Boy Scouts to fund the money lost yearly as a compromise that they continue preserving their land. There being no further comments offered, M/Kim closed the Public Hearing. C/Miller recommended that Page I-15, Strategy 1.6.3, be amended to read, "If development is to occur, require a specific plan pursuant to the provisions of Government Code..." C/Forbing asked Strategy 1.6.3 be amended to indicate that the specific plan in Tonner Canyon permit 1 DU/2 1/2 acres. He further stated that the sentence "Development which would be appropriate..." is contrary to the earlier part of the paragraph and should be rewritten to be consistent with the concept of protecting its unique biological and open space resources. C/Miller suggested deleting the latter half of the paragraph JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 9 stating, "Development which would be appropriate... per acre may be permitted.". C/Werner suggested that the 1 DU/2 1/2 acres be maintained. MPT/Papen noted that if it is to remain, then it would appear that development is being supported. M/Kim suggested that the second sentence be changed to "Development which would be appropriate... include recreational and other uses." and then delete the remaining sentences. It was agreed that the last three sentences following the word "region" be deleted entirely. CDD/DeStefano pointed out that the Council is not defining the scope of what is envisioned with the development of a specific plan in that area. CA/Arczynski explained that specific ideas need not be defined, but rather something there for us to have a land use designation for the property other than specific plan. Otherwise, the developer can just come in with any specific plan development and request approval. CDD/DeStefano explained that retaining the property with its agricultural designation allows for a whole host of land uses, including camp grounds, colleges and universities, golf courses, landing strips, etc. He suggested that the Council either go back to GPAC Is recommendation, which is to designate it OP and Recreation, allowing for preservation and some recreation uses existing today, or write an agricultural land use designation which is far more limiting than is permitted with the actual agricultural zoning. Following discussion, the City Council agreed to write its own agricultural zone as part of the Development Code. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff will develop a land use category called "agricultural" intended for use in the Tonner Canyon sphere of influence area and staff will come back at the next meeting with a discussion of that item and a definition for insertion into the General Plan. The following changes to the Land Use Element were agreed upon by the Council: On Page I-1, C/Werner stated that the word "touted", in section C, Existing Conditions, should be changed to "identified". On Page I-2, MPT/Papen stated that the word "primarily" should be inserted into the sentence, "This portion of the canyon is presently owned "primarily" by the Boy Scouts of America...", in Section 3, Sphere of Influence. JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 10 Page I-5, MPT/Papen, concerned that the maps do not show the difference between the City of Diamond Bar and its Sphere of Influence, requested that this be made more distinguishable by adding another ledger, and using a different color, on the color maps, for the sphere of influence area. Page I-6, MPT/Papen, in regard to section l.a, Open Space, requested that the issues of vacant land and open space be separated, maintaining that open space is land that has been deed restricted. There also needs to be consistency regarding the vocabulary and definition of public and privately held land. The issues should be separated into vacant land, open space and economics. Further, delete ..from these sources cities derive property taxes from both residential and commercial" from Section b, Economics, and make a new sentence so that the meaning is more positive. Page I-7, MPT/Papen suggested that the first sentence, second paragraph under section b. Economics, "The City could attempt to increase property tax revenues", needs further clarification as to how this will be achieved. Further, the sentence, "In addition, after the passage of Proposition 13, in 1978...", doesn't apply to the City of Diamond Bar since we were incorporated afterwards. She further noted that the sentence, "Aside from property taxes and per capita subventions, sales taxes are often the largest source of municipal revenues", is not true in the City of Diamond Bar. Page I-8, C/Werner stated that he does not concur with the last sentence in the first paragraph of section 3, City Image a. Master Planned Community, "The views from the freeway are the City's image ... define the image of Diamond Bar wishes to project", and that the City should strive to have open space that benefits the neighborhoods rather than people driving on the freeway. C/Forbing requested that "touted" be replaced by "identified". Page I-9, C/Werner suggested that the first sentence in section b., Land use Compatibility, the statement "...that represent a benefit to the community" should be deleted and under Issue Analysis, delete the latter part of the sentence, "...except where they are inappropriate or incompatible with surrounding uses.". MPT/Papen, concerned that the General Plan address the issue of home occupancy businesses becoming commercial enterprises and impacting existing neighborhoods, suggested that there be more emphasis on discussion about maintaining the character of residential neighborhoods. C/Werner suggested that "and development" be deleted from objective 1.1. Page 1-10, C/Werner asked to change "Identify" to "Designate". JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 11 MPT/Papen, noting that there are freeway -oriented areas that are treated differently than general commercial areas, inquired if this is the place that this is so identified. Lloyd Zola stated that in the Planning Commission's recommen- dation, it was assumed that the Zoning Ordinance would be used to distinguish the various areas. Page 1-11, MPT/Papen suggested that Strategy 1.1.5 more clearly define deed restricted open space. CDD/DeStefano indicated that Strategy 1.1.6 needs to include the golf course designation. MPT/Papen requested that staff review the designation, owner- ship and responsibility of the three small recreational areas in Landscape District #39. Page I-12, C/Werner requested that Strategy 1.2.4.b be changed to "Earthwork in hillside areas should utilize contour or land form grading." He further requested that Strategy 1.2.6.a be changed to "When possible, encourage developments within Medium Density...". C/Forbing suggested that Subsection a. be deleted from Strategy 1.2.5 and be restructured to paragraph. C/Werner suggested that "suburban, urban and rural" be deleted from Objective 1.2 and replaced with "a variety of housing opportunities." He further requested that "suburban lifestyle" be deleted from Strategies 1.2.4 and 1.2.5. Page I-13, C/Miller suggested that strategy 1.2.8.a. include senior citizens, delete the word "or" and combine subsection b. with subsection a. He also requested that the last sentence of strategy 1.2.9 comply with strategy 1.6.5, and state, "or to another site that is preserving the remaining land.". Page I-15, MPT/Papen noted that the issue of open space and vacant land is being confused in Strategy 1.5.2.a. C/Werner stated that Strategy 1.5.1 should not have a subsection a. since there is no subsection b. M/Kim noted that Strategy 1.6.3 should be deleted because it will be in the specific plan. Page I-17, C/Forbing, noting that Diamond Bar has not been able to determine what its motto should be, suggested that Objective 3.1 and its strategies be deleted since Objective 3.2 and 3.3 discuss the issue. Page I-20, C/Miller suggested that Strategy 3.4.2 be amended to read, "Promote the incorporation of hillside features into JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 12 project designs." He requested that "...in the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan," Strategy 4.1.1 be deleted. Page I-21, C/Miller requested that Strategy 4.2.2.b. be changed to The proposed annexation is consistent with goals and objectives of the General Plan." CDD/DeStefano suggested that the Council review the Land Use Map to determine if it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. C/Werner suggested that the designation of the Little League and YMCA properties be changed to Recreation or Park use. CDD/DeStefano explained that the Planning Commission recommended that the Little League field, the YMCA and "The Country" park, be designated with a land use consistent with the surrounding areas because they are privately held. Another issue that needs discussion is condominium or single family homeowners' associations that may own and operate privately held open space, such as the Maple Hill Club and the Tennis/Swimming Club off of Sunset Crossing. MPT/Papen pointed out that the facilities on the north end of town may not be able to be deeded as park land since deed restrictions already exist on that property. She recommended that private recreation facilities within housing areas be zoned consistent with the housing. She pointed out that there is a deed restriction on the YMCA property. The Little League field has a restriction specifying that the property convert to City ownership should it cease being used by the League. CDD/DeStefano indicated that staff will designate those fields as "Park" with a notation in the text that they are privately held. In response to C/Werner's inquiry, CDD/DeStefano explained that the Planning Commission's recommendations concerning the 12 letters received from property owners are incorporated into the Land Use Map. Two additional letters were received after the Planning Commission took action on the Land Use Map. One from Marboro homes interested in the property off of Fern Hollow, south of the Gateway Corporate Center and east of the 57 freeway. They requested a land use designation of 1 DU/acre which the Planning Commission had already established for the property. The second request received was for property on Morning Sun and Shepherd Hill Road. The property owner requested that it have a designation consistent with the existing zoning of R-1 10,000, which is inconsistent with the current designation of a planned development with up to 3 DU/acre. C/Forbing suggested that the parcel remain as a PD designation and when the adjacent 80 acre site is developed, the parcel can be zoned consistent with its surroundings. JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 13 MPT/Papen recommended that the park in "The Country," if it is deed restricted to open space, be treated the same as the properties off from Brea Canyon Road, "private park. ners se C/Werner suggested that not been accommodated to invite them to specific requests have to the next Public Hearing to discuss their requests with the City Council. Little e and the MPT/Papen suggested Mormon Church, be contacted usince the property behind the request for zone stipulation was made by a nonproperty owner. CDD/DeStefano, indmastaff individualsamentre ioneds and to the text and the p,, notify the bring back the changes at the next meeting. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Werner announced1that at Sycamore Concert in the Park would be held July Canyon Park. 4. ADJOURNMENTS There being no further business to conduct, M/Rim adjourned the meeting at 11:39 p.m. and une 30, continued the Genera92 to aria aResou rce Managementn Pulic Hearing to) Elements 9(open review the Housing Space and Conservation). ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk MINUTES OF T"M CITY cotmexr, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ?4F'*r JUNE 30, 1992 1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Kim called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chamber, AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Mayor Kim. ROLL CALL: Mayor Kim, Councilman Forbing, Miller and Werner. Mayor Pro Tem Papen was excused. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, Acting City Manager; Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney; James DeStefano, Director of Community Development; George Wentz, Public Works Director/ Interim' City Engineer; Bob Rose, Parks & Recreation Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2. NEW BUSINESS: 2.1 Lease with Option to Purchase/Memorandum of Lease - ACM/Belanger stated that the Walnut Valley Water District declared a 4.01 -acre site located on Brea Canyon road as surplus property and the City has the first right of refusal to purchase the property. Staff recommended that the City Council pick up its option to purchase the property over a four year period of time. The property is a part of the CIP and was reviewed by the Planning Commission pursuant to Government Sections 65401 and 65402. An existing appraisal on the property shows that the value indicated is consistent with the market. C/Werner asked if the City would be precluded from subleasing the property under Section 5, Use. CA/Arcyznski stated that the Agreement allows the City to use the property for any lawful public purpose. The scope of the City's abilities to use property for various purposes is virtually unlimited in staffs' view. C/Werner stated that wording such as public use would prohibit private use. CA/Arczynski stated that it would during the term of the lease. If the City uses its option to purchase, then that term would be irrelevant. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., asked why the City would want to purchase this property and suggested that matters of this nature should be publicized so that the public would have an opportunity to speak on them. JUNE 301 1992 PAGE 2 ACM/Belanger o timesat the art of their statutorial review ission reviewed this matter two tim p and the matter has been publi- cized. the CIP for FY property can be used, cited. Further, thhee pprrop ed, as indicated by the City Attorney, for any lawful purpose. At the ation on present time, the General Plan lanHuindicat esid that the the property is "public facility. e site is the lower half of the property along Brea Canyon Rd. that generally runs from Rd the atcommercial Pathfinder einte- the West of Br Canyon section down to the first housing development. Mr. Maxwell asked if the City had any plans for the property. ACM/Belanger stated that, at the present time, there are no plans for the property. However, it would add to the City's assets and allow the City to determine how the land should be utilized. CA/Arczynski stated that if a state agency u t demnedcompethe the City would be entitled to 7 tion. 24139 Afamado, asked how many appraisals Clair Harmony, the justification for purchasing the were received, goes through property and how it fits in if the State with their anticipated revenue changes. He inhecfelt that ifonly woulne d be in violataisal had ieen on of State conducted, law. that theY en conducted CA/Arczynski stated that one aiser and hat he was raisal anote aware of any by a qualified appr appraisals need to be rule that states that three app received or that one needs to be received at all. ute en the ACM/Belanger t and that there is no the City in regard to the alueeof the Water District an property and that the square foot value of the property is $2.64. He further reported that rohectslanninlisted Commission thoroughly reviewed all nine included this property. in the CIP for FY 92-93, whichDon Schad, 1824 Shaded wood o dt d. , asked whether usage of de the property would Y e. ACM/Belanger stated idhat it is unknown at eline would be destroyed. s time whether or not theg Mr. Schad reported that the GPAC expressed a desire that no further ridgelines be destroyed. William Gross, 21637 High Bluff spoke in opposition to the City's purchase of land at this time. JUNE 30, 1992 PAGE 3 Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln. asked ifthe lied that can afford to purchase the land and ACM/Belanger rurchase the money has been put into thbudget at there will be any property and it does not appear problems with pursuing this. Following discussion, C/Forbing moved, C/Miller seconded to approve the agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to complete the documents. C/Werner asked if the City had any obligation to conduct a public hearing and whether the matter could be con- tinued for two weeks. CA/Arczynski stated that there is no legal requirement for a public hearing in regard to the acquisition or disposition of property unless a city is disposing of a park or piece of property. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Miller, Werner, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - MPT/Papen 2.2 Consideration of ACM/Belanger nstatede the �hatak asthe e Parksla& City Tree Recreation Commission had recommended designation of t e oak tree as the official City tree. He reminded the Council that the City currently has a tree preservation ordinance that singles out the oak tree for special consideration in development proposals. Lydia Plunk, 1522 Deerfoot Dr., stated that the Parks & Recreation Commission had waited for a full year for this recommendatilead toto othiserecommendationfore Council and discussed the events tha Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., spoke in favor of naming the Oak as the official City tree. Don Gravdahl, 23988 Minnequa, suggested that instead of naming the Oak as the City tree, that it might be better to select a tree that would be closer to what the average homeowner would plant as well as using that type in parkways. C/Forbing stated that rather than picking a particular tree, Council may wish to look into having the City designated as a "Tree City. PRD/Rose gave a brief report on the "Tree City USA Program" operated by the Arbor Day Foundation which recognizes cities for their efforts in urban forestation of all variety of trees. There are four criterion that JUNE 30, 1992 3. PAGE 4 must be met to be awarded the Tree City designation adopti nlof are: appointment of a volunteer commission; a city tree ordinance dealing with public parkway and forestry park trees; commitment to budget a community 1 budget of at least 00 per program with an annua and agreement to conduct an Arbor Day celebration capita; a gArbor and issue an official City Proclamation ocanfeasily met or Day. These criterion are already being ram be met. He further stated that the forestry program ds the criteria and that the ordinance currently exceethe Foundation deals specifically with the recommended by Tree City USA Program, which would need to be adopted. ecific tree C/Werner asked whether the naming of a sp t.fr,,,1 d be in conflict with the Tree City USA Program. PRD/Rose stated that it would not conflict. Following discussion, C/Werner moved, M/Kim seconded to approve them athe Oak asrthelofficial City ,tree co men - With dation to the following Roll Call vote, motion failed: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN -Miller, Forbing ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - MPT/Papen C/Miller requested staff to provide further information regarding the Tree City USA Program. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters can be heard. CDD/De5tefano indicated that this 3.1 Draft General Plan - Hearing was scheduled to discuss the Housing and Resource Management Elements (Open Space and Conservation). He discussed the Housing entlement and stated that it is a of current and projected housing comprehensive as and all economic needs for all segments of the community groups. it embodies policy for providing adequate hous- ing and includes action programs for this purpose. It is the most highly regulated element of the seven mandatory elements required by State law. This element is a compo- nent of the Plan for community openDevelopment. Elementsdwillobe ally, the Conservation The discussed, which is under Resource Management. e Parksa& for Resource Management was reviewed by The Recreation Commission and Planning Commission. Conservation Element addresses conservation devforestnt i and use of natural resources, en Space soils, rivers and mineral deposits. The Op Element details plans and measures for preserving open space for natural resources, the managed production of resources, outdoor recreation needs, public health and safety issues and identification of agricultural land. JUNE 301 1992 PAGE 5 In regard to changes Land specified DD/DeStefano tatedtha the Council the previous week parties who had requested staff had contacted the 14 p issues u to designations resolved: E se stat� c one that were specif is land there owns four and approximately and es Development and designationforhis requests a Plan property, which would change the designation f so to the a 7 -acre site located off of Morning western edge of the City and owned by thec Corp. Sassi d to be designated with a loaf RLMe was originally requeste existinin- designation consistent with that the nproperty be The Planning he Commission suggestedwhich is designated PD with an underlyingparcel would be lass of a component three units per acre. cent to the 7 -acre site, about This p 158 of the larger area rid tone Canyon which was designated by acres, known as Sa the Planning Commission with a PDRL open space areclas- designation; ark a request by Marlboro Corp. sification of approximately 20 acres adjacent to the 57 he fwy. . north of that Fern the Hollow- At General Plan the recommendation was indicated request- the however, consistent with the developer' for a 23 unit developer has submitted an applicationunit project. The fourth issue is with Mormon Church property consisting of 3 to 5 acres behind 25 euchurch which per is currently zoned R3 with up However, staff has been unable to he Pr ala d to nanyone within the organization regarding The Planning Commission's designation is RLM with a maximum of 6 units per acre. Lloyd Zola, Planning Network, detailed the process to general issues establish the Housing objement an ectives contained within the regarding goals and obj Element as well as the Conservation of theHous ng Element Space and Elements. The processing adoption is different from the balance of the General Plan in that Housing Elements must b rviewed by the The Department of Housing and Community Development.and Housing Element was Pwithocommentsm1tCommentsted to hconcerninq returned to the City changes to the the Planning Commission's recommendedrecommended that Element have not yet been received. the State's comments be incorporated into the Housing Element. RECESS: M/Kim recessed the meeting at 8:35 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Kim reconvened the meeting at 9:00 p.m. 3.1 Draft General Plan (Continued) M/Kim opened the Public Hearing. JUNE 301 1992 PAGE 6 William Gross, 21637 Highbluff Rd., spoke in favor of specific designation of residential hillsides to guarantee ahe lower unique densityevaluation than n the 1 general rorural well as residential areas of the community and in favor of the one house to 2.5 acre. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., spoke on the Brea vision been Program and how the same type of rm.proHe furthercouldvstated used to help GPAC during its term. that it was felt that one house per 2.5 acres was acceptable and that the City of Brea does not want a road He then asked that chazno Black through Tonner Canyon. e Walnut, California Pepper and the California Sy added to the Tree Ordinance already in place. CE/Wentz stated that he had and Mr. Schad agreed to meet the following day to discuss locations of deer crossing signs on Pathfinder Rd. reported t d determined that the existing Tr ordinance was adequate for the needs of the City. Clair Harmony, 24139 Afamado, commented that not all meetings where the General Plan was discussed were open to the public. He further stated that heha elt an ordinance should be adopted by the County, ld include a legal means to implement and extend the c nsuch of Significant Ecological Area (SEA) regions as Sandstone Canyon, Steep Canyon and the area near Carpio and Golden Sprinthe h lls above the Gnext to the 60 ateway well as other areas including Corporate Center and Tonner Canyon. Marvin Lowe, 16307 Sylvanwood, Norwalk, representing L.A. Area Council of Boy Scouts of America, stated o that the organization had not sold or in heed tplahe nning stages Tonner Canyon and that they the Board of Directors has for the property. However, portion of the land for gone on the record committing a p camping. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., stated that the General Plan Summary that the residents received in the mail is not the same as the one being reviewed and gave examples. He then suggested that staff make corrections consistent with the deouts and allow he additionscitizens to review uandeverify it to the publicc a it. Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs Dr., stated that he had requested that the land designation be changed for the land on Carpio and Golden Springs from RLM to open space and asked what the designation was prior to Cityhood. JUNE 30, 1992 PAGE 7 CDD/DeStefano stated that he had spoken with Mr. Rumpilla about the designation and that he was still unable to obtain the information. Max Maxwell asked how the City is addressing specific requirements to meet the State requirements on Housing and read a letter dated February 9, 1991 from the State. Dave Reynolds, 1160-C N. Golden Springs, asked if there had been any communication between the City and the Boy Scouts regarding Tonner Canyon. He stated that the Firestone Boy Scout Camp had been closed for the last two years due to a sanitation problem. Tom Van Winkle asked for clarification on down -zoning and land use classifications and requested that Council and staff review the areas that do not hurt people and make the land designation conform to what the use is at this time. Ken Anderson, 2628 Rising Star Dr., asked that informa- tion be made available to the public in an easily understood form. James Roberts, 23627 Bower Cascade, asked about zoning plans for Tres Hermanos and Sycamore Canyon. ACM/Belanger stated that upper Sycamore Canyon is owned by Bramalea and Tres Hermanos is owned by the City of Industry Redevelopment Agency. At this time, there is no zoning for these lands and the General Plan does not address the specific issue of zoning, but has been conceptually planned. With no further testimony offered, M/Kim closed the Public Hearing. During discussion, the Council requested that the following changes be implemented: Page II -11, paragraph 5, #3 change to "other vacant parcels found throughout the City..." Page II -13, Development Standards and Land Use Controls, first paragraph, fourth sentence, change "placing land in open space or buffer zones..." to read "supply of land available for residential development by rezoning residential land for other use." C/Werner asked that on Page II -17, Goal 1 "The City will provide" be changed to "The City should provide those opportunities." Also delete the words "present" and "future." JUNE 30, 1992 PAGE 8 From Objective 1.1, Page II -17, delete the words "existing," "future" and "of persons who wish to live..." The sentence would then read "Development of an adequate supply of housing to meet the housing needs in Diamond Bar." Delete 1.1.1, Page II -17; change 1.1.2 to read "Consider commercial/office developments which propose to provide a residential component as part of an overall mixed use concept in new or planned development projects. Strategy 1.1.3 on Page II -17 to be changed to read "The City will not create restrictions on residential development for the purpose of preventing low and moderate income housing. On Page II -18, Strategy 1.1.5, delete phrases "in the short term" and "throughout the City." On Page II -18, 1.7, third bullet - change wording to read "Keep the review of EIR's to the minimum legally required." On Page II -18, 1.1.8, change to read "Encourage use of innovative site development and construction materials and techniques consistent with the UBC and City ordinances to reduce the cost of site preparation and/or construction." On Page II -18, 1.1.10, change "provides" to "allows" and delete "urban." On Page II -18, 1.1.10, remove bullets 1 and 2 and rewrite bullet 3 to read "Developments which include 5 residential units will be required to pay an in -lieu fee to be used by the City for the provision of housing affordable to..." Add "Within one year, we will determine the feasibility of establishing that program as well as the mechanics of how it would work. If the program is determined as being feasible, it will be established within 90 days of completion of that study." On Page II -19, Goal 2 change "provide" to "encourage." Delete the first sentence on Page II -19, Strategies 2.1.1. C/Miller requested that clarification be made regarding open space versus open land. Mr. Zola suggested that open land would refer to any undeveloped property and open space would only refer to those lands committed by deed or public ownership for open space use. JUNE 30, 1992 PAGE 9 The Council requested that the following changes be made under Resource Management: On Page III -1, second paragraph, change "Diamond Bar recognizes its role as a responsible steward of all lands within the jurisdiction" and delete the remaining paragraph. On Page III -2, first paragraph, strike everything out past open space resources" but leave the portion regarding Tonner Canyon. On Page III -2, Biological Resources, end of paragraph one, remove following areas still support" and end the sentence with a period. Also strike out the first three examples. Delete the first paragraph on Page III -3. On Page III -6, Resource Management Issues, Item 1, after the first sentence, strike the next two sentences. After "assure their protection"add portions of these areas should be considered for new active and passive parks." Strike the rest of the paragraph. On Page III -7, Item 2, strike out second sentence of the first paragraph. Add in continuation of the SEAwithin the Tonner Canyon area and point out within the go als and objectives. On Page III -8, Goal 1.1.1, delete "consistent" and re -write to include canyons as follows: "Develop regulations for the protection of ridgelines, slope areas, canyons and hilltops." On Page III -9, 1.1.5, add "When deemed necessary by the City," to beginning of sentence and remove "if feasible" from the end. On Page III -9, 1.1.6, add "Where possible and practical," to beginning of the sentence. CDD/DeStefano recommended that SEA 15 be added to Page III -9, 1.1.8. In addition, Objective 1.2 should also include reference to SEA 15. C/Miller recommended that Objective 1.2 be amended to read "Where ecologically and financially feasible, maintain, protect, and preserve areas that are designated biologically significant. On Page III -9, Strategy 1.2.1, delete the second bullet entirely. On Page III -10, Strategy 1.2.1, second bullet, add "Where practical, to the beginning of the sentence. JUNE 30, 1992 PAGE 10 On Page III -10, 1.2.2, remove Sections b and c. On Page III -10, remove 1.2.5. On Page III -10, 1.2.3, remove "for the use of open space lands" from the end of the sentence and indicate that the City "may participate" rather than "will participate." On Page III -11, seventh bullet, change to "Pursue acquisition of environmentally -sensitive nature parks." On Page III -11, 1.3.2, change to "Unless there is an overriding public recreation need, require that open space areas, which are set aside as part of a development project, have suitable use restrictions." On Page III -11, 1.3.3, change to "Maintain an inventory of open lands which are deeded open space." Strike everything past that. CDD/DeStefano recommended combining 1.3.3 and 1.3.4. On Page III -13, 2.1.3 d, change "require" to "encourage." On Page III -13, 2.1.3, change to "Encourage the use of primarily drought -tolerant plants and efficient design in landscape application and the use of reclaimed water systems." Delete item b. On Page III -14, delete 2.1.6. On Page III -14, delete 2.2.1. M/Kim re -opened the Public Hearing. Tom Van Winkle stated that he was concerned that the Council removed references to Tonner Canyon and other ecological areas. C/Miller stated that the Council left Tonner Canyon because it was a designated SEA area. Council made sure that it was specifically left in because it was outside the City. As far as other ecological areas within the City, Council removed specific references so that the Element applies to all areas within the City; to make statements broad-based so that every one of the areas are reviewed to see what significant biological areas are there. There being no further testimony offered, M/Kim closed the Public Hearing. Council directed staff to make changes outlined and bring the documents back for further review on July 7, 1992. JUNE 30, 1992 PAGE 11 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS: ACM/Belanger announced that several members of the City Council and he would be traveling to Sacramento the next day to appear before the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee to provide testimony in support of Senate Bill 1718 which would provide a school site for the Pomona Unified School District to construct a high school in Diamond Bar, if approved. 5. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Kim adjourned the meeting in memory of Ray Watson, former Walnut City Councilman (as recommended by C/Werner) at 11:15 p.m. and continued the General Plan Public Hearing to July 7, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. for review of the Plan for Physical Mobility (Circulation Element). ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk I N T E R O F T I C E M E N O R A N D D M TO: Mayor Xim and Councilmember Forbing FROM: Joann M. aitmed, Senior Accountant SUWZCT: Voucher Register, July 21, 1992 DATE: July 17, 1992 Attached are the Voucher Register dated July 21, 1992. You will notice there are two voucher registers. This is due to the Fiscal Year ending June 30. There is a register for expenditures allocated to FY91-92 and one for FY92-93. As requested, the Finance Department is submitting the voucher registers for the Finance Committee's review and approval prior to their entry on the Consent Calender. The checks will be produced after any recommendations and the final approval is received. Please review and sign the attached. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR VOUCHER REGISTER APPROVAL The attached listings of vouchers dated July 21, 1992 have been audited approved and recommended for payment. Payments are hereby allowed from the following funds in these amounts: 001 General Fund 138 LLAD 438 Fund 139 LLAD #39 Fund 141 LLAD #41 Fund 250 CIP Fund TOTAL ALL FUNDS APPROVED BY: oann M. G tmed Senior Accountant Acting City Manager $506,533.72 8,460.84 2,389.89 3,169.69 14.987.26 $S3S,S41.40 PhyllisE. Papen Mayor Pro Tem (�/t. /�- Jay C. Kim Mayor *** C *** MIN TINE: 15:54 17/16/92 ity of Diaaand BV O U C H E R R E G I S T f R a DUE THRJ.............17/21/92 VENDOR NAME VFJO]OR ID. ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO IA£if PO.LINE/N0. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE OE3CRIPIION -------------------- ARA Services ARAService 01-4930-2325 67 28721A 191-4911-2325 89 20721A #01-4#95-1200 26 24721A 181-4211-2325 33 70721A ASL Consultants ASL 138-4538-400 1# 241210 138-4538-4898 11 21721D 139-4539-401 4 2#7210 141-4541-4111 4 21721D Accurate Landscape Accurate 139-4539-2211 10 20721D 081-4555-5548 13 20721D 139-4539-5519 8 291210 American Pub Wks Assoc APWA #It -4510-2328 25 207214 #1/1356 Acua Backficr I 201-431.8-2210 081-4311-2212 Baroldi. Luarn 001-3478 AcuaBack 13 20721D 12 28721D 31# 2160 Buys Club!San Gabriel Viv BoysClub 081-+555-5520 14 217210 201-4525-557.8 15 %07210 Brea, City •f BreaCity 0 1.-4344-538c 7[ 207214 01/1373 PAGE i t # PREPAID * *. AMOUNT DATE - CHECK ------------------------- $7116 86/38 1567211976 Meet.inq Supplies -6/16192 75.23 91/16 06/30 1S672#1#19 MeetingSupplies-5/27-6/24 228,82 11/16 96/38 1567281/79 Meeting Supplies -6/2/92 136.4# 47/16 06/3# 1567201#/9 fleeting Supplies -6/1/92 48.21 TUTAL DUE VENDOR 472.12 01116 46/38 13281 Prof. Svcs -Dist 339 1,866.## 07/16 16/30 13261 Dist 36 Annexation 164.0 17/16 86/31 13280 Prof Svcs -Dist 139 11.0 /1/16 #6/3# 13280 Prof Svcs -Dist $41 5.0 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --? 2,665.0 17/16 16/36 24866 Routine Maint-Dist 39 446.0 87/16 16730 24869 Weed Abateaent-May 2 4##.0 11/16 16/30 2489# Weed Abatesent Dist 39 1,60.64 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 4,446.0 17116.#6/39, P-19651 Pub#ks Mngst Manual 41.25 )OTAL DUE VENDOR ------- 41.25 #7/16 66/31 9638 5 Backflow Tests4arks 181,06 01/16 86/3# 9638 Repairs -Paul Grox Park 45.0 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 145.0 01/16 #6/30 4287 Recreation Refund 21,0 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 28.04 07/16 86/38 June Graffiti Reeoval 01/16 06/38 May Graffiti Removal 1,875,#0 . iOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 3,30.41 87716 06/30 #3133 June Contract Svcs 26,339.30 TU'AL DUE VENDOR -------- 26,339.30 ttt City of 0iaeond Bar ttt RUN TI*:15:5411/16/92 V6UCHER RE5iS T ER DUE THRU.............07/21/92 VENDOR NAME VENDOR 1D. ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE;NO. ENTRyIDUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAb 2 t t PREPAi➢ t + W MFT DATE C4.ECK ----------------- Burgess, Lynda BurgessLvn 2112i4 t1i16 06t31 Reiab. SCCCA lltg 6/19/92 25.68 811-4048-2338 4 TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------) 25.18 Chan, Either tad 296 28121R 01116 86/38 Recreation Refund 24.06 181-3478 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 24.11 Chap,tan, Kii 305 811-3478 213 20721A 07/16 16/31 4141 Recreation Refund 36.11 TOTAL DILE VENDOR ------) 36.14 Co0munity Industries CUsAlndust 07116 06/38 Litter Abate�ent Svc -June 588.18 881-4518-5580 12 201214 TUTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 586.11 Couchean, Sandy =83 2+2 221214 87116 06/38 3985 Recreation Refund 25.11 001-3416 TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------1 25.14 DEA Consultants Inc. D6nConsult 87/16 86138 21872-I9 Slurry Beal/Area 2 4,368.88 � 2SA-•4518-6411 01492 � 23 20721D 11/ 16 86/38 21188 -IN Prof5vc-5lurry5eal Area 2 234.18 2E0-4Slt-6411 81492 22 28i21D TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 4,682.88 LIKS Associates D%S 21 P7210 07716 86/38 1509 C'tP Prof Svc -April 1,661.55 t81-4553-5221 10AL DUE VENDOR -------) 1,661.55 David Evans R Assoc, DavirEvar•s 24721A 01/16 06138 85-386? Prof 5+cs EIR 41 -4 -April 12,326.95 821-2388-1011 48 lu:AL DUE rENDOR--------'r 121328.95 AV ':kers "av' rar5 14 20`1114 P1716 86138 1162486121 Davticar Wills-CMgr 21.28 1r,I-4031 :t88 87;16 26/31 i17bi93-281 Daytimer Refills -Ping 64.16 T'_'A! DUE VENDOR --------) 85.46 RUN TIME: 15:54 81116192 # t t C: t y o f D i a 3 o n d B a; t: t • VOUCHER RE615TER DUE THRU'............./1/21/92 'RSc VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID, ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-ND MTCH PO.LINE/v0, Ey1RY1DL'E INVOICE # t PREPAID t ; --------------------------- DESCRiPiICN ---------------------------------------AAOUNT DALE nti ---------------------------------- Deot of Transoortation "eptTra^s 621-4555-5581 22 28721D 81/16 86138 122269 May Signal Svcs 361.15 Eastman Inc, TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------� 381.75 681-4898-1184Eastaan Ili -4898-1111 8t 28/214 63/1213 81 287214 87/16 86/38 89/71179 Answer Marh-Gen Bavt bat -4851-1282 64/1213 17 281214 59/1?13 17116 46/31 19/11568 Answer Mach -Credit Mepo 98.43 96.43- 111-4891-1181 19 2/1214 61/1213 17/16 /6/38 /9112186 Sursoiies-Finance 5.43 681-4218-1188 26 2872., 4 62i1213 87/16 16/31 1911211/ 81116 ppas Suli-6en Govt 118.66 881-4518-1181 33 287214 61/1213 86/38 /9112121 87!]6 16/3/ Suaalies-Ping 86.78 M1-+198-1188 18 281214 5b 1213 19f12135 87/16 66138 Supplies-PubWks/Engr 55.95 09129528 Su001ies-Gen Govt 1.79 Ententann-Ravin TOTAL DUE VENDOR - ----� 268.53 Co. 681-4138-2118 Ent enaar,n 9 281218 67116 46!38 2358 Badge-CMgr/LuciteBlk-RLVN 121.56 Exxon TOTAL DUE VENDUR-------- 121.56 Exxo�S 881-4138-2318 881-4691-2x18 113 287214 36 87116 66138 1419494 F a _ Char 681-42le-2311 2401A 3h 281214 87116 /b/3/ 1489152 -i F.,?; -ben Guvt 18.88 881-4311-2318 14-9 281?1A ti7116 16/38 1489844 FdNI-Ping 15.58 681 4311-2318 128 287214 8�1]b E6138 ii25ie6 -cel-Prk 6 Maint 24.18 281-4318-2318 127 ?W14 6:/16 86/38 3528654 Fie!-Prk a Maint 38.59 87;1� sb/38 'S9A81e =.:ei-Prk a Main" 38.51 36.52 '''k DUF VENDOR -------- IT1.11 F?rpr.3i `xOress ,?r^, FecExD;es5 68t 4138-2128 4 287218 X81-4132-2128 5 287218 17/16 86/38 469245789 17/16 E rore55 Mailing-CMgr 14.88 gal 4?i8-212? 12 281218 16138 4692':5'L19 8-116 86/38 Exore<s Mailing-CMgr 15.89 459145%89 Edares5 Mailing -Ping 27.25 JE 'VE,0,R------- -? 56.25 I' Fenton c2:-4h38-i28e 31 287218 ':1%1119 91116 9ti/3a 1;G* - -_d=.s far ]'%r Desk 175.00 _. ,...E - - Cali 01-4998-213a 31 287218 r$1_,4948_7t?8 ?2 28/218 8%%16 86/31 229327 x'!16 e6r?9 `� ;y ratio Svc-OCtaber 136.54 124311 �o 134 Radio Svc -June 159.55 /EVaOR-------- 295.65 +ff City of O:aaand Bar **+ RJNTIME: 15:54$7/16%92 V08CrER REGISTER '14= 01,'E THRU.............@7121/12 VENDOR NAMF pri Cr5 1;tiT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VENDOR Io. BATCH t!TRY/DU£ INVOICE iESCR.PtICN AMOUNT CATS '-` ----- -- o IM1V C. 181-435$-21C F� ".n-ci;v 122 2',07110 x'1+1381 07/16 16/32 26262 Recreation Trophies 164.15 Tu-;AL DUE VENDGR--------:i 064.25 6'E California of-'14098-2125 h''- P [11118 17/16 86/38 June Plane Sics 1 693.99 TOTAL Oi;E V£NDUR--------> 1,03.99 GTE California 111-4313-2125 fi,E 22 287218 81116 46138 June Plane Svcs-Heritage 42.16 TOTAL 01;E VENDOR--------> 42.16 STE California 181-4211-2328 6TE 2� 22%210 11116 16/38 Street Address Directory 1.12 'UTAL DUE VENDOR--------> 1.12 4o*e C;epot c3eDeont 44.15 181-431®-1288 153 2211tH 15!1196 17(16 06/38 66262117 Bench Grinder `uTAL DUE VENDOR------ 44.19 Iaace iV Svs+.;s Tn:_, t,81-4892 2t81 Tfi?Ce4jV: 19 2v',721.9 2411381@7!16 861432985514° '!ne Crci?r(Coay Maint. 2+4,19 C'TAL DUE ;'ENDUR--------- 244.79 Tnlzir. '1di ey Dly 5+ji1etr ivDa 17116 16%32 dC18419 ..rg-ADA 92-19 41.25 :,A:._ ,rE tiEYOUR--------j 41.25 in`.`InBusECu a $21-;34'0-22f2 31 211213 14/1148 81/16 86/32 58.=2 re* x :r9t Maint.-June 889.41 A69.4b intrxieters Irc. ,+ , oer.r 1,591.2u !at-y4;i-6)58 22'11 +1 136% �f7i15 15'38 9242:pit =^e a,uio '.ENDGR--------j 1,591.28 .ennirr=. E'rc_rar,i 2.974.94 }t: a[� 14321 8!f_I, pT vcs-�roo Tax 1,141.13 t81-14c c-+:021 , ;- i d ie 35;38 _328uy �. _a', ur +f RUN TIME; 15:54 61/16192 V O: C H E R R ainrj E 5 i 5 T E gR af DUE TNR!.............T' 6.121/92 VENDOR NAME VENDOR I;:. ACCOUNT PROJ. TX -r0 BA1CNcN1RYiOuE IY'-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vO10E +£5L'fl1PT1G.V Keith Vint L Assoc 081-4318-1286 155 217 i�.;13c,, iililb P,6/38 341913 Park Suoolies TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------; PAGE f f PR c"f f AMOUNT ME ;rtC ------------------------- 495.59 495.59 Kers Hardyare 'vers 081-3x79 8 28721B 07/16 06/38 081-4318-1288 1,�1 2a7i!D 48+1?77 87116 06/38 56138 Park Sapolies 19,31 881-4318-1208 IS6 2M0 0 45/12i7 81116 86/38 56319 Park Supplies 7.56 08i-43ta-1288 169 281210 47/1277 01116 86136 56524 Park Sapplies 8.91 001-4318-1206 162 2a121D 49/1277 61!16 96/36 56521 Park Supplies 9,42 881-4318-1280 157 28121D 44/121; 07/16 66/38 56543 park Supplies 15.76 001-4318-1266 1,9 20121D 46/1277 97116 86130 56551 Park Supplies 2.14 TUTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 63.18 L.A. County -Sheriff's Deo LACSheri:i 081-3x79 8 28721B 07/16 06/38 92736 Special Svcs -Cycle Event 386.58 10TAL DUE VENDOR --------> 386.56 L.A. Count:- Sher, fi's D p'. 081-4411-5491 5a 28121B 07/16 06138 92831 June Contract Secs 302,829.43 TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------- 382,029.43 ?r. tx1-4411-54P1 5t 2 '=;H 07/16 a6l38 92772 FV 91-92 Rate Adjusteents 24,226.67 TUTAL DUE VENDOR --------; 241226.67 ?.-4319-221.7 ! :rLin 07116 06/3? 92898918115 No Stoo Sign/Sycasore 9.63 tE1-431"-%1� .2 2aiz1D al/16 06/38 92e0018118 Sc Darling Sign1!!apleNill 3H.42 2E71L0 07/16 06136 92001A117 Sign, Inventory 988.39 901210 67116 x6/30 9299aa16113 "ay Signing/;larking 455.24 tEl 5`..5 55Eb ? 207.210 07/16 x6/38 92x20218114 Cross Walk Maint-1ay 169.95 16 28721D 911'6 h/30 9?8a8818116 2 4r Parking Sign7Coljea 16.01 tE'-45:;7-5 E6 �7 207210 g7/16 26!38 9289018114 Si.gn,,ngfMarking-Mav 1,963.42 x71.6 861,34 9ex2�1'.81 4 Pv-ut Patching%Seal 61759.82 5-5-42 7�L0 91 1t 96;38 9290` A 1. +v eri0ebr:c Reeoval 2,8.45 it " ` E? r x7!16 9b!a 92E2E81!1 o rF?t InsGPction 3,333.84 Paraaneat CIS sideva'k 936.56 y cRl 16 s8 ac.� 9; 16 36:8 Stri:erlorgriaw 124.31 'i1-+�' . '•^o -�'t.0 17116 9,6139 4: ?arKing SignlFai ieid 69.07 'f,16 - Fol •, y , c ii c, _aveaent iiri;,e;DuailSuzm 59.66 vci3a 9 0 a;? bign 1^stallatipn 382.91 .? =a batecent 27.i74.5 t a cE? 4 J1^ r :15 - t9, no 57,9,25 �V1-4�1� - • �� ' - _ V�Efi"�ta' ,.gip `PrV�C?5-May 1.962.42 •: �,.,r attiOOH --------` X4.614._6 RJh ":1c: 15:54 87/16/92 V J U N ", R E 5 1 3 E R E T-,Y...............07f2l192 VENDOR NAME VENDOR Ar„ O!;NT PR";.'1-NO BATCH PD.Livt SO. EViRYti) va0:._ D:.yCK1P1.1GV ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ?A9E t a PRLIATO r t AMOUNT DA': -------------------------- L.A."nunty Public �':ks A ?nGi 601-4555-5527 23 :x71':9 07/16 86130 9200804294 May irafFic Signal Maint 3,345.76 IOTAL DUE VENDOR -------- 3.345.76 LA Cellular Telechore Leighton :-H'reliular 621-1830-2125 25 287ilB 07/16 86/38 June Cellular Svc-CMgr 41.21 021--4448-21'5 16 28/218 0!16 86!22 Sure %anular Svc-EaerPro 49.82 TUTAL DIE VENDOR --------; 363.61 Marlocsa Rnrtirulti,ral Marloosa 'UTA; DUE VENDOR --------: 98.23 _eignt^.r and :-s-ociates Lei nhton e81-4328-2218 26 207216 87/16 621.-45'11-_1224 16 287218 07x16 86/30 27269 6eoTech Svcs -Fab 92 5,882.52 621-c551 5224 11 28/218 0;116 01t 74715 SeoTech Svcs -March 1,822.28 TuTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 7,782.76 Leig7tan and Pssociates Leighton 881-3;61 17 287:1➢ $7,':6 h /3a 7 121 6eoiech Secs -May 92 363,88 TUTAL DIE VENDOR --------; 363.61 Marlocsa Rnrtirulti,ral Marloosa e81-4328-2218 26 207216 87/16 86/38 2818 Reoairs-SuaitRidge Park 148.82 - .01-431.-.2.8 163 2a72iD 87/16 86132 35!5 8eoeral Park Supplies 69.69 021-43%2 '4a 21 W20 0 0,'/16 0,6i30 3 —6 Plant Vegetation -Reagan 125.08 081-4319-5222 20 22ii3 8706 66/39 :1577 r,kler RPoair-Peterson 238.69 e21-4?22 538? 20 29121" 01/: 06/32 39'8 T. ReAaval-R2ao.an Palk 275.88 ;•`e? 19 20 21D x7/16 .6i38 IS!9 Tree Repoval-1!aple Hili 315.0 121-''+316 2210 16 2.721➢ 87/16 86x32 3L98 c.,ociies-Maale Hill Park 6.99 21D 97/16 tbi 9 x42 Q?.alrs-Mdole 14ill 7a.6a eat -'4.19 221.e 3; 29,7.2 ➢ 87!16 ?6/32 3S.*d 5.,.,ol:es-rl2ritaae Park 11.97 a7i16 .61"i8 35E0 Re,alr5-H?ritare 17.5? JTAL DUE VENDOR --------- 1,32'.15 Marr.=a ral Marie as 20'21n,e7iL5 06'3`t 3'=:74 -.e !saint-S,or Park 995.0. ?574 'lire Maint-neritace h63.8it tri 6 :+? 29711➢ 07/16 0613+! 2 '4 ':t.n.e Maint-Manle Hill Pr( 629.62 X7/16G6iZ'! 1:74 Jape Taint -Peterson, Park 1,144.4) CL il'Li. y7i1 eL 1r 3`•74 qF 431nt-i237a1 Park 945.8. 07'Si4 ;w'e "Rini Starshire Prk 4.15.0 21 2k1?1" j%/16 06x30 _i 74 lime Mai^t-Saesitridge 1,442.82 216 87.16 eo/^:0 0514 ,e 0a:nt- Svc awre 0) .,;t VENDOR --------, 8.162.e8 t4 C.Dawond 9a. w*t RUN ?IME: 15:54 91t�]v /16492 JUCHER RESIS?ER r DIJE THRU............. 87/21!92 VENDOR NAME VENDOR :t:. ALCOlNi------_0903.iX-vO BATCH Po.t.!NE/vo. C,4TRY/O1,E INVOICE DE5CR1P ICN + ---- -- A40UN1--------------------------------- c ------------------------------ OA "arkman "rrzvrsk: "drY.Da^»r� r01-4070 402 881-402a-4828 r; ,�•,- 1„-_- 87!16 06138 :Une Basic 0hI-4022-4 + 02_ 23D?iib W.10;- Legal Svcs Eenerai 5,250.00 36 2r771C 07116 86/38 -itigation Spec Legal Sic; -tune 75.80 '0'AL DUE Vi_VD'uR-------- ` 7.:'96.36 Markman Arczynski Hansen `!ark�ar,Arc Bal -4028-4628 22 2�771C 07!16 06/38 801-4029-4920 a6 281.10 87/.6 06/39 Basic Svcs -,Tune ; 138-4538-4928 +, 20121!' 07/16 06430 Per-ral Litigation-3une i.l!8.36 139 -453? -4220 1 IP; iC a7/16 96/38 Dist t38 Svc; -FY 91-92 368.98 141-4ti+i-4828 1 20',1 07!16 8bi3Q Dist 39 Svcs -FY 71-92 !64!.90 Dist 41 S'+c5-FY 91-92 188.68 10TAi_ DUE VENDOR --------> 1.158.36 �c5rat. Mav 384 W-3478 217 287214 01116 06/38 4281 Recreation Refand 25.98 3 AL DUE VENDUR-------- 25.89 Planning Network Planning;V, ?'a1-4710-4220 �e1_421g_:,22s 58 2+17110 �9 %di213 :7!16 06439 98951 Praf Svcs -June J 01116 W33 9x953 ^,: Sv,_ 5-...„ re 3+5.98 21933.6) uiiE 'JEtiDa;1--------: 3,275.00 ., 1...c �an1 1G 10at 4+ 7j7�JIO <<7/.b a 6l3a t 01/..6 06; 0 E -;vr 3ontri5-P? 14 2,692.24 96/a? P2 ieI 7110-1886 "r7 r r. lin 97!16 06%3a 4,zo.lovae CUntrib-OP14 0 2,,,65.26 06+3a v2 ?8 e7 ':121D 87!16 06/38 it Cnntrib-PP13 2,148.12 0ti%3 a a 8,:. . c-aoiovee '~�ntrib-PP13 + P9t?AIU AMJUN? .. A6C9:-G f:�. Z7•'1, i!6/3a-�'-s; .a +.tit:! =9 3?2:. '37115 06i30 1+5a c-=� aer �rea 12.39 I"17t Modifi ca -ions 15.81 - - . . a: �� --------I 1 2; 22, 'e , -- _ F1'ia s 4,108.87 --------, 4,7r8.b7 }ft Lity ai 3atond Sar *ft AIV .IME: 15:54 47?1hi92 V 0 i ' ' 1 R - DtlE 10U .............47%21/92 t t Pk�PA;D f i VfNDBR NAME VENDOR 1D. PO.L:+IE/\' ENTRYIDLIF INVOTCc Dc3CRIp{rpN POW DATE -- -- - -- ACCCititiT P^o .7i -NJ --------------------------------------------- BATCH . Roee^t Driver Roll-.ve 96.39 June spec Event Insurance 45.92 961PI92 98014 941-2382.144 !b 2•�? D _ 91!!6 IUTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----? 98 TUTAL DUE WNDUR---------/ 9.99 ;ov. ,ohn. , N VY4 29721A 47116 96/32 41b� Recreation Rziund 46.99 e91-n�-+�b 4 1014L DUE VENDOR --------> 46.0 San Fabr el 411y C;TAerre :ibVCCilerC 55V Resource Guide 521.92 941-4494 2'322 'A 221110 3111h 96132 ?OTAL ? PAID AM40T 'UT AL DUE VENDOR ---------- 3.92 Clan 8abriei 41v r Mie 56VT.rinure 96/39 50-9 ?jb N:g-ADR 92 99 51. r9 291110@7;16 CiAL DUE VENDOR --------> 51.42 Sac.:rity PAC vats Bank SecurityPa 91116 96138 Mtg 6/19192-0rner 29.19 TUTAL 011 VENDE7R --------> 26.19 C:ar;iri}� 4i.: !tat, dank c.r lt't"i 91,'16 96x32 i n�y�r r��-n 6;16 Mpg- d%a r.ifiDeet 21.14 6,q W -)'A 47116 961"s8 6';b Mtg-Cagr 7.8.54 i`�' L1n 37;16 ' 72 x;25 1tg-CNgr/CtyAttorn. 27.61.11- ri q33,_ 2 L D11E VEND UR -------- 16.13 "a ! C ?7 !6 96%3'L v22: �andSCa�e sits -Tempi 12`1.53 - Dif Vr.Vi:OR--------; 122.53 '. ;D* is S:.Bp'•c,_:'e vbi ' _ _. 5E `A d k.it 121.57 4.,x15 1� y �h. 3 VLA+JOE? 24-5. 18 2.!.61 L�7-s- r, A6n1Y. R"'S TryEo ;5::4 8] t /y2 }+} r Q a z n d B a r }+ �QljcJiNR CC 7 i............. 2%/21; 928 PA a VENDOR VANE VENDOR Q. ACCDUIT 0'43';7t.I-\^ BATC4 P;.iINS --------------- iyj, E�1TRY/Ui.E rNVOfit Qt3CRiP(_pN t pRPA1Q t t ---------- - ------------ ------------ ----------------------------------------------- AMOUNT W E Sivara)ah. T?1-3f ]g ?'l? 2�?` 47/15 96+32 Racreation Refund 36.20 i p � A; pf;E VENDOR -------- 35.22 ,. Sn:,tharn ,a "is ^J Soca^as 2r1 -q? , 287211- 21/16 8bi38 bas Svcs-HeeitaSe 32.17 TUTAL DUE VENDOR --------% 39.11 gUthern �'a, cIlion C,E stC:5Gn 141-45+1-2126 29 2+1721" 07'16 86/38 Electric Svcs-Dist41 21.14 IQFAL DUE VENDOR -------- 21.74 SnCaE:son :3° y53b-21r"a 4t 207ztlr 0,ilb +16/3> !ne Electric Svcs-Qist38 236,54 TOTAL 01;E `'E.�DCR -------- 236.54 - SoCa.dison x'01-43 i1-Zi25 :3 201210 1 2h '0 P0/2,C ®1/16 36/30 81,16 26/ 8 e"lert*ic Svcs -Grow Pr M. 26.24 01-42)2 2126 ,.,c :6 2i-2.. 2'/16 86/38 Electric 9vrs-heritane r }86.86 8]/1, �• 5 26/„a Electric Svcs -Reagan Pri! 398,55 E;actric Svcs-5yca�ore 2k5,h1 - Ti TA,DUE VEPOOR -------- 1.157.12 23 2V211C e],1i r..5•... F svc:-Qi-,t s39 :53.89 -ri_ Cin trol. J7�5 2,]12.�s --------> 2,712.86 _:1�? 2f•,' ,, t 8, '»*-,!;re 5 ar �c.�o Pr -x=. 293.58 .LTJ Prep Aui!532n 4 J7 .r' _ •. _ Ly^I R -------- . +++ it d 9ar ++t 2LV TIME: 15:54 8 !':6192 y u i E R R E 5: T E R CUc ?rRJ.............0'21/92 VEND"R NAME Vt!IDi1R VC..Oi kT D.:.TI-SC BATCH PJ, LINE *i'- ESI, fJUE :NVECc DESJH19FICIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7-:ocasson. Avanaa 185 Tro nton. jean 307 681-3'1'3 214 2021A lJ�t."�rdi !a,OCai �a1-4a3a-2319 104 za7z1,, Voear Products inc. VcI 001-4090-1102 a3 28121C %11!13+2 L. Talc;;t Viv WRr Dist s',"ta4..er5is 141-451-2126 3c 20711c ialc-q! 11, i'et4, DS* OV'iat;;L::l� 1" -4�1 -2126 41 2?121' Ails t 176 .? 17 20121.3 t t G4LPA'.. 4 4 AMOUNT BVE 17;16 06130 3363 Recreation ReiJnd 3'7.00 'JiAL RE VcNER--------i 01/16 06730 4541 Recreation ReEtihd 2x.02 "OFAL DUE VENDI R --------) 23.08 07116 06730 318045 FJe1-Cogr 11.93 ;C AL DUE VENDOR --------> 11.93 0116 06%30 12165 Oiiica 5uoolies 83.3A J A:- DijE CEVDf.R--------; 83.33 0116 06130 Date: Usage Dist t41 2,962.95 _r:AL lljE VEWR-------- 1,962.45 07116 06/30 i3'a, Jsano D;st t3? 5,314.3+1 V11h 06/30 �e er Jsaoe-Reagan Part 1,50,.35 V116 1 16738 ra`a: Usage-Starshine Prt 919.3) 'VEtiJi1R-------- 2,419.6' Vi l6 x673? 62149'+9 = 62 Pahlication 2+.I5 'a 11'6 86113) F.2^'336= sr; -5 02 :barge 119.23 .G 'JE.30R-------- 143.23 ?'16 0:;30 6"3 s, arcs- nr� Ce:tr 9 465.00 , +++ City of Dia0and Bar i. RUN TINEs15t5487/16192 VOUCHER RE6I5TEA DERE TMRU.............#1/21/42 VEM NATE ID. ACCOUNT-----pA03-T1 PO.LINE/NO. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION PAGE I1 f PREPAID + + MW DATE CHECK ----------------- Morley, Marliss 081-3418 339 215 281214 07/16 86/33 4111 Recreation Refund 31.18 Zia, Yasseen 081-3416 386 16 23121A TOTAL DUE VENDOR-------� 81/16 86/3t 3882 Recreation Refund 31.01 91.53 TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------- 91.50 TOTAL PREPAID TOTAL DUE ------------) TOTAL REPORT ---------->: 513`,Ml.l3 _s ttt of �ttt 1 RUN TIKE: 15:54 97116/94 City Dia�od BV O U C H E R R E 5 1 S T E R ar PAGE F U I D 5UMAARY REPORT DUE THRU.............47121/92 6,';E Yii_L POST 6JE HAS POSTED FUTURE TRANSACIIGNS PTSHURSE 5/L RcVEXUE E(PENSE REVENUE E1P£9St FUND TO(A` DIREC! PAY Rf'JEtiJt ElP£tiSf--------- ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- 4416zneral Fund 495,654.32 27,48/.1# 1,118.98 466,994.54 13ALLAD t,8 Fund 6,460.84 8,464.64 139LLAD 09 Fund 2,389.89 2,389.89 141LLAD 01 Fund 3,159.69 3,1 89 53 .4,1889.699.53 253C.I.P. Fund 14,1 . ALL FUNDS 523,664.27 21,461.74 1,118.48 495,284.49 ttt Citof y Diaeond Bar +++ RM TMISM 07/16192 VQU C H E R RE6ISTEA PAGE 1 ;. DUE THR'J .............07/21/92 yE11Rp� NAOF t Y ' VOR 1D.r. t t PREPAID t t ACCOWT �T.TI-ND PG. LINE 190. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION i6w DATE CHECK ARA/Cary Refresheent Svcs AAA /11-4496-2325 2 38721A 97/15 97/ 1 287397 Meeting Supplies 68.04 911-4996-2131 2 30721A 97115 67121 287643 Equip Rental -August 29-04 TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------> 97.61 Armentraut, Phil Areentrout 001-4444-4644 2 31721A 61!15 67/21 6147 Eser Coarct Svcs -6122-7/1# 1,725.0 TOTAL DUE VENDOR -----> 1,125.0 Beke, John C. BekeJ 01-4553-410 2 367218 07/16 17/21 Trf L Trans Can Mtg 7/9 41.0 TOTAL DUE VENDOR ----> 46.0 Berry, Katrina BerryK 01-4196-2111 2 307214 07115 17/21 Calligraphy SVC6. 3 .60 z TOTAL DILE VENDOR ------) 33.60 Blasingass, Larry 324 3 111-3476 4 36721A 47/15 67 n 3wAicrtalirns Ra4wak TOTAL DUE VENDOR ) 133.0 CEYAER CEYAER "1-4616-2325 2 387214 17/15 67121 Sesinat 7/31 -Papers 26.0 DOTAL DUE VENDOR'-----_> 21.0 Chavers, J. Todd ChaversJT $41-4553-4164 3 317218 07/16 07/21 Tri I Trans Coss Mtg 7/9 41.0 %FAL DUE VENDOR -----) 40.0 Cheng, Diana gD 011-4553-4111 4 07116 17/21 Tri i Trans Cosa Mtg 1/9 41.66 TOTAL DUE VENDOR -----) 41.0 Coanuter Apolied Systess CAS 001-4054-4436 2 31721A 67/15 07/21 920707 August Cosputer Maint. 80.00 !QTAL DUE VENDOR ttt Cit � :: Diamond Ear .*** PA6E 2 : 15:3487/16192 :'CU H P. P.E6ISTER ..... ....67/21/42 * t PREPAID * + - .._ VENDOR ID. ` ynMc PRO3.T1-NO BATCH PO.LIME/N0. Ek?RYiC F T ,0.50T wVDICE DESCRIPTION DATE CHf�t: �; e Pastal Boxes Cyclone 81/46 012 , Rubber Staap-CCIk Office 61.5N 11/21/42 80@042983 -4,0-1260 1 31121C • 1UTAL PREPAID AMOUNT TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------> _ a 8.8E ,,z., c.�i]-4?10-2318 ExxonS 4 31721A 67/15 07121 1488665 Fuel-Prk i Maint 37.?+ ?1-431@-2318 2 30721A 87/15 6712i 2166462 Fuel-Prk i�Maint 30.74 3 31721A 81115 @7121 2186694 Fuel -Ping 23.58 ?�i-421@-?318 2 31721A 81115 @7!212167291 Fuel -Ping X4.88 �?1 +310-2318 6 31721A 81115 07/21 2187358 Fuel-Prk 1 Haint 6.64 =_} -4318-2311 5 31721A 01115 87!21 2181485 Fuel-prk L Maint 36.42 _ �.1N-2318 3 30721A 87/15 87121 2107181 fuel-Prk i Maint 16.95 e2: -4x,:0-2318 2 31121A 87115 87121 2107614 fuel-CMgr TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------- ? 192.34 gran EN Rim . -4 %17/15 67121 2116473 Vehicie Maint-CNgr 49.55 @01-4130-220 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 49.55 Farmer, Nithelle 311, 15 30721A 81115 874?1 4441 Recreation Refund 25.68 621-3476 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------? 25.84 Firestone Stores 001-421@-2280 firestone 4 31MA 11/1399 17115 87121 7168825984 Tires for Ping Truck 335.13 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------? 335.13 61E California GTE 2 317218 11/16 01/21 July Phone Svcs -Heritage 54.44 60]-4313-2125 19TAL DUE VENDOR --------? 54.49 61E Caiifornia GTE 1 317218 87116 07/21 Eser Prep Phone -July 31.82 881-4440-2125 1DTAL DUE VENDOR --------; 31.12 Sum, Mary 30 324 3 3/721A 81/15 07121 4124 Recreation Refund 34.88 021-3;14 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 39.44 iiasond Ea +++ i, E R R E E t c 7- °A5E ... -=.. .............7';2479'7 FKOJ,T1-NO BATCH PG,LIKS/N0. ' "R - 1 " r -------------------------- 325 5 307214 07/15 F7/21 3642 R2-re8t-on Refine Bodhinah 326 @e1-34.78 6 30721A ::Fur=.or., joanre 331 =`76 If 301214 `ere,,'rv, mile W-434-5325 HC. Nora Bt1-3'+78 a►=. Janice 01-3478, HerebrO. 4 38721B 322 2 32721A 330 9 34721A 61/15 07/21 4412 27;15 67121 4569 07/16 2712! 97/15 21/21 4248 67/15 07/21 3601 .aseruipr LaserRuipt 01-4x90-2240 3 30721B 1211395A 07/16 277121 10767 001-4698-2200 2 39721B O1/1395A 07/16 07/21 10766 _pa%;e CA Cities Housing LeaoueHous 4011-4610-2330 2 38721B 07116 07/21 LFaoee of Ca. Cities lRevue 881-4010-2330 3 30721C - 07/16 07/21 TUTAL DUE vMlt R --------' Recreation MAL DUE VENDOR --------;. c ya Recreation R2fond IOTAL DUE VEtiDCR-------- L8 tr Band for Concert 7/29 b22.0¢ TUTAL DUE VENDOR. -------- 690.00 Recreation Refund G3 66 Recreation Reiund 133.22 TUTAL M VENDOR --------; 133.60 16 Toner Cartridoes 1.166.12 FY92-93 Laser Frinter Svc 1,243,06 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------; 2,413.12 Conf. 7/29-7/31-Pa,en 208.06 TUTAL D.:E 6EaDUR-------- 229.00 Cori; 1/29-7!31-Paoan 14@.00 67/21/92 0000012985 IDTAL MPA,D Ah? -,4' ----, 442.60 70TAI DUE VENDOR -------- 6,06 k F'• t vv ......... ........ ..'tits ' — --------------- — ------------------ ----`------------------------ ---- ------- --------'--' 'S 14 38'1'1A�3e-readiaa Re K;6 iUTA'. TUE VEND` --------. onN, 30721A b%lis 87121 46.4 Re.-reatran P2f�1nC = as 327 7 3A721A , ,, F7r ; e 2, �- a i5 y"� DDE .'=!DLP --------- „ t lP150n7'S 81116 81,'t'_ - Sn�n�' E,'s 5vc-Co^cer.'/2: c a072!,A TUTA? DISE VEYDUR --------- "5 81116 87121 Sound 5f5 Svc -Concert 24 44 6 38TH ?'UTA: 4!;E VEND!A-------- 4i�B•ea �.�, -�, ',no.4yi?5 4e,pTechaol 071 i6 81/21 190=': "otherBoarc Peala:e�ent 20 i4 k: -48'i8 -b238 3 327118 TUTAL DoE VEkDA------- -. -,=,' �sine=s �nr�es - UE1Busines 4 30/ 21B 0211396 , � ° 87/ib : 12-83569; 8,i2 Coa2uter Paper 6.49 a 4a5a .18'8 4 30721B 8111396 87;16 87%ei i2-i�35t99 Ca4Y FanFr 84.5t• ':JTA. DL!E VENDOR ------ 6i° 8= L E�.+ta; Avi?d.np SYts Pareses +e: GG k. f-- for Hen"8ae 7yI 1. Q7+I4r,,2212967 ::415 04692 2 SFiIC 71. c7f�� 8 .e �LITRL DU, vF4?UR--------, K S 3 3872iA 8,; 87;2; 4115; 2 _ G(...TX-.i Rn`r-H D't •i,Cj„^ �. _- -: JF..1!�F .yT ('�' M�',!!� }:t ..van Sib E 387118 r Ra Pe':Or N�i� ._ -.�DhlrS PaDTGfiTdr,: -2.t@ 3 36111E ;u A�_ r"�; !:vtV-w --------- - -F^�' ClS7�PPdV 4 37e1P M[n", "dnPT AL r' !E 5e111Pjt.t Z 3+7Lin @7 1 B'i21 5earina* 8I'Z; MAL ACE VEND P --------? :Yy.Bb al:fornia 5tatePub -2:r, 2321 Z 38111E @7r 1' @1121 Pina,lenina Pahiicatio'-r '0'AL CGE VONT.uR -- -----. 9 .t� =... Pubiisnpc SrouD Tbusp5DC a=8 @ @7; @(2 F�5A HandbG^1. PaPty:Z 146.5@ CIAL n.k "'EN—F -------- 196.5 KI2 r? 7A 1; 307114 @7/15 @7121 7@ Re-reatio�: Reiond 31.@? 11,TC,I 7rf I r. ;; �.:c 7/9 4tL.06 TT/ar:`S Q.0 n; - .j. z' 4?6@-538- 7 3@721E Part for Cnncert 7122/9? 686.@@ TaL D! E 'vcND:R-------- 666.ba - - - -- - -- - - - - - i2------------------------- -------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 tin. Raf 'UTAL PREPAT[- - - - - - - - - - - N lryk- DrE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A! RMRT - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 ttt C !v of Di a 1 0 n d BaI ttt PAGE 1 1S,34 61116/92 U D G N E R R E c I S 1 E R FUND SUMMARY REPORT DtiE ? 83 .............67/2119? DISBURSE 6/t GIE MILL POST 63E HAS -POSTED FUTURE 1RANSAETIONS TOTAL DIRECT PAY REVEkuF EXPENSE REVENUE EXPENSE REVENUEEXPENSE vi_Ezneral Fund 16,679.44 989.0 9,970.4# Fund 797.13 791./3 ------------ ------------ -- FuyDS 11,677.13 9#4.28 10,168.13 e LTTY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chair/Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board Meeting Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: CD/DeStefano. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Meyer, vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Commissioner Li arrived at 7:08 p.m. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Associate Engineer David Liu, District City Attorney Bill Curley, Lloyd Zola of the Planning Network, Paul Taylor, a principal of DKS, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MATTERS FROM Marc Perrin, with Bramalea California Inc., 1 Park THE AUDIENCE: Plaza Ste. 1100, Irvine, stated that Bramalea, the owner of the property referred to in the General Plan as either the upper Sycamore property, or the Bramalea property, upon review of the draft General Plan as it has been presented, object to the designation of a substantial portion of the property as open space and park space. We consider it a taking of that property without just compensation. He submitted a letter, from Bramalea California, Inc., to the Commission. CONTINUED CD/DeStefano reported that this is the third in a PUBLIC HEARING: series of public hearings regarding the new General Plan of Diamond Bar. The Commission has reviewed The Plan the Plan for Public Services and Facilities, the for Resource Plan for Resource Management, and the Plan for Management Public Health and Safety. The Plan for Public Services and Facilities has been finalized by the Commission. The Commission will look towards finalization of the Plan for Resource Management tonight. The Commission concurred to review the Plan for Resource Management, as was amended, per Commission's direction, on April 20, 1992. The Public Hearing was declared opened for any comments regarding the Plan for Resource Management. The Public Hearing was declared closed. C/Grothe made the following comments: page 3, last paragraph, should have been amended to read, "...are in a historic area that may contain..."; and page 6, last paragraph, second to the last May 4, 1992 Page 2 line, the word "anyway" should be deleted. The Commission concurred. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 7:18 p.m. to allow staff time to make additional copies of the Plan for Resource Management for the members of the audience. The meeting was reconvened at 7:30 p.m. CD/DeStefano, while waiting for further copies to be made, explained the components of the Plan for Resource Management to the audience. C/Grothe made the following comments: page 10, Strategy 1.1.1, the statement "State Route 57 Scenic Highway corridor" was to be relocated to follow the revision of the statement 11 ... ..the south end of The Country, Tonner Canyon, and State Route 57 Scenic Highway corridor."; and page 11, Strategy 1.1.8, second line, was to delete the comma following the words "adjacent to". The Commission concurred. VC/MacBride stated that the "m" from the word "feasible" on page 12, objective 1.2, should be deleted. Chair/Flamenbaum, referring to page 13, Strategy 1.2.2.b, stated that he recalled that the Commission had concurred that it was to be reworded to indicate that there should be some mitigation plan for any tree, deleting the specific trees. CD/DeStefano, referring to his notes, stated that the Commission wished to eliminate many of the specifics, and deal with the general issues of tree preservation. Staff tried to eliminate most of the subsections and combine it all into a mitigation plan, for removal of trees of 6" or greater in diameter, under Strategy 1.2.2.b. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that his concern was calling out the requirement for an ordinance, then specifically mentioning trees that were clearly deleted from the ordinance, by the City Council. C/Meyer stated that the Commission had wanted reference to an ordinance deleted, to be replaced with reference to plans and programs. Chair/Flamenbaum requested staff to rewrite the strategy to delete the specific tree and to delete reference to the ordinance. May 4, 1992 Page 3 C/Meyer suggested that the word "ordinance" be deleted, and the word "plan" be inserted. He also stated that the Commission was referring to a mitigation plan, not just a "replacement" mitigation plan. The Commission concurred. C/Grothe noted that Strategy 1.2.5, on page 14, should actually be numbered 1.2.4. VC/MacBride made the following corrections: the "m" in Objective 1.3 should be deleted; the word "of" in Strategy 1.3.9, first bullet, should be deleted; delete the word "a" from Strategy 2.1.5.a; and delete the words "an aggressive" from Objective 2.5. Chair/Flamenbaum noted that references to Assembly Bills, such as AB939 and AB2707, were to be footnoted to the appropriate code section. VC/MacBride requested that the statement "conduct an aggressive" be deleted from Strategy 2.5.9. Chair/Flamenbaum noted that the meaning to the abbreviation HHW, in Strategy 2.5.11, is not referenced in the document. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the revised Plan for Resource Management, as further amended. The Plan The Commission concurred to review the Plan for for Physical Physical Mobility. Mobility Chair/ F lamenbaum informed the audience that changes made, to this document, this evening, will be presented back to the Commission in two weeks. CD/DeStefano reported that the purpose of the Plan for Physical Mobility is to examine Diamond Bar's overall circulation for the needs of the community. The plan is designed to provide basic goals, objectives, and programs to manage existing transportation facilities and future growth. Diamond Bar's system is significantly affected by forces outside it's jurisdiction. The Circulation Element is designed to account for those external forces and develop a strategy to implement the choices that are before the City, and the decisions that the City makes. The circulation system needs involve a balancing of the demand for increased roadway capacity with a vision for our community image and our overall quality of life. He introduced Lloyd Zola, from the Planning Network, May 4, 1992 Page 4 and Paul Taylor, a principal of DKS. The Planning Network has been the principal consultant for preparation of the General Plan, advising the GPAC, Planning Commission, City Council, and City Staff. DKS is the consultant, that the City engaged in December of 1990, for preparation of the Plan for Physical Mobility. Lloyd Zola explained that with the opening of Grand Ave., it became apparent that the City would have to take it's own route on preparing a circulation element. The City did a separate request for proposals, and retained DKS & Associates to prepare the Circulation Element. Therefore, there is the original preparation of the General Plan, occurring through the Planning Network, and the Circulation Element, occurring through DKS. The important factors to consider when looking at the Circulation Element is the basic requirement, under State law, that the Circulation Element must be related to, and support, the Land Use Element. one of the important land use factors discussed by GPAC, that start affecting traffic, is the need to protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods within the community. The Commission will be asked to balance the importance of protecting the integrity of neighborhoods compared with the traffic benefits. Another factor discussed was that, though Tonner Canyon is to ultimately be a master plan development, the unique biological resources and open space characteristics of Tonner Canyon is to be preserved. The GPAC determined that, as part of protecting those resources, putting a roadway through the Canyon would not be appropriate. The Commission will be asked to balance the biological preservation, and the importance of the environmental aspects of Tonner Canyon, with the traffic needs or criteria to build that roadway. The Planning Commission's role is to define the internal consistencies of the Plan, to improve the traffic flow through the City, balancing it with the other Elements, plus the land use thrust of maintaining the quality of life we have in the community in the future. Paul Taylor explained that they are the experts who address the traffic impacts, of the land use desired by the City. As was indicated, DKS was engaged over a year ago to develop this element of the General Plan. At that point we began developing an early working dialogue with the TTC, and, eventually, with the GPAC. He then reviewed the figures and tables from the Plan for Physical Mobility: May 4, 1992 Page 5 Figure 2-1 - The existing roadway system. Figure 2-3 - Major intersection locations and deficient peak hour levels of service. Figure 2-4 - PM peak percentage of through trip traffic. The surveys taken indicate that, on Diamond Bar Blvd., south of Grand Ave, 20 % or more of the traffic during the peak rush hour is through traffic, on Grand Ave., west of Diamond Bar Blvd., the through traffic is in excess of 20 %, and east of Diamond Bar Blvd., the through traffic is 40 or more. Figure 2-5 - Existing transit service routes. One of the ways to relieve and mitigate some of the traffic congestion is with public transit. Figure 2-6 - Existing designated bicycle route. The two bicycle routes, along Golden Springs and Diamond Bar Blvd., provide an alternate means of transportation. Figure 2-7 - Proposed equestrian trail. Figure 2-8 - Designated truck routes. This is an important aspect of the City's transportation system that deal with the movement of heavy trucks, and where they must be. Table 3-3 - Roadway classification. The GPAC recommended that Diamond Bar Blvd. and Lemon Ave., south of Colima, be reclassified from a major arterial to a secondary arterial, and that Sunset Crossing/Washington/Beaverhead be reclassified from a secondary arterial to a cul-de- sac. Mr. Taylor corrected that the roadway improvement standard for Lemon Ave. should indicate 80 feet, which is consistent to the reclassification to a secondary street. Table 3-4 - Freeway arterials estimated future traffic (without Road). This table is representative of Travel Forecasting that was done and City model that was prepared He explained that a street with - Existing and average daily Tonner Canyon the result of the with the regional for Diamond Bar. a V/C ratio under May 4, 1992 Page 6 1.00, such as .94, can be viewed as 94% saturated. A number over 1.00 is an indication of a theoretical over capacity, but factually a physical impossibility. The future forecast, for a number of the streets, are shown with a theoretical over capacity in 20 years from now, under the recommended future land use scenario. Table 3-5 - Future average daily traffic and volume -to -capacity ratios for selected arterials with and without Soquel Canyon Road/Tonner Canyon Road extensions. He noted that the addition of Soquel Canyon Road/Tonner Canyon Road has the effect of returning and retaining the traffic congestion on Grand Ave. and Diamond Bar Blvd. to the levels experienced today. Mr. Taylor pointed out the following key issues that resulted from the analysis, and are reflected in the goal, strategies, and objectives: regional through traffic is a significant problem in planning for physical mobility within the City; the addition of Tonner Canyon Road is not a solution for the traffic problem; and the extension of Sunset Crossing/Washington/Beaverhead would add additional traffic. Lloyd Zola, in response to C/Meyer's inquiry regarding the traffic numbers used in the open space areas, stated that the canyon area was done projecting future volumes forward, realizing that there is some traffic generated in and out of the boy scout area, and Tres Hermanos was estimated at a buildout of similar density to the balance of the City. Paul Taylor, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiries, stated that, because of the canyon's relative inaccessibility from the rest of Diamond Bar, the traffic on Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave. would be little affected by the extent of buildout in Tonner Canyon. If it were accessible, hypothetically, it could dump even more traffic into the area. He does not subscribe to the theory that at some point you can build enough capacity that you won't have any more problems, because traffic will fill what ever space is provided to it. Paul Taylor, in response to C/Meyer's inquiry as to what mitigation measures are used to reduce traffic May 4, 1992 Page 7 volumes, stated that the single most effective measure that can be done is to encourage more people in fewer cars. Another approach is staggering work hours, which reduce traffic volumes because there a less people trying to use the same roads at the same time. One way streets can be an effective way of improving the traffic flow but it doesn't do anything to reduce the traffic. Traffic signals are very effective in improving the capacity of an intersection, if there is an unbalanced flow of traffic. If the traffic flow is balanced, a four way stop sign is most effective. If the traffic signals are very close together, and they are not coordinated, that route could turn out to be less desirable or attractive than they would under other circumstances. The Public Hearing was declared open. Jelie Bordena, a resident, in opposition to the opening Sunset Crossing, stated that the City has a responsibility to meet the needs of the citizens. If more roads are built, there will be an increase in traffic that will have a negative impact on the children of the community. John Beke, residing at 1248 S. Hern Dr., a member of the TTC, and a traffic engineer for 35 years, made the following comments: the Circulation Element is designed to thwart all traffic, therefore, according to the data, this would mean that 20% of the regional traffic will be inconvenienced, but 80% of our residents will also be inconvenienced; Sunset Crossing has been designated to be opened for 52 years; if there is opposition to having trucks on Sunset Crossing, then all the City needs to do is post "No Truck" signs; according to table 3-5, the traffic on our roads will double if a Tonner Canyon Road is not built; and a road can be built in Tonner Canyon that is blends in naturally with it's environment. Kim Chapman, residing at 22713 Happy Hallow Rd., in opposition to the opening of Sunset Crossing/ Beaverhead, noted that, if the road were to be opened, the railroad could cause terrible back up congestion, especially with the three ball fields, a YMCA, and 300 homes that surround that area of Sunset Crossing. Red Calkins, residing at 240 Eagle Nest Dr., made the following comments: the increase in traffic from opening Sunset Crossing would be chaos to the existing neighborhood; speaking from experience, May 4, 1992 Page 8 posting "No Trucks" would have little or no effect; and since there are plans to build a MRF on the other side of Sunset Crossing, there would be a lot of garbage trucks using the road. Todd Chavers, residing at 23816 Chinook Pl., a member of the TTC, made the following comments: buildout refers to alternative land use and has nothing to do with homes; since four of the members picked with DKS are no longer with that firm, there is a lack of consistency in developing this element; the intent is to try to achieve a balance, yet Tonner Canyon is being ignored; to say that the City will not do something, sets us up for liability; there are so many inconsistencies within the element; and the TTC should be requested to be involved on a more formal bases. Clyde Hennesy, residing on Sunset Crossing, stated that opening Sunset Crossing is a temporary fix that will affect 3,000 people in the area. Don Gravdahl, residing at 2398 Minnequa, a member of the TTC, made the following comments: local streets are being referred to as collector streets; opening Sunset Crossing would create a traffic mess; if the roads are opened to regional traffic, how would we protect existing neighborhoods; any reference to Sunset Crossing should be omitted; and the document should indicate that a public hearing will be held if these roads (Sunset Crossing, Beaverhead, and Washington) are ever considered to be opened. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:11 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:23 p.m. Deborah Carter, a resident, opposing the opening of Beaverhead, stated that the school in the area, and the safety of the children, should be a major consideration. Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane, stated that the issue of environment was not fully addressed in Tonner Canyon. The Planning Commission seems to have a "pro development" attitude. He would like the Commission to stand up and protect the environment in the General Plan. Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove Dr., stated that Strategy 2.3.1, in the Plan for Resource Management, should refer to not only the vehicle miles traveled, but the amount of people in the cars, and the length of time it takes to travel. May 4, 1992 Page 9 He made the following comments in regards to the Plan for Physical Mobility: the document already indicates that Sunset Crossing, Washington, and Beaverhead are to be cul-de-saced; the document should be kicked back to the TTC to allow them an opportunity to review and amend the document accordingly; an access road to the new High School in Tres Hermanos needs to be addressed; the Plan is, at best a sophomoric effort, with the facts and conclusions inconsistent with each other; Tonner Canyon Road can be built in a biologically safe way; and he is in opposition to a toll booth for Grand Ave. Sylton Hurdle, residing at 105 N. Palo Cedro Drive, stated his opposition to the opening of Beaverhead. Don Robertson, residing at 309 N. Pantado Dr., a member of GPAC, stated the GPAC's feeling on traffic, in general, is that there are two ways to solve a traffic problem: open the roads and let the traffic through; or restrict the roads and let the traffic go around Diamond Bar. The GPAC would like to make it difficult for the outsiders to travel through Diamond Bar, and make it easier for the local residents. The GPAC is not against a road in Tonner Canyon, but against a regional parkway put through Tonner Canyon. He stated that opening Beaverhead would impact the schools in a terrible way. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Chair/Flamenbaum indicated that he would like the members of the Traffic and Transportation Commission to come forward, as individuals, to answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have regarding the Circulation Element. The Commission concurred. Chair/Flamenbaum, noting that sooner or later Tonner Canyon will be part of Diamond Bar, inquired how, philosophically, one could say that opening Tonner Canyon is appropriate, yet Sunset Crossing is to be left closed. Don Gravdahl stated that the two situations are completely different. Sunset Crossing is a residential area that has been built up for about 30 years. According to the consultants figures, Sunset Crossing, east of Diamond Bar Blvd., should be well over capacity today, and yet you're asking why it shouldn't be further impacted. On the other hand, there are no persons living in the Tonner May 4, 1992 Page 10 Canyon area today. Tonner Canyon Road is a traffic reliever for Diamond Bar, and should, at least, be explored. He stated that he is in agreement, with the other individuals, that are members of TTC, that spoke regarding the development of a Tonner Canyon Road. The opinions on Sunset Crossing are not so different, and could probably be worked out. His concern is that there be adequate protection should one of those streets ever want to be open. There should be some safeguards in place assuring that there are hearings, by the City Council, to allow citizens to express their opinions to make it work. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired how the over pass for the 57/60 interchange, and the need to accommodate a High School in north Diamond Bar, should be addressed. Todd Chavers stated that, philosophically, one should question if the improvement will benefit Diamond Bar. Opening Sunset Crossing will probably not benefit the City. In regard to Tonner Canyon, two situations have been projected: the traffic conditions with a Tonner Canyon Road; and the traffic conditions without a Tonner Canyon Road. The question to ask is which one of these conditions are we willing to accept, and if it is an either/or situation, or some balance of a combination. According to Caltrans, when the 71/60 interchange is resolved, the east bound 60 to northbound 57 movement is supposed to use that new interchange. Therefore, our need for the overpass is minuscule, and is not an acceptable solution. The question, regarding the road to the High School, is determining how we provide good access for Diamond Bar, without providing good access to the rest of the world. That is a different question than Tonner Canyon, and Sunset Crossing. John Beke concurred that the issue of Tonner Canyon and Sunset Crossing is different. The benefits, to the City, by opening Sunset Crossing, may be nil, but, it would improve regional circulation. Tonner Canyon, on the other hand, is going to benefit Diamond Bar. The data, in Table 3-5, indicates that without Tonner Canyon, the City will have traffic conditions that are unbearable. With Tonner Canyon Road, the traffic conditions will improve for the residents on Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Avenue. Todd Chavers pointed out that, as the document stands now, we have precluded ever opening up May 4, 1992 Page 11 Tonner Canyon. We have to be cautious how we frame this, philosophically, with what we really mean, and what we will accept. C/Meyer inquired why the TTC was never charged with holding a public hearing process to review the original proposal prepared by the GPAC. The Parks and Recreation Commission held hearings on the Plan for Resource Management. Since this is an important element that has to ducktail very closely with the Land Use Element, he stated that he would feel more comfortable if there was a recommendation from the TTC regarding the Circulation Element. He is also uncomfortable with reviewing the Circulation Element without having the Land Use Element with it. CD/DeStefano explained that, to his understanding, the TTC has had an opportunity to participate in shaping the direction of this particular element. The TTC, around the end of 1990, began some discussion regarding the upcoming contract with a consultant for preparation of this element, which ultimately led to a conclusion of hiring DKS & Associates. The TTC commented on the document, following a presentation given by Kathy Higley, of DKS. The documents were changed in order to reflect the philosophies of the TTC, and then forwarded to the GPAC. The GPAC, in it's present state, has a different philosophical bent on the quality of life in Diamond Bar. The GPAC is not interested in improving the circulation network because they feel there is a greater benefit restricting traffic. The TTC feels we should try to provide a balance of transportation improvements that service not only Diamond Bar, in the most positive way, but service the regional needs of the circulation networks. He stated that he does not know why the TTC did not hold public hearings. However, based upon the minutes of their meetings, it seems clear that they have had an opportunity to participate and to promote their specific beliefs. City management requested that the GPAC be allowed to make their recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council. It is the GPAC's recommendations that are being promoted. Staff has tried to indicate where the TTC and the Parks and Recreation Commission has had differences of opinions. It is before the Planning Commission to decide how to proceed with the document before them. C/Grothe, noting that the Commission has received the opinions of the GPAC and the TTC, proposed that May 4, 1992 Page 12 it would be appropriate for the Commission to first come up with a consensus of the major goals, and then develop a sub -committee, made up of 2 representatives for the Planning Commission and the TTC, and City staff, to edit the document line by line, to be brought back to the Commission for final review. Chair/Flamenbaum, unsure if he understands the data in the existing conditions as presented, questioned if the Commission is in the position to make philosophical decisions. John Beke explained that the TTC never intended to review the document line by line. The TTC has taken a very positive position on Tonner Canyon, as is indicated in their "White Paper", and has stated that Tonner Canyon should be preserved in some manner, shape, or form, in the General Plan. The TTC can also come up with an agreed upon position regarding Sunset Crossing. Todd Chavers stated that, as an individual, he would support the suggestion to form a sub- committee. There is the technical expertise, in the TTC, that would be beneficial in the Planning Commission's review. C/Li indicated that he concurs with C/Grothe's suggestion. VC/MacBride stated that he is disturbed that the thoughts of the TTC were not formulated on paper. He suggested that the Planning Commission and the TTC write down what goals, objectives, and strategies should be in the document, and that anything in the document that is unconstitutional and generic in nature be deleted. The Planning Commission can then review it in this simple format. C/Meyer, noting that there are two totally divergent views before the Commission, stated that after two and half years of gathering public input to create a draft document that is to go before the Planning Commission, there should have been some sort of consensus from the commissions and committees working for the City. Chair/Flamenbaum indicated that it has been suggested, by staff, that the TTC and the Planning Commission individually write down their comments during the week for a joint study session next Monday. May 4, 1992 Page 13 C/Grothe, pointing out that Commission is charged with getting the points of view and making a decision, stated that he feels that the GPAC and the TTC's points of views have been adequately presented. He concurred that somebody from the TTC should analyze the facts and figures of the document, but that the Planning Commission is charged with the general philosophy, and the goals and objectives. C/Meyer stated that there are three documents before the Commission: the General Plan, the MEI, and the EIR. The document contains facts and figures, and data that is critical. Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Meyer and CARRIED to hold a joint study session 6:00 p.m., Monday, May 11, 1992, with the TTC, to analyze the data. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: M e y e r, L i a n d Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe and VC/MacBride. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. Lloyd Zola stated that the following are the issues raised tonight: Tonner Canyon; the issue of Sunset Crossing and Beaverhead; a concern of showing collector roadways which may function as local streets; identifying an access to the High School; mention to the 60/57 interchange; and a comment that there are a series of inconsistencies in the document. He noted that to have a successful workshop, the TTC should identify those elements that are believed to be inconsistent. CD/DeStefano suggested that the chairmans, of each Commission, communicate with each other and decide on the appropriate agenda for Monday's meeting. The Commission concurred. VC/MacBride, referring to the Plan For Physical Mobility, page A-1, first sentence of the second paragraph, stated that the sentence could be written the following three different ways to correspond with the varying opinions stated: in it's original form, "The focus of this plan is the identification and evaluation of local circulation needs of the City of Diamond Bar, balancing those needs with regional demands and mandates."; or as, "The focus of this plan is the identification and evaluation of local circulation needs of the City of Diamond Bar.", or "The focus of this plan .... as a counterbalance to regional demands and mandates.". It is this philosophical issue that May 4, 1992 Page 14 needs to be resolved. furthermore, the document contains statistical data that is difficult to analyze. It should not be a statistical document. The document ought to be so broad in vision, that others can come and apply data to it. C/Meyer stated that the data should not be ignored. The traffic generation numbers don't necessarily change, but can be interpreted differently in terms of it's acceptability. VC/MacBride, in regards to safety and traffic facility considerations, pointed out that Sunset Crossing, which is part of the truck route up to the entry lane of the 57 freeway, with 12 driveways within 600 feet, does not have a raised median, like the rest of Diamond Bar. C/Meyer suggested that if the Commission gets to a better comfort level with the Circulation Element, it can be folded in with the Land Use Element, and the Commission could still conclude within the time schedule. Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to close this portion of the plan until Monday, May 11, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 10:52 p.m. to Monday, May 11, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. Respectively, /s/ James DeStefano James DeStefano Secretary Attest: /s/ Bruce Flamenbaum Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman CITY or DZAMUND A1C MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 6:12 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Building, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Meyer, Li, Grothe, Vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Lloyd Zola, from the Planning Network, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. CONTINUED CD/DeStefano stated that the City Council's public PUBLIC HEARING: hearing for the draft General Plan is scheduled to begin June 9, 1992. The Planning Commission may Draft General want to schedule additional meetings in order to Plan: Housing complete the review of the General Plan by that date. Tonight's review will be on the Housing and Land Use Element. The Commission will need to have a discussion on the Land Use issue so that staff is able to finalize the goals and objectives that will be publicized in the Highlander. C/Meyer requested staff to clarify the comments made by the Housing of Community Development department (HCD) regarding the draft Housing Element. The Public Hearing was declared opened. The Public Hearing was declared closed. CD/DeStefano stated that, in his opinion, the Housing Element is the only element in the General Plan that is written to respond to the mandates of State Law, and the guidelines of the HCD. HCD is statutorily responsible for reviewing draft Housing Elements prepared by cities. They responded to our draft Housing Element, which we submitted July/August of 1991, like they do to most communities, with a sense of displeasure. The HCD commented that our Housing Element needs to set forth a more specific program to respond to the State wide housing issue. The State is attempting to implement state-wide housing needs and to require each local city to devise programs to deal with their fair share of that state-wide housing need. The HCD basically wants Diamond Bar to increase density, rezone properties, that are not now high densities, into high densities, and reduce or eliminate the bureaucratic process to allow housing to be developed expeditiously, and with less costs associated with fees and permits. The GPAC reviewed all the comments made by HCD, and disagreed with most of it. They were not May 18, 1992 Page 2 particularly interested in increasing densities or providing low to moderate income housing. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if HCD would be content if the City simply increased the densities in all available land within the Plan. CD/DeStefano explained that the HCD would prefer that much more of the implementation aspect be in the document. They would want the City to identify means that would ensure that the higher densities would bring and maintain lower income housing. C/Meyer noted that the HCD would want the implementation strategy in the document because that is the only document by law that they have the authority to review and comment. DCA/Curley, in response to C/Li's inquiry, explained that HCD is a recommending body, that reviews the document subjectively. Since any interested party could challenge the General Plan, particularly the Housing Element, having HCD's approval adds to the weight that the City's document is satisfactory. How we respond to their comments is also subjective on our part. The key is how good faith is the city's action. CD/DeStefano, in response to C/Meyer's inquiry regarding the regional housing allocation number, stated that he feels that the allocation of 450 units of low to moderate income housing is very reasonable, and if we chose to, very achievable. C/Meyer stated his concern that the density bonuses, granted to developers by State housing law, would substantially increase the density established in the General Plan. CD/DeStefano stated that he would suggest that the Commission and the City Council establish either a range or some type of upper limit density that would be acceptable. Incentives could be created to get the developer to work towards achieving the maximum density established. In exchange we get affordable housing or some type of additional need that the City has. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum, CD/Destefano explained that, since HCD wants cities to generally identify sites, the Tres Hermanos site can be identified, in the document, as a candidate for up to "x" amount of units, and then that can be put May 18, 1992 Page 3 into the specific plan discussion for Tres Hermanos. C/Grothe stated that an attempt should be made to satisfy the State requirements, however, the residents of Diamond Bar should be kept happy first, and the character of Diamond Bar maintained. The document should indicate that the percentage of low to moderate housing should be met in Tres Hermanos and other developed areas, but in developments where it can't be met, a fee should be collected to buy land to build the housing at a later date. VC/MacBride suggested that staff be directed to determine what extent there have been changes in the document, correlate those changes with the Planning Commission's philosophy and critiques, and then determine how far along we are in terms of data and mandates. Philosophically, we must meet two massive criteria: take care of the housing needs; and protect this City from the mandates of the State. He suggested that the first paragraph, in the Introduction, be amended to read, "The purpose of the housing section of the Plan for Community Development is: 1. To identify local housing problems and needs; 2. Relate these needs to the City's proportionate share of the total projected need for housing in the region as determined by State law; and 3. Identify measures necessary to mitigate and alleviate these needs and problems for all economic segments of the community." C/Li stated that he would like a statement included informing the public that there is money involved, in the future phases, if we don't meet State requirements. The Commission concurred that the first paragraph should be amended as suggested by VC/MacBride. They concurred to review of the Housing Element page by page. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that footnote 1, on the bottom of page 37, be deleted. VC/MacBride stated that the (s) in "statement", in the second bullet on page 37, should be deleted. Chair/Flamenbaum requested that the statement on page 39, section G., Citizen Participation, properly define that the appointed citizen May 18, 1992 Page 4 committee is the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). VC/MacBride suggested the following changes: page 39, bullet one, delete the word "shall"; page 39, bullet three, delete the third word "any"; page 39, delete the last sentence; page 40, first line, place a period following the word "stock"; and page 40, line nine, delete the statement, "obvious deviation from plumbing". Chair/Flamenbaum requested that the names "Flores" and "Tarrago" be deleted from page 41, section c. Substandard Units. C/Meyer suggested that the last sentence in section c., Substandard units, page 41, be deleted, and that the word "healthy" be deleted from page 41, section d. Housing Assistance Needs, second paragraph, fourth line. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 7:07 p.m. The meeting was reconvened in the AQMD Auditorium at 7:18 p.m. VC/MacBride suggested the following: second paragraph, third line, page 42, of Household Characteristics, delete the word "the" following the word "similar"; page 43, second paragraph, delete the second sentence; page 43, third paragraph, second line, place a comma following the word "component" and "age", and replace "who" with "which"; page 44, first paragraph, first line, delete the word "also"; and page 44, first paragraph, the elements in the paragraph need to reflect the categories that follow. Chair/Flamenbaum requested that the data in table 1-3, page 43, be amended to reflect the 1990 census, and the paragraphs on page 44 and page 45 should also reflect the 1990 census, if available. C/Meyer suggested that the first bullet, third line, on page 44, delete the statement "subtle, or not so subtle". He noted that, in subsection a. Handicapped Households, last paragraph, the County's percentage rate is used, yet, earlier in the document we stated that we are dissimilar to the County's characteristics. CD/DeStefano explained that it was put in to respond to a question for the State's purposes. May 18, 1992 Page 5 The information will be updated when the 1990 census data is available. C/Meyer suggested that the word "Unfortunately" be deleted from page 45, second to the last paragraph, fifth line. VC/MacBride suggested that the second sentence on page 46, last paragraph, be deleted. Lloyd Zola explained that the Housing Element guidelines states that opportunities for energy conservation must be discussed. He suggested that the sentence be rewritten to state, "There is an opportunity to use alternative energy sources and to reduce energy consumption through the implementation of conservation measures.". The Commission concurred. VC/MacBride made the following suggestions: page 47, reword the first sentence to read, "Relative to addressing Diamond Bar's housing needs, consider proportionate share of low and moderate income housing."; delete the last sentence just before the three bullets on page 47; replace the word "indicates" with "contains", in the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 47; and delete the statement, "has the largest amount of vacant land", in the last paragraph, fifth line, page 47. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the statement, "Bramalea property", on page 47, fifth line of the last paragraph, be deleted, and then properly identified. Lloyd Zola, in response to C/Meyer's concern that the wording in the first paragraph, page 48, is awkward, suggested that it be rewritten to state, "The land available within the current City limits for general residential development could yield an additional 3,000 units. However, land within the current City limits could support up to 5,500 additional housing units if development density was to be increased.". The remainder of the paragraph can remain as it is written. The density numbers will be recalculated upon the final approval from the City Council. CD/DeStefano, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry if the densities, described on page 48 and 49, are standard, explained that each of the land use categories reflect Diamond Bar's densities. Since many of the cities have their own acronyms, classifications, and definitions, it is not May 18, 1992 Page 6 possible to set a standard for the purpose of consistency. The density numbers indicated are the densities recommended by GPAC. Lloyd Zola explained that the residential land use categories on page 48 and 49 are the categories recommended in the land use portion of the General Plan. He suggested that this discussion wait until the land use review. The Planning Commission concurred. VC/MacBride suggested that the second sentence, on page 49, section 2. Government Constraints, be rewritten to properly reflect, "Increasing demand to meet State mandates, with decreasing commitments to housing...". C/Li suggested that the fourth paragraph, first line, delete the word "very", and the statement "moderate to severe". C/Grothe suggested that the third paragraph, section d. Fees, delete all the "etc". C/Meyer made the following suggestions: it should be noted that a lot of the statements on page 50 conflict with the conclusions of density per 1 unit for every 2 1/2 acres; paragraph one, page 51, delete the last sentence; page 52, second to the last line, should properly indicate Table 6; and verify the data indicated in Table 1-6 on page 53. VC/MacBride made the following suggestions: place a comma following the word "financing" in the first paragraph, on page 53; page 54, fifth paragraph, delete "under contract with the City" and change the numbers 112-3" with 111-211. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the name "Barbara Mowrey" should be deleted form the fifth paragraph on page 54. C/Meyer suggested that the Government Code Section should be inserted in the section J. Progress Report on page 54. The word "However" should be deleted from page 55, second paragraph, first line. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the Land Use Element be discussed prior to discussing the goals, objectives, and implementation strategies of the Housing Element. The Commission concurred. Land Use CD/DeStefano stated that the Land Use plan Element basically provides the City's intentions for the May 18, 1992 Page 7 development, redevelopment, growth, and preservation of its public and private property. The element should chart a course for the vision of our City. The GPAC has presented an overall land use plan that reflects a lowering of density and development intensity. As the document is crafted, there will need to be a variety of zone changes, essentially down zoning, in order to make the zoning consistent to the General Plan. The GPAC reviewed all remaining open/ undeveloped land within the City, and recommended that all remaining open/ undeveloped land be down zoned to the Open Space classification, regardless of the present zoning. This document must be consistent with all the other elements within the General Plan. The plan before the Planning Commission contain the recommendations of GPAC as of February 29, 1992. There were some changes made at GPAC's last meeting held in April of 1992. Additionally, there are approximately a dozen requests, for changes, from developers, as well as changes recommended by staff. It is recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, accept testimony, and then review the element based upon the broad goals and objectives presented. Chair/Flamenbaum read the list of the correspondences received by the City: Fred P. Janz, of Fred Janz Real Estate Investments, dated April 24, 1992; Eric R. Stone, dated July 15, 1991; Marc Perrin, of the Bramalea California Inc., dated May 4, 1992; Howard Mitzman, of the Bramalea California Inc., dated Sept. 25, 1991; Frank Arciero, Jr., of Arciero Builders, dated Sept. 11, 1991; Frank Arciero, Jr., of Arciero Builders, dated Sept. 23, 1991; Jerry K. Yeh, dated Jan. 21, 1992; Daniel Buffington, dated July 11, 1991; Manuel E. Nunes, dated Sept. 13, 1991; Thomas H. Tice, of T.H. Tice and Associates, dated May 4, 1992; Thomas H. Tice, dated May 4, 1992, addressed to Jim Gardner of the Diamond Bar Country Estates; Lyman K. Lokken, of TransAmerica Minerals Company, dated Aug. 7, 1991; Warren Dolezal, of DFL Partnership, dated January 7, 1992; Ronald J. Crowley, of R.J. Crowley, dated Sept. 11, 1991. Alice Truax, dated Sept. 4, 1991; Jan C. Dabney, of J.C. Dabney and Associates, dated May 15, 1992; Eric R. Stone, dated May 18, 1992; and Warren Dolezal, dated May 18, 1992. CD/DeStefano stated that staff has provided the Commission with the following: a matrix summarizing all of aforementioned requests, as well as a graphic illustrating their location within the May 18, 1992 Page 8 City; a graphic and table outlining the properties that have development restrictions; a graphic summarizing the properties within the community that would require down zoning as a result of the adoption of the presently configured General Plan; and a reduced copy of the GPAC land use map dated Feb. 29, 1992. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:10 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:20 p.m. Chair/Flamenbaum presented C/Grothe with a plaque in recognition of dedicated service as planning commission chairman from July of 1991 through April of 1992. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Ben Reiling, President of Zelman Development Co., the developers of the Gateway Corporate Center, in reference to page 1-24, in the Plan for Community Development, requested that bullet five be clarified. He noted that a portion of their property, located on Golden Springs between the Gateway property and the Church property, also known as lot "zero", is presently designated as open space. However, it is a moderate slope that can be graded to create about a 4 acre pad. CD/DeStefano stated that the language, in the fifth bullet on page 1-24, does not properly reflect what GPAC had recommended on April 221 1992. GPAC 's approved language was: "To ensure residential views, buildings should be stepped down from the southeast side of Gateway Corporate Center to the freeway. building adjacent to the freeway, along Gateway and Bridgegate should have a maximum height of 6 stories. Buildings along Copley and Valley Vista should have a maximum height of 8 stories. Trees natives to the area should be used to obstruct unsightly views. Maintain the overall FAR at .5." Frank Piermarini, residing at 2559 Wagon Train, representing Jerria with Union Wide Developers, in regards to parcel lot #1528, parcel 114, #25 on the open land survey, objected to strategy 1.2.4(a), on page 1-12, of the Plan for Community Development. He noted that The Country exists today as one unit per acre, as is indicated on page 1-3. Furthermore, the term "steep" is ambiguous. Fred Janz, residing at 2683 Shady Ridge, stated that his property located on the southeast corner May 18, 1992 Page 9 of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Brea Canyon has been zoned residential, even though the other three corner lots are commercial. He requested that the property be zoned general commercial. Jan Dabney, with J.C. Dabney and Associates, located at 671 Brea Canyon Rd., representing Frank Arciero, Jr. and R&P Development Inc., referring to 117 (78 acres) and #31a -e (130 acres), of the open land survey map, stated that their property is being down zoned, and the developers are asking that the property be left as is. Additionally, R&P Development is asking that the 130 acres have a PD designation, on the portion of the 78 acres, for residential and commercial development. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if there is construction prohibited recorded as part of the map. Jan Dabney explained that it was not uncommon for the County to put building restrictions, or some kind of covenants, on the property so that the property would have to come back, before the supervisors, before any future development could be done. We would request that parcel #17 be zoned RR, and that parcel #31 be zoned residential, allowing a large park, and the remaining 29 acres be zoned commercial. CD/DeStefano, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, stated that the bulk of parcels #17 & #31a -e have development restrictions placed upon the recorded subdivision map. The zoning for these properties allow for substantial development rights. Therefore, the zoning is not at all consistent with the recorded maps. The language on the recorded maps requires the developer to come back to the City, request that the restrictive language be removed, and that development rights be granted upon the property. This opens up the door for substantial negotiation between the City and the developer. Jan Dabney explained that the restriction on the property is not a restriction in zoning, it is a restriction in consideration. The property was zoned as R 10,000 with the County. In response to VC/MacBride, he explained that both developers, through some guidance by the City, have been attempting to work with the school district to resolve the issues that the City has with the school district, and to allow these developments to proceed in a relatively timely manner. They are willing to spend the money to put in commercial to May 18, 1992 Page 10 get the tax increment into the community to offset and mitigate the financial problems that already exists in the City. Eric Stone, residing at 24401 Darrin Dr., referring to #4 on the open land survey, stated that the proposed OS zoning is inconsistent with GPAC's final resolve on that particular piece of property. He noted that the letter he presented to the Commission addresses a development concept for that lot. CD/DeStefano, confirming Mr. Stone's comment, stated that the map is dated February 29th, and GPAC did make a change at their April 22nd meeting. GPAC's final recommendation, on that specific parcel, was to retain the existing zoning classification, which would permit about 4 units per acre. C/Li suggested that staff to develop a summary table to cross reference these lots. Tom Tice, 17611 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, referring to 17, on the land use designation request, #25 on the open land survey, parcel #13 and #26, and a portion of #79 in the down zoning study, requested a consideration to the RR land use rather than the RH. From a zoning standpoint, R-1 40,000 would be more appropriate. Frank Piermarini, referring to parcel #18, item #55 in the down zoning study, the Diamond Knoll Estates, pointed out that it should not be zoned RH because it was approved by the City, in January of 1991, as RR, 1 unit per acre. He also noted that a portion of The Country is zoned R-1 20,000. CD/DeStefano stated that The Country is comprised of four different zoning classifications: 50% to 60% is zoned R-1 40,000 located mostly in the NE portion; 30 to 35% is zoned R-1 20,000, located mostly in the SW portion; about 50 acres are zoned A-1 or A-2; and there are some properties on the fringe of the formal Country area, but not part of it, with egress and ingress rights, that are zoned R-1 8,000. Warren Dolezal, general partner of the D.F.L. Partnership, referring to 2 1/2 acres zoned R-1 8,000, located on the north side of the extension of Steeplechase Dr., and adjacent to Las Brisas property, #9 on the land use designation request, stated that the master map displayed at City Hall May 18, 1992 Page 11 properly indicates the property as being 2 1/2 acres, and designates it as RL, however, the maps being sold to the public designates it as RR, and indicates that the property is 4 acres. He requested that it be designated RL. CD/DeStefano, confirming the discrepancy between the two maps, noted that regardless of what the map says, it is incumbent upon the Commission to provide a recommendation to the City Council on this issue. Marc Perrin, with Bramalea California, Inc., 1 Park Plaza, Suite 1100, Irvine, stated that item #13, of the open land survey, lots 4, 5, and 7 of Tract Map #31479, are improperly listed as having prohibited construction. It should be listed as restricted construction. He also pointed out that land previously restricted by LA County, now comes under the discretion of Diamond Bar, and the City can allow development on the land. Therefore, it is suggested that the statement in the Land Use Element, page 1-28, Objective 1.5.1.b, "It is the City's policy not to renegotiate these prior commitments.", be removed, and the decision, on whether restrictions should remain or not, should be made at a later date, preferably in the processing stage of the final Tract Map. Lloyd Zola explained that the LA County zoning code, adopted by the City, has density control development which allowed cluster units in exchange for open space. Unfortunately, since the County's records are unclear, it is difficult to determine if the open space restriction on the map is in exchange for density elsewhere, or if it was land just set aside. The decision as to how these open space land is designated on the map, and if the City chooses to renegotiate, is a policy issue. The GPAC chose to take all these restrictions and call them open space. Designating it as open space on the map does not restrict the City to renegotiate. In response to C/Meyer's inquiry, he confirmed that regardless of what category the General Plan designates the land, a building permit would still not be issued until the restriction is dealt with. Gary Neely stated that, if the Commission desires to review the history of some of these developments, as discussed by the Municipal Advisory Committee (MAC), the files were given to the Historicalr Society. He stated his support for Mr. Reiling's request for modification. May 18, 1992 Page 12 Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if anyone in the audience wishes to address the Commission on any areas on the down zoning map that has not been previously addressed by letter or testimony. CD/DeStefano explained that there is an existing set of zoning classifications for all properties within the City. Existing land uses may be different than existing zoning, and the proposed General Plan may be different from existing zoning and/or different from existing land use. Therefore, in order for the proposed General Plan to be consistent with zoning, the areas represented on the map must be down zoned. The Public Hearing was declared closed. C/Meyer questioned the purpose behind down zoning fully developed residential subdivisions, since nothing can be changed. Talking about down zoning can generate misunderstanding from the public. He suggested that there be a different way of doing it. C/Grothe stated that there is benefit in having some consistent zoning throughout the community. It would retain a similar character throughout the community as large parcels get annexed into the community. CD/DeStefano explained that, as an exercise, it was necessary to do a study to determine how many areas would be affected by the proposed General Plan, which is basically designed to prevent higher densities from what presently exists. The Commission could change the designation from RL to RLM, or increase the density within the RL to the 5 to 6 unit per acre range. It is a major policy issue for the Commission to recommend to the City Council. C/Grothe pointed out that without consistent zoning, it is possible for an assemblage of very large lots, zoned with very small minimum lot sizes, to be replaced by a larger number of homes, or condominiums. This is very disruptive in older communities. Chair/Flamenbaum concurred. DCA/Curley, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry if down zoning could take away a property owners right to develop, explained that changing land use designation and the zoning, in the General Plan, does not preclude the property owner from coming back in and seeking a change of zone to meet May 18, 1992 Page 13 their development needs or expectations. The General Plan public hearings are being noticed consistent with legal requirement. In the future, when the consistency zoning change happens, there will be further notice to the public. Lloyd Zola summarized the different issues: the general proposition that we will identify existing developed properties, in the General Plan at their existing densities; land with existing land use restrictions are shown as open space; and the general lowering of the densities, and intensities, of potential multi family uses, or elimination of multi family zoning. C/Grothe, in concurrence with the concept of making land use match zoning, stated that he sees the benefit of keeping the community in it's intact form. If the community wants to make a change in it's zoning, the whole community gets involved rather than just those neighbors in the 500 foot mailing radius of some little development site. Chair/ F lamenbaum recessed the meeting at 10:07 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:24 p.m. CD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission may wish to schedule additional meeting dates in order to meet the scheduled June 1st date of completing the review of the draft General Plan. The Commission concurred to meet on the following days: Thursday, May 21st; Tuesday, May 26th; Thursday, May 28th; and Monday June 1st. Chair/Flamenbaum, returning back to the discussion regarding the down zoning map, stated that his purpose of discussing the map was to eliminate a large portion of the GPAC's recommendation, in the down zoning map, to make Diamond Bar's General Plan consistent with todays land usage. C/Meyer, in response to the suggestion to zone school property as "Schools", stated that because schools do sell off their property, there is no harm created by keeping an underlying zone of R-1, with a public utility use on it, or zoning it POL. C/Meyer recommended that the Land Use designation reflect the existing zoning, as opposed to GPAC's recommendation of having the Land Use designation reflect existing development. VC/MacBride and C/Li concurred. May 18, 1992 Page 14 Chair/Flamenbaum recommended that the specific designations to the areas defined as Tres Hermanos and Tonner Canyon be deleted from the map, and be made part of a specific plan. The Commission concurred. Lloyd Zola stated that, the limitation on taking out any reference to the density of development, is the State law requiring that the General Plan specify the intensity of use on parcels. CD/DeStefano stated that staff, Lloyd Zola, and the City Attorney will work out specific language on the two specific plan candidates. Lloyd Zola, in reference to C/Meyer's suggestion regarding the land use map, pointed out that there are situations where parcels are zoned manufacturing, but in the current community plan it is commercial, and situations where condominiums are located in commercial zones. C/Meyer stated that he was referring to existing residentially developed property. CD/DeStefano suggested that those areas designated RL, that would be required to undertake a down zoning, be designated RLM, which is consistent with the present zoning, allowing 6 units per acre. The Commission concurred. C/Meyer suggested that those land use categories, with potential development that surround The Country, and other large tracts of land, be debated on their merit. The Commission concurred. C/Grothe suggested that all public facilities remain designated as Public Facility on the map. The Commission concurred. C/Meyer suggested that The Country's land use designation be dealt with as a specific issue. The Commission concurred. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 10:58 p.m. to be continued to Thursday, May 21, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. Respectively, May 18, 1992 Page 15 /s/ James DeStefano James DeStefano Secretary Attest: /s/ Bruce Flamenbaum Bruce Flamenbaum chairman GITY VF ULPLAWnu $A"% MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Room CC -2, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Meyer, Li, Grothe, Vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy, and Candid O'Neil, of the Planning Network. CONTINUED Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the Commission will PUBLIC HEARING: review the revisions made to the Plan for Public Health and Safety:Noise, as was recommended by the Noise Element Commission April 27, 1992. VC/MacBride suggested that the word "Pitch" be deleted from the second bullet on page 1. C/Grothe suggested that the term be left as Frequency/Pitch, but that the following words "Frequency is", be deleted. Candid O'Neil explained that pitch is the commonly used word, and frequency is the scientific term. If the Commission would like to change it, as suggested by C/Grothe, then it would need to be done consistently throughout the other bullets. The Commission concurred. C/Meyer stated that there needs to be a definition section to identify not only the terms on page 2, but the various terminology used throughout the element. VC/MacBride requested that the letter "m" in "march", first line, second paragraph, be capitalized, and the words, "very important", be deleted. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the Commission is assuming that the data in Tables 1, 2 and 3, as presented in the document, are accurately reflected. C/Meyer suggested that the abbreviations, on page 7, activity category D, table 2, be specifically spelled out, and dated. CD/DeStefano, in response to VC/MacBride, stated that there is an Appendix for each Element, which can be found in the MEA, the Existing Setting, and the General Plan. May 21, 1992 Page 2 VC/MacBride, referring to Figure G-4, page 11, questioning if the area of Sunset Crossing, westerly of the freeway should be shaded, stated that he finds it hard to believe that the area is experiencing a background noise level of over 60 dba, similar to Diamond Bar Boulevard. Candid O'Neil explained that the graph indicates that the areas are potentially experiencing over 60 dba, and that some shaded areas may experience a higher noise level than other shaded areas. The study was based on the existing conditions on those streets, and, not all streets were included in the study. C/Li, noting that the consultants used FHWA Analysis based on existing Average Daily Traffic, as footnoted on page 13, Table 4, questioned if DKS actually conducted a sound study. VC/MacBride stated that he is not convinced that the sound study was made most of the way west of the freeway. He informed the Commission that three people from the Sunset Crossing area have communicated to him that they feel the map is a set up in order to have a truck route through the neighborhood. He questioned if the study was conducted at the off ramp point, or midway between the YMCA and the off ramp. Chair/Flamenbaum noted that, regardless of how many residents speak out, the only way to refute the data is with data. He requested that staff check the location of where the traffic study was done. If it was done at the off ramp, then augment the study at the other end of Sunset Crossing. Take the shading out of the map, if appropriate. C/Li suggested that there be an additional footnote, on page 13, Table 4, to reflect that the ADT source is to be found in the traffic report. VC/MacBride suggested that the last sentence, in the last paragraph of subsection 3. Stationary Noise, page 14, be amended to read, "...there are no known significant sources of stationary noise.". The last sentence, in the last paragraph of subsection 4. Local Noise Conditions, page 14, should delete the words "need to". The Commission concurred. C/Meyer stated that the first sentence in subsection 5. Sensitive Receptors, page 15, should not use the word "discourage" but rather indicate May 21, 1992 Page 3 that incompatible noise intrusive land uses are carefully studied to affect mitigation. The Commission concurred. C/Li suggested that the first paragraph, on page 15, properly reflect that the Figure number is 11- 1-5. All the figures, within the element, should be properly designated. VC/MacBride suggested adding the clause, "and through formal interaction the transportation corridor representatives, whose facilities are located within the City, with the purpose of constructing sound barriers, such as walls along the right of ways, where the Ln exceeds acceptable limits compatible with adjacent receptors", to the second sentence of the last paragraph on page 15. C/Meyer, noting that the paragraph accurately describes the existing condition, suggested that such a statement may be more appropriately placed in the Goal section. The Commission concurred. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that Figure ll -G-5 note the potential site for an educational facility in the Tres Hermanos area. The Commission concurred. C/Grothe suggested that the map also be dated in case the names of the facilities get changed. The Commission concurred. AP/Searcy noted that number 15, Figure 11-G-5, be amended to read Mount Calvary School. C/Meyer suggested that the map be checked for accuracy to assure that all the schools are included, with the proper names, and the proper location. The Commission concurred. Chair/Flamenbaum, referring to page 18, Figure 11- G-7, questioned if footnote 4 is properly placed in the Existing Setting, or if it should be placed in the Goals section. Candid O'Neil explained that the 45 CNEL is a standard that is recommended by the State, and is neither a present standard nor a future standard. VC/MacBride suggested that the statement, "although there will be ...are not considered significant.", be deleted from the last paragraph on page 19. The Commission concurred. May 21, 1992 Page 4 Chair/Flamenbaum stated that Table 5, page 20, needs to cite the future traffic study conditions, projected to the year 2010. CD/DeStefano stated that he put the definition discussion in the Existing Setting section, on page 22. Strategy 1.10.2 - Change 60 db CNEL to 65 db CNEL. Strategy 1.10.3 - Move the clause in parenthesis after the word "projects". Strategy 1.10.5 - Replace "or exceed" to "reached". Strategy 1.10.6 - Delete the word "annual". C/Meyer suggested that the Strategy be reworded to state, "As part of the General Plan review, determine: 1. whether traffic levels have increased; 2. if new stationary noise generation sources have been created; and 3. if the noise contour map needs to be updated.". The Commission concurred. Strategy 1.10.7 - Replace "proposed" with "identified". Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove, noting that Golden Springs Road cannot run west of Sunset Crossing Road, as indicated on page 12, of the Noise Element, suggested that it be changed appropriately. Chair/Flamenbaum, in response to Gary Neely's concern, suggested that the last paragraph, on page 19, of the Noise Element, be deleted. The Commission concurred. Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to prepare the final draft of the Plan for Public Health and Safety: Noise, as amended. Plan For CD/DeStefano distributed the Plan For Physical Physical Mobility to the Commission. He suggested that the Mobility Commission may wish to review the Minutes, on the Plan for Physical Mobility, in conjunction with these goals and policies changes that have been provided by the consultants, and begin discussion on the Housing Element at this time. Housing The Commission concurred to begin review of the Goals, Objectives, and Implementation Strategies of the Housing Element. May 21, 1992 Page 5 DCA/Curley, in regards to the specific comments by the Housing of Community Development (HDC) to the Housing Element, stated that it is preferred that the philosophy of the General Plan be responsive to the HCD concerns. If there is a conscious decision to disregard the HDC's comments, then a rationale must be provided explaining why we are being nonresponsive. C/Meyer suggested that the word "Residents" be deleted from the overall goal to avoid being discriminatory. The Commission concurred. Objective 1.1 - Delete the words, "a reasonable portion of the", and, "in the region". Strategy 1.1.1 - Delete the words "large scale", "that", and "be provided". Chair/Flamenbaum, in regards to Strategy 1.1.2, which had been deleted, stated that he likes the idea of encouraging the mixed use concept. Strategy 1.1.2 - The Commission concurred to reword the strategy to read, "Encourage large scale commercial/office developments to provide a residential component as part of an overall mixed use concept, where feasible." Strategy 1.1.3 - Delete the words, " included in the Diamond Bar Development Code", and replace the first "unreasonably" with "needlessly". CD/DeStefano, in response to DCA/Curley's concern that there should be mention of how and when the City will accomplish Strategy 1.1.3, suggested that Strategy 1.1.4 be reworded to state, "Prepare a public information packet summarizing the City's zoning and development requirements for residential construction.". The Commission concurred. Strategy 1.1.4 - Strategy 1.1.5 - Reword as previously indicated by CD/DeStefano. Delete the clause "(next five years)", replace the word, "produce an annual report which identifies the revenues that are available" with "produce required reports to May 21, 1992 Page 6 accomplish", and delete "and which sets production goals". Strategy 1.1.6 - Delete the words "quality,", "the development of", and "on". CD/DeStefano suggested that the deleted portion, of Strategy 1.1.7, should be put back in, except for the phrase "discretionary and nondiscretionary residential". In response to C/Li, he explained that the third bullet, in Strategy 1.1.7, is requesting that those agencies hold a joint public hearing on the EIR in order to expedite the process. Strategy 1.1.7 - The Commission concurred to put the strategy back in, as indicated by CD/DeStefano. Strategy 1.1.8 - Delete. Strategy 1.1.9 - Reword the statement to read, "Encourage use of innovative site development and construction materials and techniques.". Strategy 1.1.10 - Add the word "or" before "make 10 percent...", and change the second line to read, "providing a minimum of 25 percent...��. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that Strategy 1.1.11 delete the words "of large residential". CD/DeStefano explained that, because HDC had requested further classification, GPAC requested the first two bullets be deleted. However, the consultants suggested that the bullets be revised to read, "Developments with less than 250 units will be able to pay an in lieu affordable housing fee, assessed per unit, to help provide affordable housing in other locations, within the City, if they cannot be reasonably provided on site.", and also "Developments with more than 250 units will be required to provide at least 10 percent of their units to meet current affordability guidelines, or pay the in lieu fee.". Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that it read, "Developments of residential units are to provide a mix of dwelling units types.". It is unlikely that a 250 unit would ever be developed within the City, and that number should be lowered. Developers should be encouraged to put in affordable smaller homes so our young people can live in the same community as their parents, and local folks can afford to retire into these smaller homes. May 21, 1992 Page 7 C/Meyer stated that low cost housing should be equated with financial assistance, rather than with the quality of construction. Strategy 1.1.11 - Delete the words "of large residential". Bullet one: The Commission concurred to reword bullet one to read, "Developments of 5 units or more shall pay an in lieu affordable housing fee, assessed per unit, to help provide affordable housing in other locations, within the City, if they cannot be reasonably provided on site." Bullet two: The Commission concurred that 10% of all new housing is to be affordable units, is an acceptable standard. Bullet three: The Commission concurred to reword it to read, "Establish parking requirements for senior citizen housing to a level consistent with the residents transportation needs.". The sentence following bullet three is to be deleted. Strategy 1.1.12 - Add to the first sentence, "...and other viable economic alternatives.". Goal 2 - The Commission concurred to delete the word "gender". Objective 2.1 - Add the words, "very low," before "low". Strategy 2.1.1a. - Change the word "participate" to "provide". and add, " .and encourage relocation within the community.", to the end of the sentence. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that a new subsection e. should be added indicating a requirement that those houses should always be maintained as low cost/moderate housing. Strategy 2.1.1e. - The Commission concurred that staff is to write this subsection as indicated by Chair/Flamenbaum. May 21, 1992 Page 8 Strategy 2.1.1d. - Delete the word "Annually",delete the last sentence. and . Strategy 2.2.1 - Either develop a new strategy 2.2.2 stating "Participate in the Fair Housing Programs" or reverse the strategy numbers. VC/MacBride suggested that, for continuity, objective 2.3 should include mention of the disabled, and the strategies should include mention of the homeless. Strategy 2.3.2 - Delete the word "rental" Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that there be mention that there are an "x" number of housing available to the disabled, as well as the appropriate standards for the handicapped in those "x" number of houses. VC/MacBride noted that Strategy 2.3.1 indicates that housing is to be accessible to the handicap. The Commission concurred. CD/DeStefano stated that Objective 2.3 should also include large families and other groups in need of affordable housing. The Commission concurred. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that there should be a City program that refers individuals to emergency shelters if it is ever needed. The provision should state, "The City shall provide information regarding emergency shelter availability.". CD/DeStefano stated that he will insert "City" and "Housing Development Funds" just above "Private Organization", on page 61, and include information regarding emergency shelters, as well. C/Li suggested that mention of the funding program be included in Objective 3.2. CD/DeStefano stated that the HDC would prefer that the City identify potential location for the development of these kinds of housing. The Housing Element should talk about how the City will pursue affordable housing throughout the community, with these particular areas, and with these policies. Then, the Land Use Element can discuss the locations more specifically in terms of densities. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that there be a fourth goal the states, "Identify potential location of May 21, 1992 page 9 affordable housing within the City", and then identify those sites, generically. CD/DeStefano stated that the Commission will also need to discuss the issue of determining what the highest density, in the community, should generally be. The GPAC has recommended a maximum density of 12 units per acre. C/Meyer, in reference to the location of the affordable housing, suggested that HDC be told that the affordable housing will be located in the vacant property through specific plan development review, and in fill will be looked at by a case by case basis. CD/DeStefano, in response to C/Meyer's inquiry, stated that the vacant land will be referred to in it's broadest term, and not to the map. The Public Hearing was declared open. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Objective 3.1 - Add the words, ",and encourage the improvement of,...", after the word "Maintain". ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, May, 26, 1992. Respectively, /s/ James DeStefano James DeStefano Secretary Attest: /s/ Bruce Flamenbaum Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. 5" . 5 TO: Terrence L. Belanger, Acting City Manager MEETING DATE: July 21, 1992 REPORT DATE: July 15, 1992 FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer TITLE: Installation of "No Right Turn on Red" sign on Longview Drive at Grand Avenue SUMMARY: There is restricted visibility for motorists making a right turn from southbound Longview Drive at Grand Avenue. The horizontal curve restricts the visibility and was discussed by the Traffic and Transportation Commission. The Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends the installation of a "No Right Turn On Red" sign on Longview Drive at Grand Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 92 -XX authorizing the installation of a "No Right Turn On Red" sign on Longview Drive at Grand Avenue. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report X Resolution(s) _ Ordinances(s) _ Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) -- Other ------------------------ 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes _ No Which Commission? Traffic and Transportation Commission 5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No Report discussed with the following affected departments: NIA VIEWED BY Q Terrence L. Belanger Geor e A. W Acting City Manager Interi City F TA CITY COUNCIL, REPORT MEETING DATE: July 21, 1992 AGENDA NO. TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, Acting City Manager SUBJECT: Installation of 11No Right Turn on Red" sign on Longview Drive at Grand Avenue ISSUE STATEMENT Install a "No Right Turn on Red" sign on Longview Drive at Grand Avenue. RECOMMENDATION The Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends the installation of a "No Right Turn On Red" sign on Longview Drive at Grand Avenue. FINANCIAL SUMMARY The installation will be funded by account. the traffic control signs maintenance BACKGROUND The request to investigate and recommend, the installation of a "No Right Turn On Red" sign on Grand Avenue at Longview Drive evolved from the Traffic and Transportation Commission. This intersection was observed on seveal occasions prior to bringing forth the above recommendation. 1c DISCUSSION The request to install the "No Right Turn On Red" sign on Grand Avenue for motorist who wish to make a right turn from southbound Longview Drive on t Grand Avenue resulted from the visibility restriction that currentlyexists at this intersection. Visibility for motorists who wish to make right turns from southbound Longview Drive to Grand Avenue is restricted by the curvature Of Grand Avenue as it continued from the City of Chino Hills. g ns Vehicles travel at least 45 MPH, the posted speed limit on Grand Avenue. slow acceleration of those on Longview Drive, who wish to turn right on t Grand Avenue, tend to slow down the fast-moving,The creating potentially unsafe or undesirable situations.c In vehicles, to mitigate the condition, the Commission recommends the installation of said sign prohibit motorists from making the right turns from southbound Longview Driv on to Grand Avenue. to e PREPARED BY: Tseday Aberra RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING NO RIGHT TURN ON RED REGULATION AT THE GRAND AVENUE AND LONGVIEW DRIVE INTERSECTION IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. A. RECITALS. (i) The Traffic and Transportation Commission consid- ered establishing "No Right Turn On Red" at the Grand Avenue and Longview Drive intersection, at a public meeting on June ll, 1992. (ii) At the meeting of June 11, 1992, the Traffic and Transportation Commission determined that the installation of the traffic signs identified in this resolution are appropriate. (iii) The Traffic and Transportation Commission recom- mends installation of said signs. B. RESOLUTION. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Pursuant to Section 15.20.030 of the Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted, by reference by the City Council, provides for the installation of traffic control devices, upon approval of the City Council. The City Council hereby finds that the public health, safety, and welfare will be best protected by establishing "No Right Turn On Red" regulation for southbound Longview Drive at Grand Avenue. 2. This resolution shall not become effective until the "No Right Turn On Red" sign has been posted as required in Section 1 of this resolution. 3. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby authorize and direct the City Manager to cause sign to be erected indicating where the sign is to be required. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1992. MAYOR I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of July, 1992 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. S TO: Terrence L. Belanger, Acting City Manager MEETING DATE: July 21, 1992 REPORT DATE: July 13, 1992 FROM: Bob Rose, Director of Parks & Recreation TITLE: Acceptance of playground equipment installed at mini -park located at Softwind and Stardust. SUMMARY: The City Council, at their regular meeting of December 3, 1991, awarded the contract for the installation of playground equipment at Landscape Maintenance District ##39 Mini -Park at Softwind and Stardust. MD Structural Contractors, the lowest responsible bidder, was awarded the contract for a total amount of $12,587.88. The installation of this project has been completed and may now be accepted by the City. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the work performed by MD Structural Contractors and authorize the City Clerk to file the proper Notice of Completion. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report _ Resolution(s) _ Ordinances(s) _ Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other: Notice of Completion 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes X No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? _Yes X No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: i I errence L. Belanger Acting City Manager Bob Rose Director of Parks & Recreation • M 00 N z 0 H w w 0 0 U E x W c� 0 F F z a a 0 a on w w w z 0 a 04 0 U W 0 P4 P, Dr�Mp iuo ncaucOrrD or AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO name City of Diamond Bar —treat 21660 E. Copley Dr, 8100 Ad'rec;Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 C 1, & State NOTICE OF COMPLETION Notice pursuant to civil Code Section 3093, must be filed within 10 days after completion. (See reverse side for Complete requirements.) Notice is hereby given that. 1. The undersigned is owner or corporate officer of the owner of the interest or estate stated below in the property hereinafter described: 2. The full name of the owner is City of Diamond Bar 3. The full address of the owner is 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 4 The nature of the interest or estate of the owner is; In fee (If other than fee, strike In fee" and Insert, for example. 'purchaser under contract of purchase,' or "lessee") 5. The full names and full addresses of all persons, if any, who hold title with the undersigned as joint tenants or as tenants in common are: NAMES ADDRESSES 6. A work of Improvement on the property hereinafter described was completed on June 3, 1992 The work done was Installation of Playground Equipment 1 The name of the contractor, if any, for such work of improvement was M.D. Structural Contractors (If no contractor for work of Improvement as a whole, Insert none",) (Date of Contract) 8. The property on which said work Of Improvement was completed is in the city of Diamond Rar County of Los Angeles State cf California, and s described as follows, Mini—Park at Softwind and Stardust, L.L.A.D. 839 9. The street address of said property is 1325 S Stardust Dr Diamond Bar CA �If no street address as been officiall7assd, in rt "none'.1 Verification log Individual OwnerYW Signature of owner or corporate offi r f owner named in paragraph 2 or his I VERIFICATION I, the undersigned. say: I am the City Manager of the declarant of the foregoing ("President of "Manager of', ''A partner of, 'Owner of'. etc.) notice of completion: I have read said notice of completion and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my pri knowledge. I declare under pi of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct]j I Executed on at California. a e of signature.) (City sign ersonal signature of the individual who is swearing at a contents of the notice of completion are true.) NOTICE OF COMPLETION-WOLCCTTS FORM 1114-s- 6-74 0- 3) in llIIVl� CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. S TO: Terrence L. Belanger, Acting City Manager MEETING DATE: July 21, 1992 REPORT DATE: July 15, 1992 FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer TITLE: Installation of "No U -Turn" signs on Ironbark Drive and Sunset Crossing Road SUMMARY: To improve safety and traffic circulation, the Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends the installation of "No U -Turn" signs at key locations on Ironbark Drive and Sunset Crossing Road. The need to install "No U -Turn" signs on both Ironbark Drive and Sunset Crossing Road evolved from the numerous undesirable U-turns that were observed during peak school hours as parents pick-up and drop-off their children. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 92 -XX authorizing the installation of "No U -Turn" signs at key locations on Ironbark Drive and Sunset Crossing Road. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report X Resolution(s) Ordinances(s) _ Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other Minutes of the Mai 21 1992 and June 11, 1992 Traffic & Transportation Commission meeting. 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes _ No Which Commission? Traffic and Transportation Commission 5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No Report discussed with the following affected departments: N/A VIEWED f Terrence L. Belanger Geor e A. Acting City Manager Inter Cit CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: July 21, 1992 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, Acting City Manager SUBJECT: Installation of "No U -Turn" signs on Ironbark Drive and Sunset Crossing Road ISSUE STATEMENT The City of Diamond Bar desires to install "No U -Turn" signs Ironbark Drive and Sunset Crossing Road. RECOMMENDATION The Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends that the City Council approve the installation of "No U -Turn" signs at key locations on Ironbark Drive and Sunset Crossing Road. FINANCIAL SUMMARY The installation of the signs will have minor financial impact on the City Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget. The funds are available through the City's traffic signs and striping maintenance account. E 3�T4@&ejcTelijZIe7 The requests to investigate the feasibility of installing "No U -Turn" signs on Ironbark Drive and Sunset Crossing Road came from the Faculty of Chaparral Middle School and Diamond Point Elementary. School, respectively. These requests are designed as attempts to discourage the numerous parents who were observed making U-turns as well as diagnol and parallel parking who then make U-turns the above residential streets which.are adjacent to each school. DISCUSSION Ironbark Drive adjacent to Chaparral Middle School and Sunset Crossing Road at Diamond Point School were observed during a.m. and p.m. peak school hours. On both of the above streets, parents made U-turns as they picked -up and dropped -off their children. Furthermore, parents were observed double and diagonally parking and parking in red curbed areas and continuing with U- turns. The safety of children during the above maneuver was questioned by the school's staff, City staff and the Walnut Sheriff Station since student pedestrians, bikers, skateboarders were also sharing these residential streets. As an attempt to resolve the safety issue that is partially created by motorists who make undesired U-turns, it is the recommendation of the Traffic and Transportation Commission to install "No U -Turn" signs at key locations on Ironbark Drive and Sunset Crossing Road. Prepared By: Tseday Aberra Ma 2 Page 8 Sgt. Rawlings confirmed that the traffic situation is a real problem. However, he pointed out that much of the activity is legal. The Commission then discussed the effectiveness of "No -U-turn" signs, and the location it should be installed. AA/Aberra, in response to C/Ury, explained that staff did not include a recommendation for the location of the sign because staff is looking for direction from the Commission. Russ Frank suggested that the sign be placed on the school side of Ironbark Dr. so that, as traffic comes down the hill, the motorists will see the sign in front of them. . Chair/Chavers noted that the sign would have to be Posted on both sides so that it is illegal to do a U-turn in both directions. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, B ek e Channd vC/Gravdahl NOES:COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN; COMMISSIONERS: None. NEW BUSINESS: AA/Aberra reported that the City received a reest from Chaparral Middle Traffic Circe c- ion School for the installat ion of a "No U -Turn" sign on Ironbark Drive. to Stu v a the School, motorists make U-turns According Tree Drive after Cha�al Middle School they pick-up and drop-off their children. This area was observed by the Sheriff Walnut Station, and it is their opinion that the City should consider installing a "No U-turn" sign on Ironbark Dr. It was also observed that motorists did not obey the posted, speed limit or the warning signs. It is recommended that the Commission direct the Sheriff Department to provide selective enforcement on Ironbark Dr., concur with staff's recommendation to install a "No U-turn" sign on Ironbark Drive, and forward the recommendation to the City Council. Russ Frank, Assistant Principal of Chaparral Middle School, explained that there has been an increase in traffic in the last couple of years because of the bus fees have increased, and all grades now begin at the same time. He is in favor of the installation of the "No U-turn" signs, but suggested that the Commission also consider a crosswalk on Ironbark Dr., about 50 yards west of the bus entryway. Sgt. Rawlings confirmed that the traffic situation is a real problem. However, he pointed out that much of the activity is legal. The Commission then discussed the effectiveness of "No -U-turn" signs, and the location it should be installed. AA/Aberra, in response to C/Ury, explained that staff did not include a recommendation for the location of the sign because staff is looking for direction from the Commission. Russ Frank suggested that the sign be placed on the school side of Ironbark Dr. so that, as traffic comes down the hill, the motorists will see the sign in front of them. . Chair/Chavers noted that the sign would have to be Posted on both sides so that it is illegal to do a U-turn in both directions. June 11, 1992 Page 2 Sgt. Rawlings explained that a double, double yellow line prevents a left turn, U -Turn across the center divider. The double yellow line would not be enforceable. VC/Gravdahl, understanding that it is not enforceable, requested staff to handle his request administratively, if it is deemed warranted. Sgt. Rawlings suggested that it may be appropriate that the No U -Turn signs have an arrow indicating that u -turns are not allowed on the whole span of that street. Motion was made by VC/Gravdahl, seconded by C/Ury and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommendation to install the No U -Turn signs as indicated. VC/Gravdahl, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cheng, Ury, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Beke. OLD BUSINESS: Mid -block AE/Liu reported that the Commission, at the April crosswalk in 9, 1992 meeting, requested staff to conduct a mid - front of Maple block crosswalk evaluation and a warrant study for Hill Elem. crossing guard service in front of the Maple Hill Elementary School. The study considered the relocation of the crosswalk across Maple Hill Road, west of Eaglefen Drive. It is recommended that the the Planning commission on May 11, 1992, therefore, there is a quorum of the Commission to act on the Minutes of May 11, 1992. Motion was made by Chair/e ed by C/Cheng and CARRIED to approve the Joint Session Minutes of May 11, 1992. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cheng and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Ury and VC/Gravdahl. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Beke. No U -Turn VC/Gravdahl requested that a double yellow line be in addition to the No U - Sian in front extended to Del Sol Lane, of Diamond Turn sign. Point Elem. AE/Liu stated that he believes that there is existing striping at the intersections of Del Sol Lane and Golden Springs to Sunset Crossing. VC/Gravdahl's suggestion can be investigated by staff and handled administratively. Sgt. Rawlings explained that a double, double yellow line prevents a left turn, U -Turn across the center divider. The double yellow line would not be enforceable. VC/Gravdahl, understanding that it is not enforceable, requested staff to handle his request administratively, if it is deemed warranted. Sgt. Rawlings suggested that it may be appropriate that the No U -Turn signs have an arrow indicating that u -turns are not allowed on the whole span of that street. Motion was made by VC/Gravdahl, seconded by C/Ury and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommendation to install the No U -Turn signs as indicated. VC/Gravdahl, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Cheng, Ury, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Beke. OLD BUSINESS: Mid -block AE/Liu reported that the Commission, at the April crosswalk in 9, 1992 meeting, requested staff to conduct a mid - front of Maple block crosswalk evaluation and a warrant study for Hill Elem. crossing guard service in front of the Maple Hill Elementary School. The study considered the relocation of the crosswalk across Maple Hill Road, west of Eaglefen Drive. It is recommended that the RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING A NO U-TURN REGULATION ON SUNSET CROSSING ROAD AND ALSO ON IRONBARK DRIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. A. RECITALS. (i) The Traffic and Transportation Commission consid- ered this matter at a public meeting on May 11, 1992 and May 21, 1992. (ii) At the meeting of May 11, 1992, the Traffic and Transportation Commission determined that the installation of the No U -Turn signs on Sunset Crossing Road identified in this resolution are appropriate. (iii) At the meeting of May 21, 1992, the Traffic and Transportation Commission determined that the installation of the No U -Turn signs on Ironbark Drive identified in this resolution are appropriate. (iv) The Traffic and Transportation Commission recom- mends installation of said signs. B. RESOLUTION. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Pursuant to Section 15.20.030 of the Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted, by reference by the City Council, provides for the installation of No U -Turn signs, upon approval of the City Council. The City Council hereby finds that the public health, safety, and welfare will be best protected by establishing "No U -Turn" sign regulation for Sunset Crossing Road, between Golden Springs Drive and Del Sol Lane; and on Ironbark Drive, between Birdseye Drive and Spruce Tree Drive. 2. This resolution shall not become effective until the "No U -Turn" signs have been posted as required in Section 1 of this resolution. 3. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby authorize and direct the City Manager to cause sign to be erected indicating where the sign is to be required. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1992. MAYOR I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of July, 1992 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council MEETING DATE: July 7, 1992 REPORT DATE: July 1, 1992 FROM: Linda G. Magnuson, Accounting Manager TITLE: Pomona Valley Humane Society Animal Control Services Agreement - Supplement #1 SUMMARY: Annually the City Council is requested to review the Agreement for Animal Control Services with Pomona Valley Humane Society and approve the annual supplemental payment. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Supplement Number 1 to the Agreement for Animal Control Services between the City of Diamond Bar and the Pomona Valley Humane Society. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report Public Hearing Notification Resolution(s) _ Bid Spec. (on file in City Clerk's Office) Ordinances(s) _ Other _ X Agreement(s) _ EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes_ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? Yes_ No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? Yes_ No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? Yes_ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: RE IEWED BY: Terrence L. Belang Linda G. Magnu on Acting City Manage Accounting Manager CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: July 7, 1992 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Acting City Manager SUBJECT: Animal Control Services Contract ISSUE STATEMENT: As a part their annual budget process, the Pomona Valley Humane Society is requesting that the City Council review it's agreement for animal control services. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Supplement #1 to the Agreement for Animal Control Services FINANCIAL SUMMARY: Annual cost of $52,596. BACKGROUND: The City of Diamond Bar entered into an agreement with the Pomona Valley Humane Society on May 21, 1991. This agreement commenced on July 1, 1991 and was effective for an initial term of 12 months. The agreement automatically renews on an annual basis until termination by one of the parties. The City agreed as partial consideration for services performed, that the Humane Society was entitled to retain various fees collected. In addition, the City agreed to supplement the income received by the Humane Society in an amount which is to be annually determined. The amount agreed upon for FY 91-92 was $49,654. It is being requested that the City Council approve compensation to the Humane Society for FY92-93. The amount requested is $52,596. This represents an increase of 5.9%. The average number of hours spent on service calls from the City has increased from 71 hrs/month in FY90-91 to 78 hrs/month in FY91-92, which represents a 9.8% increase in service. Each City's share of expenses are calculated on an annual basis and are based on the individual City's usage. Even though there has been a 5.9% increase from the prior year, the cost is still comparable to that of the other cities they service. Attached for your review is a copy of the transmittal proposal budget and agreement to be executed to continue animal control service for FY92-93. PREPARED BY: Linda G. Magnuson POMONA VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY S. P. C. A. Society for the Prevention of Cnielty to Animate May 29, 1992 Mr. Terrance Belanger, City Manager Diamond Bar City Hall 21660 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California 91765 Dear Terry: Enclosed is your amended Animal Care and Control Contract for the fiscal year 1992- 1993. I have made every effort to hold down costs and at the same time increase your revenue. As we know it is a very difficult time in the business world, but the Humane Society is commited to providing quality service at a reasonable price to your community. I look forward to our continued relationship. Sincerely, William C. Harford Executive Director WCH:ep enclosure 500 Humane Way • Pomona, California 91766 • 714/623-9777 Working Together Since 1949 For The Benefit Of All Living Things' SUPPLEMENT NUMBER 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES This Supplement Number 1 is entered into by and between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), and THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF POMONA VALLEY, INC., a corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Humane Society"), with respect to that certain Agreement dated , 1991, relating to animal control services which are provided by the Humane Society on behalf of City (hereinafter, "the Contract"), this day of June, 1992: AGREEMENT The parties hereby acknowledge and agree that, under the provisions of paragraph 10 of the Contract, the Contract has been renewed for an additional period of one year commencing July 1, 1992 through and including June 30, 1993. The parties further acknowledge that under paragraph 8 (b) of the Contract, the City agrees to make supplemental payments to the Humane Society in an amount which will be determined annually by the Humane Society and the City; and that the annual supplemental payment for the 1992- 1993 year will be the sum of $ 520596.00 Except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Contract remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed their Page 1 of 2 signatures as of the date and year first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney HUMANE SOCIETY OF POMONA VALLEY, INC., a California non-profit corporation By: Pres dent CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation By: Page 2 of 2 signatures as of the date and year first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney HUMANE SOCIETY OF POMONA VALLEY, INC., a California non-profit corporation r-�- 4=14 i 5 � WMM �WMA ' Y ' CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation By: _ MayorTM Page 2 of 2 POMONA VALLEY HUIVfANE SOCIETY S. P. C. A. Society for the 79 Ptemdon of Cruelty to Animals 1992 - 1993 Proposed Budget Contracting Animal Control Services For The Cities Of Pomona • Claremont • La Verne • San Dimas Chino • Montclair • Diamond Bar Ontario • Chino Hills 500 Humane Way • Pomona, California 91766 • 714/623-9777 "Working Together Since 1949 For The Benefit Of AU Living Things" Pomona Valley Humane Society do S. P. C. A. Budget 1992 - 1993 Total 1992 - 1993 Budget Animal Control Responsibility $ 1,596,311 Humane Activity Responsibility $ 287,509 Total $ 1,883,820 Projected Animal Care Revenue Name of Account Budget 1991-1992 Seven Months Budget 1992-1993 Sale of Dog Licenses $ 505,500 $ 371,747 $ 611,000 Animal Impound Fees 48,000 31,677 55,000 Ambulance/Owner Release Fees 40,000 26,871 46,000 Animal Trap Rentals 5,500 400 1,000 Veterinary Fees 1,000 900 1,500 Court Fines 8,000 700 2,000 Interest Income 2,000 1,451 2,000 Totals $ 610000 $ 4.33,746 $ 718,500 Pomona Valley Humane Society do S.P.C.A. Budget 1992 -1993 Page 2 Projected Humane Activity Revenue Budget Seven_ Budget Name of Account 1991 - 1992 Months 1992 - 1993 Owner Release Fees $ 7,000 $ 4,786 8,200 Cat Registration 200 40 100 Adoptions - Dogs 37,000 20,910 36,000 Adoptions - Cats 14,000 6,366 11,000 Adoptions - Misc. 1,1300: 529 1,000 Vaccination Fees 18,000 8,321 14,200 Donations 10,000 5,063 10,000 Misc. Income 500 245 500 Interest Income 4,000 1,400 2,000 Pet Supplies 8,000 5,233 9,000 Fundraisers 70,000 49,975 120,509 Capital Fund 0 0 75,000 Totals $ 169,700 $ 102,868 $ 287,509 Pomona Valley Humane Society Sc S.P.C.A. Budget 1992-1993 Page 3 Administrative Services Expenditures Budget Seven Budget An imaL Humane - AC HA 1991.9Z Months 19SZ--93 Control Activity office Supplies 93--7 5,000 $ 11,290 s 9,000 8;370 S 630 Service Cantracts 93-7 6,000 10,302 12,000 TT,T60 840 Advertising 93-7 4,000 5,201 5,000 4,650 350 Comer Awareness and': Education 75-25 5,000 9,677 10,000 T1500 2,500 Insemice Training 93-7 5,000 11,457 15,000 13,950 1,050 Clots Licensing 1 CUAC 25,000 14,790 20,000 ZD',D00 t Pet Supplies 100HA 10,000 44954 10,000 or 10,000 Insurance 93-7 50,000 34,146 50,000 46,500 3,500 Utilities - 9-3�-7 55,000 31,949 49,000 45,570 3,430 Professional Services .9-3-7 20,000 16,119 19,000 17,670 1,330 Postage 9�-7 35,000 16,190 35,000 3Z,550 2,450 Cues & Subscriptions 9;:�7 4,000 2,191 41500 4,185 315 Promotion do Admin.. 50-50 41000 2,917 6,000 3,000 3,000 Employee Relations 93-7 2,000 5,ZZZ 4,000 3,720 280 Animal Welfare Projects 100HA 45,241 18,422 54,900 t 54,900 Miscaltaneous: Expen=se: 93-7' 31500 3,457 7,000 6,510 4.90 Totals $ 278,741 $198,284• S: 310,400 $225,335 s a!W r5 Pomona Valley Humane Society I S.P.C.A . Budget 1992 -1993 Page 4 Animal Control Fieid Operations Expenditures Veterinary Fee Expense Safety Equip. & Supplies Vehicles - Gas & Maint- UniformExpense Comm. Expense Totals AC4 4A Budget. Seven Budget Animal, Humane Ferceat 194? -9Z Months. T99Z-93 Control Activit 100AC S T6,000 $11,459 CO.24„13 S 213,000 7,445 100AC 6,000 3,345 71000 7,000 14,000 100AC 58,000 33,868 64,000 64,000 9r 95-7 44000 2,353 4x,500 4185 3T5 10aAC 10,000 6,607 10,000 10,000 t Totals $94,000 $ 57,63Z $ 105,500 $105,185 $ 315 Animal Control Kennel Operations Expenditures Kennel Supplies 93-7 S10,000 $ 5,548 $101000 S. 9,300 700 Animal Feed Expense 93-7 17,000 11,.166 17,000 15,810 1.,.190 Disposal Fee Expense 93-7 12,000 7,445 14,000 13,020 980 Medical Supply Exp. 60-4 14,000 6,735 14,000 8,400 5,600 Maint. & Repairs to Shelter 93-7 25,000 11,580 30,000 27,900 2,100 Totals $78,000 $ 42,474 $ 85,000 S-74,430 $ 10,570 Pomona Valley Humane Society & S.P.C.A. Budget 1992-1993 Page 5 Administrative Salaries Licensing Salaries Cimnmg c3 m*z -.T MAC S 72,000: 72;000 S; 7Z'= S 0 Overtime. 100AC 0 5,000 5=,000 Overhead 100AC 15,000 17,000 17,000 0 notal Licensing Salaries $ 87,000 $ 94,000S AC -HA ;3.e''c=^t Budget Buaget animal -!umane 1991-92 1992-93 Control c1:4vity Exac=vs Cirectcr 80-ZO $;6.91,250. S 69,-J50 S. 55,800 V 3,958 averhawt 80-Z0: 16,300 16,300 t-. 0= 3,26Q Clones & -a 93-T 183,600 19T, 7m 1.78,281 13,4.14 ave 93-9. 10,000 TZ;000 TT,T60 84Q aveftnot (E,CQMR.,. 93-7- 371600 46;000 42,780 3,220 Ina., Nfedh:aL do life rhm, =ta 2 Humane EdncatiaR (AHT) -1 ' 5G -5Q 30400 34,00Q T7100Q T7,W12 Qve=haedr 50-50 61000 71000 3400 3,50a C tyE %izci= t- r 5-5a 40;000 4z4W 7-T4M ZTAM Qvatltaad: 50-50 81,000 8;400 4,200 X00 T-ct=L Administrative s 401, 250 _s X427,150 V346,761 Field Salaries Amstwe i Mmctw 1 WAC S 54,1300 S 54,000 S 54,000: S averhalut 100AC 10,500 10,500 10,500 4.Gatffcars ae Oise. 11,-1 MAC 266,500 ?36;500 296,500 pr overtime 100AC 30,000 42,1300 44000 Qverhead 100AC 65,1300 93,1300 9%000 p1' %tai. Fier Salaries $ 426,000 $4.96,000 5496,1300 S Kennel Salaries KaemeL attendants - 7 93-7 145,1300 5155,000 t144,150 $10,850 avertime 93-7 10,000 10,000 4,300 700 avetheati 93-7 39,1300 ",000 42,780 3,220 rataL KannaL Saiatiet S 194,1300 S Zf 9.,000 S T760ZSQ $149.770 Licensing Salaries Cimnmg c3 m*z -.T MAC S 72,000: 72;000 S; 7Z'= S 0 Overtime. 100AC 0 5,000 5=,000 Overhead 100AC 15,000 17,000 17,000 0 notal Licensing Salaries $ 87,000 $ 94,000S Pomona Valley Humane Society do S.P.C.A. Budget 1992 -1993 Page 6 Capital Program AC -HA Animal Humane 1992-1993 Control Activity Vehicie• Replacement $ 36,000 $ 36,D00 Oce, Equipment 14,000 12,600 1',400 Mobile Radios 10,000 10,000 01 Administration Building (Addition) 95,000 95,OOQ Totals $155,000 558,600 96,400 Pomona Valley Humane Society & S.P.C.A. Budget 1992 -1993 Page 7 Budget Proposed Animal Control Budget 1992 - 1993 Salaries with Overhead $ 1,132,761 General Operations 404,950 Capital Expenditures 58,600 Total Proposed Animal Control Budget $ 1,596,311 Proposed Humane Activity Budget= Salaries with Overhead 95,159 General Operations 95,950 Capital Expenditures 96,400 Total Proposed Humane Activity Budget $ 287,509 Proposed Consolidated Budget Total Salaries with Overhead $ 1,227,920 Total General Operations 500,900 Total Capital Expenditures 155,000 Total. Proposed Consolidated Budget 1,88%821. Pomona Valley Humane Society do S.P.C.A. Budget 1992 -1993 1992 - 1993 Animal Control Cost Breakdown Population Service Cost Revenue Net Cost POMONA $1319-1723 $ 337,936, S. 469,659 $185,000 $ 284,659 CLAAREMONT 32,503 63,363 95,866 46,000 49,866 LA VERNE 31,000 63,363 94,363 58,000 36,363 SAN DIMAS 32,000 63,363 95,363 43,000 52,363 CHINO 59,682 126,726 186,408 100,000 86,408 MONTCLAIR 28,434 63,363 91,797 25,500 66,297 DIAMOND BAR 53,672 73,924 127,596 75,000 52,596 ONTARIO 129,246 190,089 319,335 131,000 187,835 CHINO HILLS 42,000 73,924. 115,924 55,000 60,924. Totals $ 540,260 $1,056,051 $ 1,596,311 $.718,500 $ 877,311 ! h H f H l CL cr N R > R K er `" W. UZ1 tr C to S O p N N 1•1j a 6 �" O o ~33 p C ry r a z z a • a a R �^ to D � o ? N J W 00 %D cn N In N Ch N N W Ch J W O W lJ1 J N a N N J O J to O N •P I& Ab N O N N N In J n n� �8 L to a- m W O coo N J 1+ O N N 1.4 A .P O O► N 00 O r O N 2 Ob A W N F-� .P C1 N N O •p J N w 6Z N 00 J .P 00 � J u F, iP N IO+ W W N N N N N In CL In H n In J Ul m 00 F� 10 C\ ►'� O m ►� �O 10 �► N OD O A• a F.a N N W W to Ln 0 N N a Ln w m rn a w ►Nr � �' a N }}.++ J J W B N N A J '61 N a N 00 0�1 N O co 000 � D �P r+ FI J N l0 W w J O �9 W m CC) IliNi Fes-+ OWO OJO O FN+ N W N In cn Ch O I O O F� J J '� ul Op LA O O► A m O to m v va cc N N J 10.1 Ln - A c A va N In lb. 01 b 61 %a FNS v W i :� 0. N � �, ►,,, •J• tp ►h t0 CI. � � to can M �. � ►�'. • � � W ry �� Z 'I" � ' 1-4 ro N t U, Cb N om' H y rn C w N,, N �p N t.'. Cy `� T m- [I� N I.- N n ■ t two ~ M a CL M M M• CL H s +� 3 r e � tt ►r H Z e N ifll W W ry� • ■ t two co J J V+ �l vi NO N O V ON W N Vt i j O N I O O\ N :A W N -4 � W W %,n 01 Co C O O N N O O N IM %O O T V N I N CN O N_ N O !D N B \O VN+ W W V+ N N N 41 OD N as %P W O O NO O � Oa �O i N W c 'i ON O m r v+ m O W .O �t o w v.+ o a%ON W @ N V W W � O M J_ W N O _ O O ON O vs, N N V w Oo W W V W lli W W OJ O JW co Ig w 8 B W O -� J co 9% a a B ea EA M M H r 7r v. •�. r• o c s o no N rn m f+7 ti r• rt m m A m NN ZC � � N ? ( m r CL (^ aro � r- �O v q ko -.6 m a d v r H o � m .r � 2 ? m (^ aro � d v 0 ■ 0 c w M ►. e....��. ? �o o C6 t o a - M Q v m _ W w ch Qn N N 4 F M w O N �O v' v -400 W Ln ` 0p 3 rn a N w ' N c rt R o w Ki a �i w W00 �! ffi �! ffi 1N1+ W _ v O O J v 01 F K O N m 4 � 0 v m _ W w ch Qn N N 4 F -► w w O N �O v' v -400 W N W w W00 �! ffi �! ffi 1N1+ W _ v O O J v m O v c p N ln F N J 1�0 m _ J to N C co J F 41 O O N O J O N.A ffi ffi �O a �! N O V W O+ � W r � ►� O W W p co N O W V+ O1% V W in \O O W k-0 O W J Im O m N W O O � J F V! N � D ffi W ffi P� _ Q1 Ol� N O W T J 2 ~ � m ffip ffi N 110 4- NO in _ co ffi V+ O O W 8 S 8 H C F N S 0 H a c � x x r• cP -4 � n - to w m R A � a d a n Z y m n w x r• � Z � ti ro � r*� K m a A n• z $ � r � r m a � •^ Ln 0S mato H N P► m IA y f.. a r N.. K v � � D N 3 W O� F J W O � co O W W ^ n � O cl `° O W N O J � O m \0W a. �.' W v+�Jm �' w D 'y n �. a A 11� F W Q� m A O O O a N O, W O N>D � W O � N T m LA m O co N ON p. O m F3.• W uj O .� 4 CO W �l i -� I CD CO W w co W W Q% �O rZ. O m � O O ! N NOCD � � O Ui 2 Vi R W P � 8 �` N m w N J J lO �p a CNT C w � co N N ' 8 N N N N m NO W N a m W O 2 m �co W 0� \O O J N 00 W co O O O P O W ON 4 O %.n m F N N O � N M w s M I M CL n "QQ' p. 7C c... �• R ti r N = .••1 r ry $ 3FA r' n 0-4 n N �i n ? r �^ to z R a K P1 m s' m r; � 7 03 N H 8 ►" w `a r• r• n CL n c ao g M w o r N m r Q n R ti r N = .••1 r n r ma m $ 3FA r' n 30 N �i M m r; 1 v a � J J Co J J O d Tz aa J J O 0 O J m b a O m N O A A C W N D w e r vl A o\ i 0 a J J •I J J J N J OJ J A t W u wit v \o -jW N J v € vno J D w A o\ A s s a w \o w 0 0 J W J N W W m j Ow D N O O Q\ m O -� O m. J O U O VI O Ch W W \p T / N O O [] \r1 J J J J Q 63 a N O\ R cm J W W 1 O 1� J VI J OD tJ P- -- — — — \P J J w J 1! A J i O 1 J D N w A \O b m .p ..+ VI d �\ J A \p \p �f O O QQQ W i cy,J J rl N N O O w J W J R6 C \wj. I A D J W J \p NoO W Im %P m 8 O J I I I I I I I I I i I I I 1 1 1 O O O 1 1 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 J J 'Q B A m W W m W W 1 1 r A �1 IJJ WWo W m 0 N W W `O N r J p\ F .1 J N J N W p. .1 p' W d O IJP N T J VI O\ Q\ W VI C\ m O\ \O \O . C7 A N i N �}^m Q p T a J o. • O W O _' V� ZW \ D A O, W v W N W N W N O m W OW+ ID N F W O � W No m ,O O Ln zz J D F O N F N O O� ID ID 10 ID W NO .r \.n W W m O O p� F A O c \O O CDN W JF Z D O� O T F N \p "p ID ID m ID W F r �p s O% O VWi r R V N O N J ¢ a3 N Zco D1O r (Y' L. co J \p N W T ID F \D m O a 100 W ,1 W O O O N N -� J N O, 10 V� F J 0 0 w C. W 2 D r "'. m W `O W -J W m m \O ID W F W W N O \0 �o N N N mco _ m U z N FW F W N O O N N O N \D + N F M10 N V+ W J O yy1� a N 1 In O O 10 WN W O. O ID N m ID W 1 m m J W r r W 2 z \ J W r co F W W w -4 _a m m F O N J F r -4 N O C V W V� 0% co QQ� F lJ J W W O� W -I m a p e p c o u pr - "Q ,• o r c w CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. �o - L TO: Terrence L. Belanger, Acting City Manager MEETING DATE: July 21, 1992 REPORT DATE: July 13, 1992 FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer/Public Works Director TITLE: Selection of a Consultant to complete a feasibility study for Sewer System in "The Country". SUMMARY: To better identify construction alternatives and to complete a preliminary cost estimate for installing a sanitary sewer system, a feasibility study needs to be completed. Based on the City Council's previous authorization to proceed on July 7, 1992, a determination needs to be made regarding selection of a consultant to complete the feasibility study. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council award authorization to execute an agreement with Dwight French & Associates in an amount not to exceed $13,174 plus authorize an additional amount of up to $5,000 to be approved by the City Manager. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Resolution(s) _ Ordinances(s) X Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's Office) Other 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. Belange Acting City Manage George A. Wentz Interim City Engineer David G. Liu '— Associate Engineer MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. July 21, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Terrence L. Belanger, Acting City Manager Selection of a Consultant to complete a feasibility study for Sewer System in "The Country" in the City of Diamond Bar. ISSUE STATEMENT Based on City Council's previous authorization to proceed, a determina- tion needs to be made regarding selection of a consultant to complete a feasibility study in "The Country". RECOMMENDATION Recommendation is made that City Council award authorization to execute an agreement with Dwight French & Associates in an amount not to exceed $13,174 plus authorize an additional contingency amount of up to $5,000 to be approved for expenditure by the City Manager. FINANCIAL SUMMARY Funds for this project will be used from the unallocated General Fund. Up to $5,000 is requested for contingencies, review charges by the City Engineer, and City administrative time that may be charged to this effort. The City will be reimbursed for these expenditures should the sewer district ultimately be formed in the Country. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION At the meeting of July 7, 1992, the City Council authorized staff to proceed with the consultant selection process as expeditiously as possible. Based on that direction, staff prepared the attached request for consultant services from the following firms: * Kleinfelder * James M. Montgomery, Inc. * So & Associates, Inc. and * Dwight French & Associates, Inc. Responses were received as follows: James M. Montgomery, Inc. $20,000 Dwight French & Associates, Inc. $13,174 A detailed review of the responses indicates that both firms are highly qualified to perform the work. J.M. Montgomery, Inc. supplemented the scope of work with additional details explaining what tasks they would complete as part of the scope of work. Both firms have CAD capability which will be useful in visualizing the presentation and proposed site plans. From our experience, J.M. Montgomery carries more depth in sewer system design project. However, the key information desired from this project is basic constructability, cost and funding data. Based on that it is difficult to justify paying the difference of $6,826.00 and Dwight French is a local firm here in Diamond Bar. If the costs were more competitive based on the scope of work, staffs recommendation may be different. However, based on the type of work, timeliness desired and costs, staff recommends awarding the work to Dwight French & Associates, Inc. Prepared By: David G. Liu PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 1992, between the City of Diamond Bar, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and DWIGHT FRENCH AND ASSOCIATES (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"). A. Recitals. (i) CITY has heretofore issued its' Request for Proposal pertaining to the performance of professional construction observa- tion/administration services with respect to the Sewer Feasibility Study in IfThe Country" ("Project" hereafter), a full, true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference made a part hereof. (ii) CONSULTANT has now submitted its proposal for the performance of such services, a full, true and correct of which proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and by this reference made a part hereof. (iii) CITY desires to retain CONSULTANT to perform engineering services necessary to render advice and assistance to CITY, CITY's City Council and staff in the preparation of Project. (iv) CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified to perform such services and is willing to perform such professional construction observation/ administration services as hereinafter defined. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and CONSULTANT as follows: B. Agreement. 1. Definitions: The following definitions shall apply to the following terms, except where the context of this Agreement otherwise requires: (a) Project: The sewer feasibility study as described in Exhibit "A" hereto, which includes, but is not limited to, the preparation of maps, surveys, reports, and documents, the presentation, both oral and in writing, of such plans, maps, surveys, reports and documents to CITY as required and attendance at any and all work sessions, public hearings and other meetings conducted by CITY with respect to the Project. 01 (b) Services: Such professional engineering services as are necessary to be performed by CONSULTANT in order to complete the Project. (c) Completion of Project: The date of completion of all phases of the Project, including any and all procedures, development plans, maps, surveys, plan documents, technical reports, meetings, oral presentations and attendance by CONSULTANT at public hearings will be determined by the CITY. 2. CONSULTANT agrees as follows: (a) CONSULTANT shall forthwith undertake and complete the project in accordance with Exhibits "A" & "B" hereto and all in accordance with Federal, State and CITY statues, regulations, ordinances and guidelines, all to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY and in accordance to the standard of care normally provided by practitioners of the engineering profession. (b) CONSULTANT shall supply copies of all maps, surveys, reports, plans and documents (hereinafter collectively referred to as "documents") including all supplemental technical documents, as described in Exhibits "A" and "B" to CITY within the time specified by the CITY. Copies of the documents shall be in such numbers as are required by Exhibit "A". CITY may thereafter review and forward to CONSULTANT comments regarding said documents and CONSULTANT shall thereafter make such revisions to said documents as are deemed necessary. CITY shall receive revised documents in such form and in the quantities determined necessary by CITY. The time limits set forth pursuant to this Section B2. (b) may be extended upon written approval of CITY. (c) CONSULTANT shall, at CONSULTANT's sole cost and expense, secure and hire such other persons as may, in the opinion of CONSULTANT, be necessary to comply with the terms of this Agreement. In the event any such other persons are retained by CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT hereby warrants that such persons shall be fully qualified to perform services required hereunder. CONSULTANT further agrees that no subconsultant shall be retained by CONSULTANT except upon the prior written approval of CITY. 3. CITY agrees as follows: (a) To pay CONSULTANT a maximum sum of $13,174.00 for the performance of the services required hereunder. This sum shall cover the cost of all staff time and all other direct and indirect costs or fees, including the work of employees, consultants and subconsultants to CONSULTANT. Payment to CONSULTANT, by CITY, shall be made in accordance with the schedule set forth below. 2 (b) Payments to CONSULTANT shall be made by CITY in accordance with the invoices submitted by CONSULTANT, on a monthly basis, and such invoices shall be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt of CONSULTANT invoices. The CONSULTANT shall detail the charges by project task number, hours worked, employee classifica- tions, and total not to exceed amount for the time -and -material basis project. All charges shall be in accordance with CONSULTANT's proposal with respect to hourly rates for each individual task. (c) CONSULTANT agrees that, in no event, shall CITY be required to pay to CONSULTANT any sum in excess of 90% of the maximum payable hereunder prior to receipt by CITY of all final documents, together with all supplemental technical documents, as described herein acceptable in form and content to CITY. Final payment shall be made not later than sixty (60) days after presentation of final documents and acceptance thereof by CITY. (d) Additional services: Payments for additional services requested, in writing, by CITY, and not included in CONSULTANT's proposal as set forth in Exhibit "B" hereof, shall be paid on a reimbursement basis. Charges for additional services shall be invoiced on a monthly basis and shall be paid by CITY within thirty (30) days after said invoices are received by CITY. 4. CITY agrees to provide to CONSULTANT: (a) Information and assistance as set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto. (b) Photographically reproducible copies of maps and other information, if available, which CONSULTANT considers necessary in order to complete the Project. (c) Such information as is generally available from CITY files applicable to the Project. (d) Assistance, if necessary, in obtaining information from other governmental agencies and/or private parties. However, it shall be CONSULTANT's responsibility to make all initial contact with respect to the gathering of such information. 5. Ownership of Documents: All documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement shall be considered the property of CITY and, upon payment for services performed by CONSULTANT, such documents and other identified materials shall be delivered to CITY by CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT may, however, make and retain such copies of said documents and materials as CONSULTANT may desire. CONSULTANT shall not be held liable for use of such documents by CITY for purposes other than 3 intended by the Agreement. 6. Termination: This Agreement may be terminated by CITY upon the giving of a written "Notice of Termination" to CONSULTANT at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of termination specified in said Notice. In the event this Agreement is so terminated, CONSULTANT shall be compensated at CONSULTANT's applicable hourly rates as set forth in Exhibit "B", on a pro -rata basis with respect to the percentage of the Project completed as of the date of termination. In no event, however, shall CONSULTANT receive more than the maximum specified in paragraph 3(a), above. CONSULTANT shall provide to CITY any and all documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports, whether in draft or final form, prepared by CONSULTANT as of the date of termination. CONSULTANT may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 7. Notices and Designated Representatives: Any and all notices, demands, invoices and written communications between the parties hereto shall be addressed as set forth in this paragraph 7. The below named individuals, furthermore, shall be those persons primarily responsible for the performance by the parties under this Agreement: CITY: David G. Liu, P.E. Associate Engineer Department of Public Works 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 CONSULTANT: John C. Whitman, President Dwight French & Associates 1470 S. Valley Vista Drive, Suite 225 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Any such notices, demands, invoices and written communications, by mail, shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee forty-eight (48) hours after deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as set forth above. 8. Insurance: CONSULTANT shall neither commence work under this Agreement until it has obtained all insurance required hereunder in a company or companies acceptable to CITY nor shall CONSULTANT allow any subconsultant to commence work on a subcontract until all insurance required of the subconsultant has been obtained. CONSULTANT shall take out and maintain at all time during the term of this Agreement the following policies of insurance: 4 (a) Workers' Compensation Insurance: Before beginning work, CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY a certificate of insurance as proof that it has taken out full workers' compensation insurance for all persons whom it may employ directly or through subconsultants in carrying out the work specified herein, in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 3700, every employer shall secure the payment of compensation to his employees. CONSULTANT prior to commencing work, shall sign and file with CITY a certification as follows: "I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Agreement" (b) Public Liability and Property Damage: Throughout the term of this Agreement, at CONSULTANT's sole cost and expense, CONSULTANT shall keep, or cause to be kept, in full force and effect, for the mutual benefit of CITY and CONSULTANT, comprehensive, broad form, general public liability and automobile insurance against claims and liabilities for personal injury, death, or property damage arising from CONSULTANT's activities, providing protection of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000.000.00) for property damage, bodily injury or death to any one person or for any one accident or occurrence and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. (c) Errors and Omissions: CONSULTANT shall take out and maintain at all times during the life of this Agreement, a policy or policies of insurance concerning errors and omissions ("malpractice") providing protection of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per claim and in the aggregate for errors and omissions ("malpractice") with respect to loss arising from actions of CONSULTANT performing the Project hereunder on behalf of CITY. (d) General Insurance Requirements: All insurance required by express provision of this Agreement shall be carried only in responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of California and policies required under paragraphs 8.(a) and (b) shall name as additional insured CITY, its' elected officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives. All policies shall contain language, to the extent obtainable that: (1) the insurer, except the errors and omissions insurer, waives the right of subrogation against CITY and CITY's elected officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives; (2) the policies are primary and noncontributing with any insurance that may be carried by CITY; and (3) they cannot be canceled or materially 5 changed except after thirty (30) days' notice by the insurer to CITY by certified mail. CONSULTANT shall furnish CITY with copies of all such policies promptly upon receipt of them, or certificate evidencing the insurance. CONSULTANT may effect for its own account insurance not required under this Agreement. 9. Indemnification: CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify and save harmless CITY, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees, from all liability from loss, damage or injury to persons or property, including the payment by CONSULTANT of any and all legal costs and attorneys' fees, in any manner arising out of the acts and/or omissions of CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement, including, but not limited to, all consequential damages, to the maximum extent permitted by law. 10. Assignment: No assignment of this Agreement or of any part or obligation of performance hereunder shall be made, either in whole or in part, by CONSULTANT without the prior written consent of CITY. 11. Damages: In the event that CONSULTANT fails to submit to CITY the completed project, together with all documents and supplemental material required hereunder, in public hearing form to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY, within the time set forth herein, or as may be extended by written consent of the parties hereto, CONSULTANT shall pay to CITY, as liquidated damages and not as a penalty, the sum of Two Hundred dollars ($200.00) per day for each day CONSULTANT is in default, which sum represents a reasonable endeavor by the parties hereto to estimate a fair compensation for the foreseeable losses that might result from such a default in performance by CONSULTANT, and due to the difficulty which would otherwise occur in establishing actual damages resulting from such default, unless said default is caused by CITY or by acts of God, acts of the public enemy, fire, floods, epidemics, or quarantine restrictions. 12. Independent Contractor: The parties hereto agree that CONSULTANT and its' employees, officers and agents are independent consultants under this Agreement and shall not be construed for any purpose to be employees of City. 13. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 14. Attorney's Fees: In the event any legal proceeding is instituted to enforce any term or provision of the Agreement, the prevailing party in said legal proceeding shall be entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs from the opposing party in an amount determined by the court to be reasonable. 2 15. Mediation: Any dispute or controversy arising under this Agreement, or in connection with any of the terms and conditions hereof, shall be referred by the parties hereto for mediation. A third party, neutral mediation service shall be selected, as agreed upon by the parties and the costs and expenses thereof shall be borne equally by the parties hereto. In the event the parties are unable to mutually agree upon the mediator to be selected hereunder, the City Council shall select such a neutral, third party mediation service and the City Council's decision shall be final. The parties agree to utilize their good faith efforts to resolve any such dispute or controversy so submitted to mediation. It is specifically understood and agreed by the parties hereto that referral of any such dispute or controversy, and mutual good faith efforts to resolve the same thereby, shall be conditions precedent to the institution of any action or proceeding, whether at law or in equity with respect to any such dispute or controversy. 16. Entire Agreement: This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representation by any party which is not embodied herein nor any other agreement, statement, or promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid and binding. Any modification of this Agreement shall be effective only if it is in writing signed by all parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first set forth above: Approved As To Form: City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk 7 CONSULTANT: DWIGHT FRENCH & ASSOCIATES Name and Title CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Mayor September 1, 1992 Dear John: I am still looking for the excerpt from the Minutes that you requested. At this time I have listened and watched the tapes from June 16 to July 14, 1992 and have only come up with this comment made by Mr. Maxwell during the July 21, 1992 meeting. Verbatim transcript of portion of Minutes for July 21, 1992 Public Comments: Following Mr. Belanger's response to Mr. Maxwell's announcement of the referendum petition drive. Mr. Maxwell: I, I apologize Mayor, it was the resolution which is quite lengthy and so forth and so on. Ah, I do want to comment to is, Assistant, I guess he is the acting city manager. Ah, our premise is basically the GPAC presented very strong, good protection for the canyon. He obviously saying something different, that has been removed and I Mr. Belanger am the one that asked it to go back to AR and we had to have 2 or 300 people here to convince you folks that, that we were serious about this. Ah, I'm sorry AG agriculture and I see that, ah, it just, it all fell together as when you finally look at the pamphlet, the booklet, we just are not satisfied and your threat and your cost factors, as far as were concerned, it's better than paying the price later on for something we don't like right now. So thank you very much.