Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/02/1993CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Mayor — Gary G. Miller Mayor Pro Tem — Phyllis E. Papen Councilman — John A. Forbing Councilman — Gary H. Werner Councilman — Dexter D. MacBride City Council Chambers . are located at: South Coast Air Qualify Management District Auditodum 21865 East Copley Drive Please refrain from smo in , eating or drinking in the Cdu--ncil Chambers MEETING DATE: March 2, 1993 Terrence L. Belanger City Manager Andrew V. Arczynski City Attorney MEETING TIME: closed Session - 4:00 p.m. Lynda Burgess Regular Session - 6:00 p.m. City Clerk Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item referred to on this agenda are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (714) 860-2489 during business hours. 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. Next Resolution No. 93-09 Next Ordinance No. 01(1993) 1. CLOSED SESSION: 4:00 P.M. Litigation -Government Code 54956.9 Personnel - Government Code 54957.6 2. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Miller INVOCATION: Reverend John Ortberg, Horizons Community Church ROLL CALL: Councilmen MacBride, Forbing, Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Mayor Miller 3. PUBLIC CONKENTS: "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 4. COUNCIL COIrONTS: 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. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1.1 Planning Commission - March 8, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.2 Sheriff's Quarterly Breakfast - March 9, 1993 - 7:00 a.m., AQMD Cafeteria, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.3 Traffic & Transportation Commission - March 11, 1993 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - March 16, 1993 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 5.2.1 Regular Meeting of February 2, 1993 5.2.2 Adjourned Regular Meeting of February 9, 1993 5.2.3 Regular Meeting of February 16, 1993 5.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Approve Warrant Register aaLea marcn 2, 1993 in the amount of $528,799.46. 5.4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 5.4.1 Regular Meeting of January 11, 1993 - Receive & file. 5.4.2 Regular Meeting of January 25, 1993 - Receive & file. 5.5 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of January 14, 1993 - Receive & file. 5.6 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by State Farm Insurance Co. on February 17, 1993. Recommended Action: Reject request and refer matter for further action to Carl Warren & co., the City's Risk Manager. 5.7 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE ENACTMENT OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO RESTRICT, CONSTRICT AND CONTROL THE FLOW AND EXISTENCE OF ILLEGAL ALIENS IN THE COUNTRY. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 93 -XX supporting the enactment of Federal legislation to restrict, constrict and control the flow and existence of illegal aliens. 5.8 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, TO ACCEPT 1) THE VACATION OF A SEWER EASEMENT AND 2) THE OFFERING OF A RELOCATED SEWER EASEMENT LOCATED AT 3302 SOUTH DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AN DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD THE RESOLUTION/EASEMENT DEED - This Sewer Easement Vacation/Relocation is between Parcel 1 of Parcel 15375 and Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 2151 at 3302 S. Diamond Bar Blvd., for construction of an Arco AM/PM mini -mart. The Sewer Easement Vacation/Relocation has now been submitted to the City for approval. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 93 -XX authorizing and directing the City Clerk to accept the Vacation of a Sewer Easement and the offering of a relocated sewer easement located at 3302 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC. 6.1 CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION - Present to Adam Hardie and Megan Henderson for their efforts in obtaining signatures in opposition to the proposed MRF in the City of Industry. 6.2 PROCLAIMING THE MARCH 7-13, 1993 AS "GIRL SCOUT WEEK." 7 . NEW sUs INE''S8 : 7.1 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE RFP FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PANTERA PARR - The City has been awarded a $1.47 million grant to develop Pantera Park. The grant is funded by Proposition A Funds, which was approved by Los Angeles County voters on November 3, 1992. A landscape architect is required to complete the plans and specifications for the development of the park. Recommended Action: It is recommended by the Parks & Recreation Commission that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 93 -XX authorizing release of the RFP for landscape architect for development of Pantera Park. 7.2 AGREEMENT FOR SPECIAL LITIGATION SERVICES - The City is involved in litigation entitled Diamond Bar Associates, Inc. vs. City of Diamond Bar. The City Council has deemed it prudent to retain special litigation services to advice and represent the City Council in the aforementioned litigation. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council appoint special litigation counsel. The City Council will be meeting with representatives from the law firms of: Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri; Richards, Watson & Gershon; Meyers, Widders & Gibson and Rutan & Tucker. 7.3 FIXED ROUTE DEVIATION TRANSIT SYSTEM - UMA Engineering, Inc. was retained to conduct a study to determine the need and feasibility of providing a fixed route deviation transit system to the general public within the City on a regular basis. Phase I of the study presented the results of the questionnaire and telephone survey which was designed to identify and estimate the demand should a transit service be available in the City. Phase II of the study presented various options in funding, ridership potential, route layout, time -tables, fare structure and vehicle requirements that are available to the City. Both phases were reviewed and comments which were received from the Traffic & Transportation Commission are incorporated in the reports. Recommended Action: It is recommended that a fixed route deviation system not be implemented at this time, but that staff explore alternatives for partial or total implementation based on ridership demand. 7.4 RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 92-44: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - California Elections Code Section 4055 stipulates that upon certification of petitions filed to referend an action of the City Council, the City Council may either repeal the enabling legislation or submit it to the voters at an election. 7.5 RESOLUTION No. 93 -AA: In KzbULUTtUN vr- Trnz c1Tx %;;VU"a.=rJ OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1993, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS OF A QUESTION RELATING TO REFERENDING RESOLUTION NO. 92-44 ADOPTING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. 7.6 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1993. 7.7 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING A WRITTEN ARGUMENT REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS. 7.8 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters can be heard. 8.1 ORDINANCE NO. XX (1993) - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 22.78 TO TITLE 22 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED BY REFERENCE PERTAINING TO TRIP REDUCTION AND TRAVEL DEMAND MEASURES - State statute requires that local jurisdictions adopt and implement a (TDM) Ordinance, consistent with the County Congestion Management Program (CMP), which encourages car pooling, van pooling, transit ridership and on -motorized transportation. Recommended Action: Open the public hearing, receive testimony, approve for first reading by title only and waive full reading of Ordinance.No. XX (1993) adding a new Chapter 22.78 to Title 22 of the L.A. County Code pertaining to trip reduction and travel demand measures. 8.2 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-8, AN APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION OF ONE PARCEL, INTO TEN PARCELS, WITH FOUR OF PARCELS DIVIDED INTO UNITS A AND B, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE WALNUT BUSINESS CENTER, AT 20418 WALNUT DRIVE - Cornerstone Partners Walnut, Ltd. is requesting approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629 for the subdivision of one parcel into ten parcels for the purpose of commercial condominiums. The project site is located at 20418 Walnut Drive within the Walnut Business Center. Four of the ten parcels will be divided into units A and B. Lot A will be created for the private street (Yellowbrick Road). A common area will consist of parking anu lanuscap" [spacc. Trac P3-anrainy Commission reviewed the proposed Tentative Parcel Map and recommended approval to the City Council on January 25, 1993. Recommended Action: Open the Public Hearing, receive testimony and adopt Resolution No. 93 -XX approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629. 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 10. ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ) The Diamond Bar City Council will hold a Closed Session at 4:00 p.m. and a Regular Meeting at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, located at 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 2, 1993. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I, LYNDA BURGESS, declare as follows: I am the City Clerk in the City of Diamond Bar; that a copy of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council, to be held on March 2, 1993 was posted at their proper locations. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Notice and Affidavit was executed this 26th day of February, 1993, at Diamond Bar, California. /s/ Lynda Burgess Lynda Burgess, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: \ //� j Z / L' DATE: ADDRESS: LZ PHONE; - ORGANIZATION: /V x ✓ AGENDA #/SUBJECT: ,/ �- 1 , 1 4" Wiz;.>r<< ,4,i S I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. 9 Signatur VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: DATE: ADDRESS: PHONE:- s ORGANIZATION: i� AGENDA #/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: ,)i, `- ADDRESS: 4-) `/ ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: DATE: " 2 PHONE:- %5--Z 3 c6 I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: f'y� C /� �� DATE: �. Z_ ADDRESS: PHONE:- _ ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: Z- (7ATF• ADDRESS: / PHONE:. ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: ITY CLERK r FROM: /� �y /� `� DAT ADDRESS: J /� ,�� - PHONE:-fP-1761> ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: /`✓�'Y�jj ,?� / `�z-':Syy��` 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 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Terry Belanger, City Manager FROM: George Wentz, Interim City Engineer 45Z SUBJECT: Transportation Demand Management Or inance DATE: March 2, 1993 In order to clarify and to highlight compliance related to development review requirements, the following amendment is recommended to section 22.78.020 of the ordinance (Page 9): " Section 22.78.020. LAND USE ANALYSIS AND REVIEW OF TRANSIT IMPACTS "All development projects for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to be prepared shall be subject to the Land Use Analysis Program contained in the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP), and shall incorporate into the EIR an analysis of the projects impacts on the regional transportation system. Said analysis shall be conducted consistent with the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines contained in the most recent Congestion Management Program adopted by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. "Prior to ... 240 West Huntington Drive P.O. Box 6o Arcadia, California 910660060 (818)574-5400 JOSEPH C. CIRAULO MAYOR PROTEMPORE ROBERT C. HARBICHT DENNIS A. LOJESKI BOB MARGETT COUNCILMEN DONALD R. DUCKWORTH GEORGE FASCHI NG JUNE D. ALFORD CITY MANAGER MAYOR CITY CLERK February 8, 1993 The Honorable Gary G. Miller, Mayor City of Diamond Bar, City Hall 880 S. Lemon Avenue Diamond Bar, California 91789 Re: Illegal immigration Dear Mayor Miller and members of the City Council: On February 2, 1993, the City Council of the City of Arcadia, adopted Resolution No. 5713, supporting the enactment of Federal legislation to restrict, constrict and control the flow and existence of illegal aliens in the United States. We urge your support of legislation to prevent illegal immigration and the burden the influx of illegal aliens imposes upon the County of Los Angeles and the State of California. Arcadia Resolution No. 5713 is enclosed for your consideration. Sincerely, June D. Al rd City Clerk JDA: ms Enclosure RESOLUTION NO. 5713 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE ENACTMENT OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO RESTRICT, CONSTRICT AND CONTROL THE FLOW AND EXISTENCE OF ILLEGAL ALIENS IN THE COUNTRY. WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia recognizes that America was built on immigration, and values new immigrants to the City and County; and WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia further recognizes that illegal immigration mocks the law and is an affront to those who immigrate legally; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles conducted a comprehensive study to determine the impact illegal immigration has upon the County; and WHEREAS, this study concluded that illegal aliens cost $1.4 billion annually in County costs including social services, education, law enforcement and health care; WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles has asked the City to support the passage of federal laws which would constrict and control the existence and flow of illegal aliens into the country; and WHEREAS, the benefits that result from immigration are completely outweighed by the substantial problems and burdens imposed by illegal immigration; and WHEREAS, the sovereign borders of the United States are jeopardized by illegal immigration; and WHEREAS, the federal government must improve management of immigration to better maintain the integrity of the borders of the United States; and WHEREAS, an enforceable immigration policy must occur to mitigate the substantial problems and burdens imposed by current illegal immigration on numerous areas including health, law enforcement, education and social services; and WHEREAS, serious attention must be accorded to California's lack of capacity to absorb illegal aliens: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY, OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Support the enactment of federal legislation which would include the following: a) design tamper -proof green cards that cannot be counterfeited or forged; b) expedite the deportation of illegal alien criminals following the completion of their jail or prison term; c) immediately deport illegal aliens when they are apprehended during illegal entry; d) increase the Border Patrol; e) establish a Border Patrol Reserve component; f) authorize National Guard forces to assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service; 9) develop a work -permit process to allow the legal entry of workers who are needed on a temporary or seasonal basis; h) provide full reimbursement by the federal government to local government for the public costs attributable to undocumented aliens; and i) transfer illegal alien criminals from City/County facilities to federal detention facilities. -2- SECTION 2. Upon adoption, the City Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the California Congressional delegation, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, cities within the San Gabriel Valley, and other interested parties. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 2nd day of February, 1993. ATTEST: ­z'/JUNE D. ALFORD City Clerk of the City of Arcadia -3- /S/ GEORGE FASCHING Mayor of the City of Arcadia STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 5713 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said City Council meeting held on the 2nd day of February, 1993 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmember Ciraulo, Harbicht, Lojeski, Margett and Fasching NOES: None ABSENT: None 1S! JUNE D. ALFORD City Clerk of the City of Arcadia -4- MINUTES or THS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FEBRUARY 2, 1993 1. CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 p.m. Litigation - G.C. Sec. 54956.9 Personnel - G.C. Sec. 54957.6 No reportable action taken. 2. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. M/Miller called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. at the AQMD, 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Miller. INVOCATION: The invocation was given by Reverend Mark Hopper of the Evangelical Free Church of Diamond Bar. ROLL CALL: Mayor Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Papen and Councilmen Forbing, MacBride and Werner. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Janet Spatz, representing Jones Intercable, 20965 Lycoming, presented the City a check in the amount of $68,284.70 for the franchise fee. At the request of MPT/Papen, Ms. Spatz explained that there are two tier services being offered: Basic and Basic plus. Those currently subscribing to the Limited Basic program will receive a reduction in rate from $21.00 to $14.75, and those currently receiving Basic Plus, will remain $23.75. Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., expressed opposition to the proposed MRF station to be located at the junction of Valley Blvd. and Grand Ave. The project will increase traffic, pollution and the rodent population and reduce property values in the area. Oscar Law, 21511 Pathfinder Rd., that there should be a lane dedicated for emergency access at all times across Pathfinder Bridge so that Station 119 can service the south end of the City. Curtis Postel, 531 N. Deep Hill Rd., expressed opposition to the City of Industry's proposed MRF station at the north end of the City and encouraged everyone to attend a public hearing in the City of Industry, Thursday, February 11, 1993 at 8:30 a.m., to oppose the project. CM/Belanger stated that staff will send notices of the hearing to affected homeowners and notify residents of a possible meeting with the consultant, Mr. Lancaster, so their concerns can be heard. FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 2 C/Werner, with Council concurrence, suggested that the Council convene a special meeting on February 9, 1993 to consider approving a resolution of opposition to be drafted by staff and to designate a spokesperson of this Council. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., questioned the procedure taken in reviewing the Tree Ordinance, presented and unanimously denied by the Council last year. He stated that it is necessary to preserve the California Oak, Sycamore, Black Walnut and Pepper tree, which are our native trees. C/Werner suggested that the Council convene a special review session to restudy the tree ordinance or a modified version. MPT/Papen pointed out the City had received a $569,000 grant from the State to plant 5,500 trees along the 60 freeway within the next year. 1,000 of these will be oak trees which will benefit Diamond Bar and surrounding communities as well. C/Forbing stated that CalTrans is sponsoring a ceremony on Friday, February 19, 1993 at 1:30 p.m. at Peterson Park to announce the start of the planting of the trees in the City. He pointed out that many of the trees planted were planted as part of the original ranch development. A replacement ratio of over 2:1 is futile for oak trees since they are quite sensitive and tend to die in urban areas such as ours. Don Gravdahl, 23988 Minnequa, stated that the Council's study session to review the tree ordinance was open to the public, and everyone had an opportunity to respond. The tree ordinance as written was too restrictive and was a detriment to the average citizen. Warren Wright, Team Sergeant, Walnut Sheriff Station, stated that two additional juveniles were recently arrested over the weekend for placing graffiti on walls on Prospectors Rd., north of Golden Springs. 14 persons have been arrested due to placement of graffiti since December 15, 1992. 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: MPT/Papen reported that she had represented the City at the Grand Opening of the Metro Redline, the subway system in Los Angeles. It is anticipated that the metro link station at the City's border with the City of Industry at Brea Canyon Rd. will open this summer. Staff will make a presentation regarding transit opportunities available in the community at a future meeting. M/Miller stated that he was informed by an individual who witnessed the arrest for graffiti that, the response time by the Sheriff station was immediate. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Werner requested that Items 5.3 and 5.10 be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. C/Forbing moved, C/MacBride seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented with the exclusion of Items 5.3 and 5.10. With the FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 3 following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Werner, MacBride, MPT/Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1.1 Planning Commission - February 8, 1993 - 7:00 p.m. - AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.2 Traffic & Transportation Commission - February 11, 1993 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.3 PRESIDENT'S HOLIDAY - February 15, 1993 - CITY OFFICES CLOSED 5.1.4 City Council Meeting - February 16, 1993 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 5.2.1 Amendment to Page 13 of Regular Meeting of December 15, 1992 - Approved as submitted. 5.2.2 Regular Meeting of January 19, 1993 - Approved as submitted. 5.4 TREASURER'S REPORT - December, 1992 - Received & filed. 5.5 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of December 10, 1992 - Received & filed. 5.6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 5.6.1 Regular Meeting of November 23, 1992 - Received & filed. 5.6.2 Site Tour Master Plan/Study Session/Regular Meeting of December 14, 1992 - Received & filed. 5.7 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by Linda Roseli January 20, 1993. Rejected request and referred matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 5.8 ACCEPTANCE OF THE INSTALLATION OF PARKWAY TREES IN THE CITY - Accepted the installation of parkway trees by Artistic Landscape & Engineering, Inc. and authorized the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion. 5.9 ACCEPTANCE OF LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ON TEMPLE AVENUE IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - Accepted landscape improvements on Temple Ave. performed by Liquid Flow Engineering, Inc. and authorized the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion. 5.11 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-02: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SUPPORTING THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN. FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 4 5.12 FULL PERFORMANCE BOND EXONERATION FOR CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX AT 800 S. GRAND AVENUE, TRACT 51079 - Following discussion, it was moved by C/Forbing, seconded by C/MacBride to approve exoneration of the Faithful Performance Bond posted for off-site improvements at 8.00 S. Grand Ave. in the amount of $100,000. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride, MPT/Papen, M/ Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - Werner ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.3 WARRANT REGISTER - C/Werner stated that it was his understanding that the Council had decided that, due to the City's economic situation and major cutbacks by the State, all Sister City activities, and other such trips, would not be paid for by City funds. C/Forbing responded that, since this is the most informative meeting on the Sister City program, he would recommend that the Council send C/MacBride. In most cases, City funds are not spent on Sister City programs, but are funded through contributions, in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce, for the benefit of the community. MPT/Papen pointed out that the decision to reduce Council travel, made during budget sessions, was a precautionary measure because of uncertainty of whether the City's budget would balance as a result of State cuts. Since the budget is balanced and monies are available for this trip, the travel allowance should be reinstated. There is also a policy that each Councilmember has a budget of $1,000 a year in which to attend conferences for committee assignments or legislative interests. C/MacBride stated that he was unaware of the Council's consensus to not go beyond the confines of the City, and is willing to drop this item, if it is the Council's decision. Motion was made by C/Forbing, seconded by MPT/Papen to approve the Warrant Register. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote. AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, Werner, MacBride, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None C/MacBride stated that he would like the record to show his abstention from voting for approval of his FEBRUARY 2, 1993 6. PAGE 5 attendance at a Sister City conference in San Diego; however, he did not wish to record his abstention from approval of all other Warrant Register items. C/Werner asked that the record reflect his "no" vote on approval of the request for attendance at a Sister City conference in San Diego; however, C/Werner did not wish to vote against approval of all other Warrant Register items. 5.10 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-03: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO PURCHASE CERTAIN ITEMS ON THE CITY'S BEHALF. C/Werner explained that he requested this matter be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar to announce that the City is looking into acquiring an alternative energy vehicle at no cost to the City through a State Program and grants. This is an example of the City's efforts to become fuel efficient. It was moved by C/Werner, seconded by MPT/Papen to adopt Resolution No. 93-03 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO PURCHASE CERTAIN ITEMS ON THE CITY'S BEHALF. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, MacBride, Forbing, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC. 6.1 PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 1993 AS YMCA MONTH - M/Miller presented the proclamation to Jerry White, Branch Director of the YMCA. 6.2 CERTIFICATES OF COMMENDATION - M/Miller presented Certificates of Commendation to Patrice Halstead, Suzanne Bradshaw, Hoshang Rastravan and Joe Ingram for their efforts in helping apprehend a robbery suspect at the Bank of America on Sunday, November 22, 1992. 7. OLD BUSINESS: 7.1 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE CITY OF SPECIFICATIONS RAILING ALONG ROLLING KNOLL 93-04: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND FOR THE INSTALLATION OF METAL BEAM GUARD THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF GRAND AVENUE AT ROAD, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 6 DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS - MPT/Papen excused herself from discussion of this item because she resides within a 500 foot radius of the indicated neighborhood. ICE/Wentz reported that the Council directed staff, at the December 15, 1992 meeting, to prepare the bid spec- ifications for the installation of metal beam guard railing, basically for a portion to extend from the wall to Rolling Knoll Drive, and to evaluate the possi- bility of extending the guard rail to approximately Country View Drive. A bid specification has been prepared, with alternative bid items, as well as an alternative for the City to provide salvaged steel beam guardrail through CalTrans, at nominal cost. John Willwerth, residing at 23922 Gold Nugget inquired why one of the options limits the guard rail to 250 ft. ICE/Wentz explained that, looking purely at the accident history, staff's recommendation was only to consider installation of guard rail to just beyond Rolling Knoll, which is approximately 250 feet. Staff also looked at the option of extending that guard rail the full length to Country View. Once bids are received, a formal presentation will be brought back to the Council. Mr. Willwerth pointed out that the accident report was not accurate and there were other accidents that have occurred that the City is not aware of. Patricia Ayoub, residing at 23656 E. Gold Nugget Ave., stated that it is imperative for the neighborhood, that the Council consider the 2,400 feet of guard rail. The information regarding the unrecorded accidents will be provided to staff. It was moved by C/Werner, seconded by C/Forbing to adopt Resolution No. 93-04 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF METAL BEAM GUARD RAILING ALONG THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF GRAND AVENUE AT ROLLING KNOLL ROAD, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Forbing, MacBride, M/ Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN - MPT/Papen FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 7 7.2 SOLID WASTE PERMITS - CM/Belanger reported that staff has received executed contracts from four solid waste firms related to the collection and disposal of solid waste. The contractors have a 30 -day period, after the submittal of their contracts, to provide the necessary supporting documents. 8. NEW BUSINESS: 8.1 BOND COUNSEL SELECTION FOR SEWER DISTRICT - M/Miller stated that, although he lives outside the 500 foot radius of the indicated area, he would excuse himself from discussion of this item to avoid any perceived conflict of interest. CM/Belanger reported that the City Attorney, the City Engineer and he had interviewed four law firms, Brown, Diven & Hentscheke; Jones Hall Hill & White; Best, Best & Krieger, and Arter, Hadden, Lawler, Felix & Hall, for selection of bond counsel related to the proposed "Country Estates" Sewer Assessment District. He recom- mended selection of the firm of Brown, Diven & Hentscheke to provide these services to the City. The contract will be on a contingency basis, with an estimated fee of approximately $20,000 to be paid at the time that the district is actually formed. Any of the costs accrued by the City prior to formation of the district are allowable for reimbursement through the bond issue related to the construction of improvements within the district. C/Forbing moved, seconded by C/MacBride to approve selection of Brown, Diven & Hentscheke as bond counsel for the proposed "Country Estates Sewer Assessment District." AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/ Papen NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN - M/Miller 8.2 RIGHT TURN OVERLAP SIGNALIZATION ON DIAMOND BAR BLVD. AT GRAND AVE. - ICE/Wentz reported that a right turn arrow signal for motorists traveling northbound on Diamond Bar Blvd. and attempting to make right turns at Grand Ave. was proposed to improve traffic circulation at the intersection of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Avenue. This matter was discussed and approved by the Traffic & Transportation Commission on January 14, 1993. It was also discussed that this right turn overlap signalization would influence motorists to use the Diamond Bar Blvd./Grand Ave. intersection instead of driving through neighborhood streets. FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 8 CM/Belanger, in response to C/Werner, stated that there are no funds available from the Grand Ave. mitigation funds to fund this project. He recommended that gas tax funds be used to install this signal. ICE/Wentz pointed out that motorists seeking to turn right on Grand Ave., from northbound Diamond Bar Blvd. during that time of day are probably predominately non -Diamond Bar residents. In response to MPT/Papen's inquiry, CA/Arczynski stated that she may participate in discussion of this matter even though she lives within a block of that intersection because the Council is not discussing a substantial public improvement. Following discussion, ICE/Wentz stated: 1) that residents leaving the Ralphs Center can exit right on Diamond Bar Blvd. and make a U-turn back to the Diamond Bar Blvd./ Grand Ave. intersection; 2) the number of counts or preliminary information indicate that there is not a significant amount of pedestrian traffic that would be impacted by this signal; there will still be a safe interval for pedestrians to cross; there is a possi- bility, both north and south of Grand Ave., that the shopping centers may decide that a signal, somewhere at that location would be beneficial to make that ingress/ egress safer; and, as part of the overlay project on Grand Ave., staff is reassessing the stripings through the intersection to assure that traffic is being handled efficiently. Mark Segal, 1342 Rolling Knoll Rd., stated that, by improving the traffic flow from northbound Diamond Bar Blvd. to eastbound Grand Ave., it will be the residents of the City, from the Chino Hills line, that will be inconvenienced by not being able to make U-turns. A "No Right on Red" should be installed from Diamond Bar Blvd. onto Grand Ave. so that people making U-turns at that intersection would have the right-of-way. The City should look for ways to impede Chino Hills traffic from our community, compelling them to find another route. Wanda Tanaka, 2.3805 Country View Dr., stated that it is already very difficult for pedestrians to cross that intersection and for motorists leaving the shopping center. Don Lemly, 1387 Rolling Knoll, pointed out that there are many close calls with motorists attempting to make that U-turn at that intersection and that it is almost impossible to get into the left lane to make a U-turn. Further, that if the traffic flow at that intersection is improved, then it may alleviate the cut -through traffic occurring in the Quail Summit neighborhood. FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 9 Bob Arsio, 1106 Apt. D. South Cleghorn, suggested that the intersection also be marked "Do Not Block Intersection" because the flow of traffic is so heavy that often times the intersection is blocked. It has become very difficult for residents to exit Cleghorn. M/Miller referred the following matters to the Traffic & Transportation Commission: Marking Grand Ave./Diamond Bar Blvd. intersection with "Do Not Block Intersection" and placement of a sign on Grand Ave. to indicate "No Passing on Right" in the a.m. hours. MPT/Papen stated that concerns expressed by residents in the neighborhood north of Grand Ave. regarding access out of Cleghorn have not been properly addressed with the installation of the light and elimination of the U-turn. C/Werner stated that improving the flow of traffic at that intersection will increase the speed traveled as well as increase the volume of traffic. The benefits that will accrue by simply clearing the traffic through the intersection quickly will not necessarily be benefits that the City will enjoy in the long term. C/Forbing pointed out that improving the flow of traffic at the Diamond Bar Blvd./Grand Ave. intersection will decrease the reason for motorists to cut through the Quail Summit neighborhood. The intent should be to speed up the traffic flow so that the traffic remains on the arterials and off the residential areas. He also noted that there are approximately three thousand homes at the top of Grand Ave., and that not all the traffic is going to Chino Hills. The people on Cleghorn, coming out of Ralphs, can make a right turn on Diamond Bar Blvd. and then another right turn, avoiding the intersection altogether. Staff should be directed to implement this item as soon as possible. C/Werner pointed out that this arrow will not make that big a difference to the traffic flow. A broader analysis of the entire intersection should be done. M/Miller concurred that there needs to be more informa- tion in order to make a decision, such as the percentage of people making U-turns at Grand Ave. and the span of time during the day that this signal would really benefit anyone. The benefit of the signal may not out weigh the detriment created. C/Werner moved, seconded by MPT/Papen to table the matter to a date pending when staff can bring back additional information, as well as other possible traffic solutions for this intersection. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 10 AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, MacBride, MPT/Papen, M/ Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 8.3 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-05: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING "NO RIGHT TURN, 4:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M., MONDAY -FRIDAY" SIGNS ON ROLLING KNOLL ROAD AND COUNTRY VIEW DRIVE AT GRAND AVENUE - ICE/Wentz reported that residents in the Quail Summit neighborhood expressed concern related to cut -through traffic on Quail Summit Dr., Country View Dr., and Rolling Knoll Road. Staff notified approximately 146 residents on these street regarding the installation of "No Right Turn, 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m., Monday -Friday" signs on Rolling Knoll Rd. and Country View Dr. at Grand Ave. in which 18 responses were received by staff, with 17 concurring with some sort of restriction. Staff had also suggested that traffic accessing the area by restricted all together, prohibiting turns on to Quail Summit Dr. from Diamond Bar Blvd., during those time of the day. C/Forbing noted that the minutes of the Traffic & Transportation Commission indicated that they requested staff to notify all the residents in that tract because they are all affected by the changes made. Raul Medina, 23852 Country View Dr., expressed support for the proposed signs -and encouraged the development of a road in Tonner Canyon to alleviate the traffic problems. Enrique Alvarado, 23862 Country View Dr., pointed out that the signs will be futile without proper enforce- ment. C/Forbing questioned whether the City could afford to hire another community service officer to enforce a law that, in his opinion, does not make sense as a law. C/Werner noted that enforcement will only be needed in the beginning until word gets around that the City is serious about this issue. In response to C/Forbing, CA/Arczynski stated that con- gestion management kinds of issues are valid in court because they refer to the circulation system and moving traffic in a logical direction. C/Forbing suggested that since the right turn overlap signalization on Diamond Bar Blvd. at Grand Ave., was tabled, then this item should also be tabled and the two items handled as one. If these signs are installed without the arrow at Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave., FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 11 area residents will not be able to get out because of the restrictive signs, and because the traffic in the right lane on Diamond Bar Blvd. will be backed up to Mountain Laurel. Furthermore, all 400 plus residents should have been notified, not just 130 of them. C/MacBride concurred. C/Forbing moved, C/MacBride seconded to table the item. With the following Roll Call vote, motion failed: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride NOES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, MPT/Papen, M/Miller ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None M/Miller stated that the signs can be implemented for 90 days, and at the end of the 90 days, staff is to notice everyone in that tract that the Council will be evaluating the sign's effectiveness. C/Werner moved, MPT/Papen seconded to adopt Resolution NO. 93-05 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING "NO RIGHT TURN, 4:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M., MONDAY -FRIDAY" SIGNS ON ROLLING KNOLL ROAD AND COUNTRY VIEW DRIVE AT GRAND AVENUE. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, MPT/Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - MacBride, Forbing ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 8.4 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-06: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CONSENTING TO THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING "NO STOPPING ANYTIME" SIGNS AND INSTALLING A "LOADING, UNLOADING ONLY, NO PARKING" SIGN ON GOLDEN SPRINGS ROAD EAST OF LEMON AVENUE - ICE/Wentz reported that Charlies' Sandwich Shoppe requested removal of the current "No Stopping Anytime" signs on Colima Rd., east of Lemon Ave. in order to provide additional parking for delivery trucks to load and unload and allow smaller vehicles to maneuver within the current parking lot. The Traffic & Transportation Commission recommended instal- lation of "2 -Hour Parking" signs at this location. MPT/Papen pointed out that if people choose to park in the "2 -Hour Parking" area, then it would not be available for delivery trucks. Perhaps the "2 -Hour Parking" should be extended beyond the recommended area. ICE/Wentz, in response to CM/Belanger, stated that the area could be restricted to a loading/unloading zone only, with no parking. It would not be necessary to restrict the time. Oscar Law, 21511 Pathfinder Rd., supported restricting the area to no parking, unless loading and unloading. FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 12 C/Forbing moved, C/MacBride seconded to adopt Resolution No. 93-06 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CONSENTING TO THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING "NO STOPPING ANYTIME" SIGNS AND ESTABLISHING A "LOADING/UNLOADING ZONE ONLY, NO PARKING" SIGN ON GOLDEN SPRINGS DR. EAST OF LEMON AVE. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, MacBride, Forbing, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 8.5 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-07: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING "NO PARKING, 6:00 A.M. - 8:00 A.M., MONDAY -FRIDAY," SIGNS ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF FALLOWFIELD DRIVE BETWEEN BREA CANYON CUT-OFF ROAD AND PASCO COURT - ICE/Wentz reported that the Council requested this item be brought back before the Traffic & Transportation Commission to assure that the signage as placed was as intended. The Commission and staff recommended that the signs, as presently posted, remain and that additional signage, "No Parking 6:00 a.m. - 8:00 a.m., Monday -Friday", be installed directly in front of First Mortgage Corp. to restrict carpool -type parking, yet provide space for some on -street parking for employees or visitors of the facilities. Local residents indicated that they have been unable to park in front of their homes; therefore, staff will be looking at a possible permit parking for those residents. Oscar Law, 21501 Pathfinder Rd., stated that a street with restricted parking, in his opinion, works wonderfully. Sharon Foster, 20933 Pasco Ct., noted that the Traffic & Transportation Commission had also suggested that the sign on the easterly side of Fallowfield be moved between the property line of First Mortgage and the first resident, with an arrow on that sign indicating the direction of the parking restriction, allowing them unrestricted parking in front of their building. It had also been suggested that the curbs be marked to restrict parking to improve visibility. ICE/Wentz responded to MPT/Papen stating that at this point, there are less than 100 employees occupying the First Mortgage Corp., therefore excluding them from AQMD mandates. Since First Mortgage is planning some upcoming changes, it is expected that they will need to look at carpooling and other approaches to deal with some of their parking problems, as well as encourage their employees to reduce driving. FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 13 C/Forbing stated that though he is not opposed to staff's recommendation, he is concerned that the City is restricting those who choose to carpool from parking next to the freeway onramp. The City should be looking toward providing parking lots near the freeway, as is being done at Pathfinder Bridge. In response to M/Miller's question, ICE/Wentz confirmed that it is staff's intent to move the sign on the east of Fallowfield between the property line of First Mortgage and the first resident, with an arrow on that sign indicating the direction of the parking restriction. It was moved by C/Forbing, seconded by C/MacBride to adopt Resolution No. 93-07 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING "NO PARKING, 6:00 A.M. TO 8:00 A.M., MONDAY -FRIDAY," SIGNS ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF FALLOWFIELD DRIVE BETWEEN BREA CANYON CUT-OFF ROAD AND PASCO COURT. Motion carried unanimously. RECESS: M/Miller recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Miller reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters can be heard. 9.1 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES AND PROJECTED USE OF 1993-94 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - CDD/DeStefano reported that staff expected to receive approximately $220,619 in federal funds as a participant in the 1993-94 L.A. Urban County CDBG program. The funds may be used for a variety of Community Development activities which develop a viable urban community, principally for persons of low and moderate low income. Staff received ten applications from six agencies, four of which are public service agencies and two from separate City departments. The Public Works request includes furnishings and equipment for the Heritage Park Community Building project, an ADA park retrofitting project and a program to provide handicap access ramps throughout the City, specifically at three major commercial intersections. M/Miller declared the Public Hearing open. Lorraine Repucci, Child Care Coordinator, Diamond Bar/Walnut YMCA, 22600 Sunset Crossing, stated that there is an urgent safety need for providing quality affordable child care to those who would otherwise be home alone. The funding -received through CDBG goes 100% to subsidize low and moderate income families, and that 20% of their participants will need financial assistance. In response to C/MacBride, Ms. Repucci indicated that FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 14 there are over 200 people a day utilizing the Diamond Bar/Walnut YMCA site, approximately 90% of which are Diamond Bar residents. Ms. Repucci further spoke on the summer off-track camp program explaining that the focus of the program is to provide outdoor activities for children that require childcare from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. during the summer. The amount requested is based on 20% of the summer camp budget, which includes the anticipation of a year round program at Neil Armstrong Elementary School. In response to MPT/Papen, Ms. Repucci stated that she would support staff's recommendation to split the funding for the two programs as opposed to seeing one program funded to a higher extent. Waverly Johnson, District Executive, Boy Scouts of America's Council Office, stated that the Scout's Adventure Mountain Program focuses on outdoor activities, leadership and self esteem and is designed to give children vision of their future. He further stated that it was anticipated that there will be 12 boys from Diamond Bar participating in the program. Kathy Rogers, representing the YWCA Y -Teens program, requested appropriation in the amount o $5,950 to fund the Y -Teen program at Lorbeer Middle School, which focuses on high risk youth girls and emphasizes family values. CM/Belanger stated that the purpose of the $1,000 request for the YMCA Senior facility is to pay for space rental and insurance related to the use of the Seniors Group utilizing the YMCA building currently. Phil Armentrout, Emergency Services Coordinator, stated that the program focuses on the senior citizens to prepare them for potential disasters, especially earthquakes. Much of the funds requested will be used toward supplies such as flashlights, wrenches, whistles and signs. MPT/Papen suggested that the program be expanded to organize volunteers to do home visits to assure that the seniors are actually prepared. In response to C/MacBride, ESC/Armentrout stated that a pamphlet had been developed explaining what should be done before, during and following an earthquake. These pamphlets are handed out at all meetings, and at events that are attended by the organization. CSD/Rose stated that the City is requesting $11,600 to establish the senior program for the Heritage Park FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 15 Building. The funds would provide the staffing necessary to open the facility four hours a day, five days per week for the first year of operation. The goal would be to service about 100 seniors per day, and, for the first year, pay for service activities such as nutritional lunches, recreation classes, referral services and activities designed to meet the diverse needs of the senior community. A survey is being conducted to determine the type of senior programs that should be offered. Staff has mailed out 1,765 surveys and has received 282 back, to date, of which 145 have been tabulated as follows: most have their own cars; the ages are primarily 55 to 69 years old;. and there is a desire for exercise programs, arts and crafts, active programs and excursions. In response to C/MacBride, CSD/Rose stated that, in addition to the response to the survey material, there are many written responses attached in which 28% have offered to volunteer in some form to the community, about 80% have indicated an interest in being continually updated on senior issues, and 25% have offered to be a part of a community committee of seniors to help establish a seniors program. One of the purposes of the survey was to identify the frail and elderly, as well as the active. C/MacBride stated that it is essential to recognize that there is a large group of citizens in the area that have the potential to offer experience, education and care. CSD/Rose reported that staff intends to take the furn- ishing request to the seniors to receive their input as to the type of equipment needed for the Heritage Building. Charles Lohan, 2086 Peaceful Hills Rd., requested the Council to help the seniors group. With no further testimony offered, M/Miller closed the Public Hearing. MPT/Papen asked if ADA -required access ramps could be included in the grant application to the federal government for improvements on Diamond Bar Blvd., Grand Ave., and partially on Golden Springs and reduce the funds to be allocated for the handicap access ramp program. ICE/Wentz stated that staff could include those retrofits at the intersection as part of the project. It would not affect the current design because a specific standard is addressed. However, it is not certain whether or not all of them would be approved. FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 16 CM/Belanger noted that there is still $7,000 remaining in the budget for the CDBG fund. MPT/Papen expressed support for increasing the YMCA fund by $7,000 because their request only represents 20% of the costs for the YMCA programs, and they are probably the only program meeting childcare needs. C/Werner suggested that perhaps the $7,000 dollars should be proportionately distributed among the other programs. It was moved by MPT/Papen, seconded by C/MacBride to reduce the handicap access ramp allocation by $7,000 and increase the allocation to the Diamond Bar/Walnut YMCA by $7,000 for their school year childcare program. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Werner, MacBride, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None Following discussion, it was moved by C/Forbing, seconded by C/MacBride to adopt the Community Development Block Grant Program budget for Fiscal Year 1993-94. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None offered. 11. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 10:13 p.m. ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, CMC/AAE City Clerk xXi7tTiSG OP miss Os:ar vovaross. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 11+14A FEBRUARY 2, 1993 4;�* 1. CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 p.m. Litigation - G.C. Sec. 54956.9 Personnel - G.C. Sec. 54957.6 No reportable action taken. 2. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. M/Miller called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. at the AQMD, 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Miller. INVOCATION: The invocation was given by Reverend Mark Hopper of the Evangelical Free Church of Diamond Bar. ROLL CALL: Mayor Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Papen and Councilmen Forbing, MacBride and Werner. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Janet Spatz, representing Jones Intercable, 20965 Lycoming, presented the City a check in the amount of $68,284.70 for the franchise fee. At the request of MPT/Papen, Ms. Spatz explained that there are two tier services being offered: Basic and Basic plus. Those currently subscribing to the Limited Basic program will receive a reduction in rate from $21.00 to $14.75, and those currently receiving Basic Plus, will remain $23.75. Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., expressed opposition to the proposed MRF station to be located at the junction of Valley Blvd. and Grand Ave. The project will increase traffic, pollution and the rodent population and reduce property values in the area. Oscar Law, 21511 Pathfinder Rd., that there should be a lane dedicated for emergency access at all times across Pathfinder Bridge so that Station 119 can service the south end of the City. Curtis Postel, 531 N. Deep Hill Rd., expressed opposition to the City of Industry's proposed MRF station at the north end of the City and encouraged everyone to attend a public hearing in the City of Industry, Thursday, February 11, 1993 at 8:30 a.m., to oppose the project. CM/Belanger stated that staff will send notices of the hearing to affected homeowners and notify residents of a possible meeting with the consultant, Mr. Lancaster, so their concerns can be heard. FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 2 C/Werner, with Council concurrence, suggested that the Council convene a special meeting on February 9, 1993 to consider approving a resolution of opposition to be drafted by staff and to designate a spokesperson of this Council. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., questioned the procedure taken in reviewing the Tree Ordinance, presented and unanimously denied by the Council last year. He stated that it is necessary to preserve the California Oak, Sycamore, Black Walnut and Pepper tree, which are our native trees. C/Werner suggested that the Council convene a special review session to restudy the tree ordinance or a modified version. MPT/Papen pointed out the City had received a $569,000 grant from the State to plant 5,500 trees along the 60 freeway within the next year. 1,000 of these will be oak trees which will benefit Diamond Bar and surrounding communities as well. C/Forbing stated that CalTrans is sponsoring a ceremony on Friday, February 19, 1993 at 1:30 p.m. at Peterson Park to announce the start of the planting of the trees in the City. He pointed out that many of the trees planted were planted as part of the original ranch development. A replacement ratio of over 2:1 is futile for oak trees since they are quite sensitive and tend to die in urban areas such as ours. Don Gravdahl, 23988 Minnequa, stated that the Council's study session to review the tree ordinance was open to the public, and everyone had an opportunity to respond. The tree ordinance as written was too restrictive and was a detriment to the average citizen. Warren Wright, Team Sergeant, Walnut Sheriff Station, stated that two additional juveniles were recently arrested over the weekend for placing graffiti on walls on Prospectors Rd., north of Golden Springs. 14 persons have been arrested due to placement of graffiti since December 15, 1992. 4. COUNCIL COHKENTS: MPT/Papen reported that she had represented the City at the Grand Opening of the Metro Redline, the subway system in Los Angeles. It is anticipated that the metro link station at the City's border with the City of Industry at Brea Canyon Rd. will open this summer. Staff will make a presentation regarding transit opportunities available in the community at a future meeting. M/Miller stated that he was informed by an individual who witnessed the arrest for graffiti that the response time by the Sheriff station was immediate. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Werner requested that Items 5.3 and 5.10 be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. C/Forbing moved, C/MacBride seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented with the exclusion of Items 5.3 and 5.10. With the FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 3 following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Werner, MacBride, MPT/Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1.1 Planning Commission - February 8, 1993 - 7:00 p.m. - AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.2 Traffic & Transportation Commission - February 11, 1993 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. - 5.1.3 PRESIDENT'S HOLIDAY - February 15, 1993 - CITY OFFICES CLOSED 5.1.4 City Council Meeting - February 16, 1993 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 5.2.1 Amendment to Page 13 of Regular Meeting of December 15, 1992 - Approved as submitted. 5.2.2 Regular Meeting of January 19, 1993 - Approved as submitted. 5.4 TREASURER'S REPORT - December, 1992 - Received & filed. 5.5 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of December 10, 1992 - Received & filed. 5.6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 5.6.1 Regular Meeting of November 23, 1992 - Received & filed. 5.6.2 Site Tour Master Plan/Study Session/Regular Meeting of December 14, 1992 - Received & filed. 5.7 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by Linda Roseli January 20, 1993. Rejected request and referred matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 5.8 ACCEPTANCE OF THE INSTALLATION OF PARKWAY TREES IN THE CITY - Accepted the installation of parkway trees by Artistic Landscape & Engineering, Inc. and authorized the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion. 5.9 ACCEPTANCE OF LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ON TEMPLE AVENUE IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - Accepted landscape improvements on Temple Ave. performed by Liquid Flow Engineering, Inc. and authorized the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion. 5.11 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-02: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SUPPORTING THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN. FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 4 5.12 FULL PERFORMANCE BOND EXONERATION FOR CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX AT 800 S. GRAND AVENUE, TRACT 51079 - Following discussion, it was moved by C/Forbing, seconded by C/MacBride to approve exoneration of the Faithful Performance Bond posted for off-site improvements at 800 S. Grand Ave. in the amount of $100,000. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride, MPT/Papen, M/ Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - Werner ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.3 WARRANT REGISTER - C/Werner stated that it was his understanding that the Council had decided that, due to the City's economic situation and major cutbacks by the State, all Sister City activities, and other such trips, would not be paid for by City funds. C/Forbing responded that, since this is the most informative meeting on the Sister City program, he would recommend that the Council send C/MacBride. In most cases, City funds are not spent on Sister City programs, but are funded through contributions, in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce, for the benefit of the community. MPT/Papen pointed out that the decision to reduce Council travel, made during budget sessions, was a precautionary measure because of uncertainty of whether the City's budget would balance as a result of State cuts. Since the budget is balanced and monies are available for this trip, the travel allowance should be reinstated. There is also a policy that each Councilmember has a budget of $1,000 a year in which to attend conferences for committee assignments or legislative interests. C/MacBride stated that he was unaware of the Council's consensus to not go beyond the confines of the City, and is willing to drop this item, if it is the Council's decision. Motion was made by C/Forbing, seconded by MPT/Papen to approve the Warrant Register. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote. AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, Werner, Papen, M/Miller None None None MacBride, MPT/ FEBRUARY 2, 1993 6. PAGE 5 C/Werner asked that the record reflect his abstention from voting to approve the request for attendance at a Sister City conference in San Diego; however, C/Werner did not abstain from approval of the Warrant Register itself. 5.10 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-03: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO PURCHASE CERTAIN ITEMS ON THE CITY'S BEHALF. C/Werner explained that he requested this matter be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar to announce that the City is looking into acquiring an alternative energy vehicle at no cost to the City through a State Program and grants. This is an example of the City's efforts to become fuel efficient. It was moved by C/Werner, seconded by MPT/Papen to adopt Resolution No. 93-03 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO PURCHASE CERTAIN ITEMS ON THE CITY'S BEHALF. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, MacBride, Forbing, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC. 6.1 PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 1993 AS YMCA MONTH - M/Miller presented the proclamation to Jerry White, Branch Director of the YMCA. 6.2 CERTIFICATES OF COMMENDATION - M/Miller presented Certificates of Commendation to Patrice Halstead, Suzanne Bradshaw, Hoshang Rastravan and Joe Ingram for their efforts in helping apprehend a robbery suspect at the Bank of America on Sunday, November 22, 1992. 7. OLD BUSINESS: 7.1 RESOLUTION NO. 93-04: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF METAL BEAM GUARD RAILING ALONG THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF GRAND AVENUE AT ROLLING KNOLL ROAD, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS - MPT/Papen excused herself from discussion of this item because she resides within a 500 foot radius of the indicated neighborhood. FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 6 ICE/Wentz reported that the Council directed staff, at the December 15, 1992 meeting, to prepare the bid spec- ifications for the installation of metal beam guard railing, basically for a portion to extend from the wall to Rolling Knoll Drive, and to evaluate the possi- bility of extending the guard rail to approximately Country View Drive. A bid specification has been prepared, with alternative bid items, as well as an alternative for the City to provide salvaged steel beam guardrail through CalTrans, at nominal cost. John Willwerth, residing at 23922 Gold Nugget inquired why one of the options limits the guard rail to 250 ft. ICE/Wentz explained that, looking purely at the accident history, staff's recommendation was only to consider installation of guard rail to just beyond Rolling Knoll, which is approximately 250 feet. Staff also looked at the option of extending that guard rail the full length to Country View. Once bids are received, a formal presentation will be brought back to the Council. Mr. Willwerth pointed out that the accident report was not accurate and there were other accidents that have occurred that the City is not aware of. Patricia Ayoub, residing at 23656 E. Gold Nugget Ave., stated that it is imperative for the neighborhood, that the Council consider the 2,400 feet of guard rail. The information regarding the unrecorded accidents will be provided to staff. It was moved by C/Werner, seconded by C/Forbing to adopt Resolution No. 93-04 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF METAL BEAM GUARD RAILING ALONG THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF GRAND AVENUE AT ROLLING KNOLL ROAD, IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Forbing, MacBride, M/ Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN - MPT/Papen 7.2 SOLID WASTE PERMITS - CM/Belanger reported that staff has received executed contracts from four solid waste firms related to the collection and disposal of solid waste. The contractors have a 30 -day period, after the submittal of their contracts, to provide the necessary supporting documents. FEBRUARY 2, 1993 8. NEW BUSINESS: PAGE 7 8.1 BOND COUNSEL SELECTION FOR SEWER DISTRICT - M/Miller stated that, although he lives outside the 500 foot radius of the indicated area, he would excuse himself from discussion of this item to avoid any perceived conflict of interest. CM/Belanger reported that the City Attorney, the City Engineer and he had interviewed four law firms, Brown, Diven & Hentscheke; Jones Hall Hill & White; Best, Best & Krieger, and Arter, Hadden, Lawler, Felix & Hall, for selection of bond counsel related to the proposed "Country Estates" Sewer Assessment District. He recom- mended selection of the firm of Brown, Diven & Hentscheke to provide these services to the City. The contract will be on a contingency basis, with an estimated fee of approximately $20,000 to be paid at the time that the district is actually formed. Any of the costs accrued by the City prior to formation of the district are allowable for reimbursement through the bond issue related to the construction of improvements within the district. C/Forbing moved, seconded by C/MacBride to approve selection of Brown, Diven & Hentscheke as bond counsel for the proposed "Country Estates Sewer Assessment District." AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/ Papen NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN - M/Miller 8.2 RIGHT TURN OVERLAP SIGNALIZATION ON DIAMOND BAR BLVD. AT GRAND AVE. - ICE/Wentz reported that a right turn arrow signal for motorists traveling northbound on Diamond Bar Blvd. and attempting to make right turns at Grand Ave. was proposed to improve traffic circulation at the intersection of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Avenue. This matter was discussed and approved by the Traffic & Transportation Commission on January 14, 1993. It was also discussed that this right turn overlap signalization would influence motorists to use the Diamond Bar Blvd./Grand Ave. intersection instead of driving through neighborhood streets. CM/Belanger, in response to C/Werner, stated that there are no funds available from the Grand Ave. mitigation funds to fund this project. He recommended that gas tax funds be used to install this signal. ICE/Wentz pointed out that motorists seeking to turn right on Grand Ave., from northbound Diamond Bar Blvd. FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 8 during that time of day non -Diamond Bar residents. In response to MPT/Papen's that she may participate i even though she lives within because the Council is n public improvement. are probably predominately inquiry, CA/Arczynski stated n discussion of this matter a block of that intersection of discussing a substantial Following discussion, ICE/Wentz stated: 1) that residents leaving the Ralphs Center can exit right on Diamond Bar Blvd. and make a U-turn back to the Diamond Bar Blvd./ Grand Ave. intersection; 2) the number of counts or preliminary information indicate that there is not a significant amount of pedestrian traffic that would be impacted by this signal; there will still be a safe interval for pedestrians to cross; there is a possi- bility, both north and south of Grand Ave., that the shopping centers may decide that a signal, somewhere at that location would be beneficial to make that ingress/ egress safer; and, as part of the overlay project on Grand Ave., staff is reassessing the stripings through the intersection to assure that traffic is being handled efficiently. Mark Segal, 1342 Rolling Knoll Rd., stated that, by improving the traffic flow from northbound Diamond Bar Blvd. to eastbound Grand Ave., it will be the residents of the City, from the Chino Hills line, that will be inconvenienced by not being able to make U-turns. A "No Right on Red" should be installed from Diamond Bar Blvd. onto Grand Ave. so that people making U-turns at that intersection would have the right-of-way. The City should look for ways to impede Chino Hills traffic from our community, compelling them to find another route. Wanda Tanaka, 23805 Country View Dr., stated that it is already very difficult for pedestrians to cross that intersection and for motorists leaving the shopping center. Don Lemly, 1387 Rolling Knoll, pointed out that there are many close calls with motorists attempting to make that U-turn at that intersection and that it is almost impossible to get into the left lane to make a U-turn. Further, that if the traffic flow at that intersection is improved, then it may alleviate the cut -through traffic occurring in the Quail Summit neighborhood. Bob Arsio, 1106 Apt. D. South Cleghorn, suggested that the intersection also be marked "Do Not Block Intersection" because the flow of traffic is so heavy that often times the intersection is blocked. It has become very difficult for residents to exit Cleghorn. FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 9 M/Miller referred the following matters to the Traffic & Transportation Commission: Marking Grand Ave./Diamond Bar Blvd. intersection with "Do Not Block Intersection" and placement of a sign on Grand Ave. to indicate "No Passing on Right" in the a.m. hours. MPT/Papen stated that concerns expressed by residents in the neighborhood north of Grand Ave. regarding access out of Cleghorn have not been properly addressed with the installation of the light and elimination of the U-turn. C/Werner stated that improving the flow of traffic at that intersection will increase the speed traveled as well as increase the volume of traffic. The benefits that will accrue by simply clearing the traffic through the intersection quickly will not necessarily be benefits that the City will enjoy in the long term. C/Forbing pointed out that improving the flow of traffic at the Diamond Bar Blvd./Grand Ave. intersection will decrease the reason for motorists to cut through the Quail Summit neighborhood. The intent should be to speed up the traffic flow so that the traffic remains on the arterials and off the residential areas. He also noted that there are approximately three thousand homes at the top of Grand Ave., and that not all the traffic is going to Chino Hills. The people on Cleghorn, coming out of Ralphs, can make a right turn on Diamond Bar Blvd. and then another right turn, avoiding the intersection altogether. Staff should be directed to implement this item as soon as possible. C/Werner pointed out that this arrow will not make that big a difference to the traffic flow. A broader analysis of the entire intersection should be done. M/Miller concurred that there needs to be more informa- tion in order to make a decision, such as the percentage of people making U-turns at Grand Ave.. and the span of time during the day that this signal would really benefit anyone. The benefit of the signal may not out weigh the detriment created. C/Werner moved, seconded by MPT/Papen to table the matter to a date pending when staff can bring back additional information, as well as other possible traffic solutions for this intersection. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, MacBride, MPT/Papen, M/ Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 8.3 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-05: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 10 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING "NO RIGHT TURN, 4:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M., MONDAY -FRIDAY" SIGNS ON ROLLING KNOLL ROAD AND COUNTRY VIEW DRIVE AT GRAND AVENUE - ICE/Wentz reported that residents in the Quail Summit neighborhood expressed concern related to cut -through traffic on Quail Summit Dr., Country View Dr., and Rolling Knoll Road. Staff notified approximately 146 residents on these street regarding the installation of "No Right Turn, 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m., Monday -Friday" signs on Rolling Knoll Rd. and Country View Dr. at Grand Ave. in which 18 responses were received by staff, with 17 concurring with some sort of restriction. Staff had also suggested that traffic accessing the area by restricted all together, prohibiting turns on to Quail Summit Dr. from Diamond Bar Blvd., during those time of the day. C/Forbing noted that the minutes of the Traffic & Transportation Commission indicated that they requested staff to notify all the residents in that tract because they are all affected by the changes made. Raul Medina, 23852 Country View Dr., expressed support for the proposed signs and encouraged the development of a road in Tonner Canyon to alleviate the traffic problems. Enrique Alvarado, 23862 Country View Dr., pointed out that the signs will be futile without proper enforce- ment. C/Forbing questioned whether the City could afford to hire another community service officer to enforce a law that, in his opinion, does not make sense as a law. C/Werner noted that enforcement will only be needed in the beginning until word gets around that the City is serious about this issue. In response to C/Forbing, CA/Arczynski stated that con- gestion management kinds of issues are valid in court because they refer to the circulation system and moving traffic in a logical direction. C/Forbing suggested that since the right turn overlap signalization on Diamond Bar Blvd. at Grand Ave., was tabled, then this item should also be tabled and the two items handled as one. If these signs are installed without the arrow at Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave., area residents will not be able to get out because of the restrictive signs, and because the traffic in the right lane on Diamond Bar Blvd. will be backed up to Mountain Laurel. Furthermore, all 400 plus residents should have been notified, not just 130 of them. C/MacBride concurred. FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 11 C/Forbing moved, C/MacBride seconded to table the item. With the following Roll Call vote, motion failed: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride NOES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, MPT/Papen, M/Miller ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None M/Miller stated that the signs can be implemented for 90 days, and at the end of the 90 days, staff is to notice everyone in that tract that the Council will be evaluating the sign's effectiveness. C/Werner moved, MPT/Papen seconded to adopt Resolution NO. 93-05 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING "NO RIGHT TURN, 4:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M., MONDAY -FRIDAY" SIGNS ON ROLLING KNOLL ROAD AND COUNTRY VIEW DRIVE AT GRAND AVENUE. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, MPT/Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - MacBride, Forbing ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 8.4 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-06: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CONSENTING TO THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING "NO STOPPING ANYTIME" SIGNS AND INSTALLING A "LOADING, UNLOADING ONLY, NO PARKING" SIGN ON GOLDEN SPRINGS ROAD EAST OF LEMON AVENUE - ICE/Wentz reported that Charlies' Sandwich Shoppe requested removal of the current "No Stopping Anytime" signs on Colima Rd., east of Lemon Ave. in order to provide additional parking for delivery trucks to load and unload and allow smaller vehicles to maneuver within the current parking lot. The Traffic & Transportation Commission recommended instal- lation of "2 -Hour Parking" signs at this location. MPT/Papen pointed out that if people choose to park in the "2 -Hour Parking" area, then it would not be available for delivery trucks. Perhaps the "2 -Hour Parking" should be extended beyond the recommended area. ICE/Wentz, in response to CM/Belanger, stated that the area could be restricted to a loading/ unloading zone only, with no parking. It would not be necessary to restrict the time. Oscar Law, 21511 Pathfinder Rd., supported restricting the area to no parking, unless loading and unloading. C/Forbing moved, C/MacBride seconded to adopt Resolution No. 93-06 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CONSENTING TO THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING "NO STOPPING ANYTIME" SIGNS AND ESTABLISHING A "LOADING/UNLOADING ZONE ONLY, NO PARKING" SIGN ON GOLDEN SPRINGS DR. EAST OF LEMON AVE. Motion carried FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 12 unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, MacBride, Forbing, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 8.5 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-07: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING "NO PARKING, 6:00 A.M. - 8:00 A.M., MONDAY -FRIDAY," SIGNS ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF FALLOWFIELD DRIVE BETWEEN BREA CANYON CUT-OFF ROAD AND PASCO COURT - ICE/Wentz reported that the Council requested this item be brought back before the Traffic & Transportation Commission to assure that the signage as placed was as intended. The Commission and staff recommended that the signs, as presently posted, remain and that additional signage, "No Parking 6:00 a.m. - 8:00 a.m., Monday -Friday", be installed directly in front of First Mortgage Corp. to restrict carpool -type parking, yet provide space for some on -street parking for employees or visitors of the facilities. Local residents indicated that they have been unable to park in front of their homes; therefore, staff will be looking at a possible permit parking for those residents. Oscar Law, 21501 Pathfinder Rd., stated that a street with restricted parking, in his opinion, works wonderfully. Sharon Foster, 20933 Pasco Ct., noted that the Traffic & Transportation Commission had also suggested that the sign on the easterly side of Fallowfield be moved between the property line of First Mortgage and the first resident, with an arrow on that sign indicating the direction of the parking restriction, allowing them unrestricted parking in front of their building. It had also been suggested that the curbs be marked to restrict parking to improve visibility. ICE/Wentz responded to MPT/Papen stating that at this point, there are less than 100 employees occupying the First Mortgage Corp., therefore excluding them from AQMD mandates. Since First Mortgage is planning some upcoming changes, it is expected that they will need to look at carpooling and other approaches to deal with some of their parking problems, as well as encourage their employees to reduce driving. C/Forbing stated that though he is not opposed to staff's recommendation, he is concerned that the City is restricting those who choose to carpool from parking next to the freeway onramp. The City should be looking toward providing parking lots near the freeway, as is being done at Pathfinder Bridge. FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 13 In response to M/Miller's question, ICE/Wentz confirmed that it is staff's intent to move the sign on the east of Fallowfield between the property line of First Mortgage and the first resident, with an arrow on that sign indicating the direction of the parking restriction. It was moved by C/Forbing, seconded by C/MacBride to adopt Resolution No. 93-07 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING "NO PARKING, 6:00 A. M. TO 8:00 A.M., MONDAY -FRIDAY," SIGNS ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF FALLOWFIELD DRIVE BETWEEN BREA CANYON CUT-OFF ROAD AND PASCO COURT. Motion carried unanimously. RECESS: M/Miller recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Miller reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters can be heard. 9.1 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES AND PROJECTED USE OF 1993-94 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - CDD/DeStefano reported that staff expected to receive approximately $220,619 in federal funds as a participant in the 1993-94 L.A. Urban County CDBG program. The funds may be used for a variety of Community Development activities which develop a viable urban community, principally for persons of low and moderate low income. Staff received ten applications from six agencies, four of which are public service agencies and two from separate City departments. The Public Works request includes furnishings and equipment for the Heritage Park Community Building project, an ADA park retrofitting project and a program to provide handicap access ramps throughout the City, specifically at three major commercial intersections. M/Miller declared the Public Hearing open. Lorraine Repucci, Child Care Coordinator, Diamond Bar/Walnut.YMCA, 22600 Sunset Crossing, stated that there is an urgent safety need for providing quality affordable child care to those who would otherwise be home alone. The funding received through CDBG goes 100% to subsidize low and moderate income families, and that 20% of their participants will need financial assistance. In response to C/MacBride, Ms. Repucci indicated that there are over 200 people a day utilizing the Diamond Bar/Walnut YMCA site, approximately 90% of which are Diamond Bar residents. Ms. Repucci further spoke on the summer off-track camp program explaining that the focus of the program is to provide outdoor activities for children that require FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 14 childcare from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. during the summer. The amount requested is based on 20% of the summer camp budget, which includes the anticipation of a year round program at Neil Armstrong Elementary School. In response to MPT/Papen, Ms. Repucci stated that she would support staff's recommendation to split the funding for the two programs as opposed to seeing one .program funded to a higher extent. Waverly Johnson, District Executive, Boy Scouts of America's Council Office, stated that the Scout's Adventure Mountain Program focuses on outdoor activities, leadership and self esteem and is designed to give children vision of their future. He further stated that it was anticipated that there will be 12 boys from Diamond Bar participating in the program. Kathy Rogers, representing the YWCA Y -Teens program, requested appropriation in the amount o $5,950 to fund the Y -Teen program at Lorbeer Middle School, which focuses on high risk youth girls and emphasizes family values. CM/Belanger stated that the purpose of the $1,000 request for the YMCA Senior facility is to pay for space rental and insurance related to the use of the Seniors Group utilizing the YMCA building currently. Phil Armentrout, Emergency Services Coordinator, stated that the program focuses on the senior citizens to prepare them for potential disasters, especially earthquakes. Much of the funds requested will be used toward supplies such as flashlights, wrenches, whistles and signs. MPT/Papen suggested that the program be expanded to organize volunteers to do home visits to assure that the seniors are actually prepared. In response to C/MacBride, ESC/Armentrout stated that a pamphlet had been developed explaining what should be done before, during and following an earthquake. These pamphlets are handed out at all meetings, and at events that are attended by the organization. CSD/Rose stated that the City is requesting $11,600 to establish the senior program for the Heritage Park Building. The funds would provide the staffing necessary to open the facility four hours a day, five days per week for the first year of operation. The goal would be to service about 100 seniors per day, and, for the first year, pay for service activities such as nutritional lunches, recreation classes, referral services and activities designed to meet the diverse needs of the FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 15 senior community. A survey is being conducted to determine the type of senior programs that should be offered. Staff has mailed out 1,765 surveys and has received 282 back, to date, of which 145 have been tabulated as follows: most have their own cars; the ages are primarily 55 to 69 years old; and there is a desire for exercise programs, arts and crafts, active programs and excursions. In response to C/MacBride, CSD/Rose stated that, in addition to the response to the survey material, there are many written responses attached in which 28% have offered to volunteer in some form to the community, about 80% have indicated an interest in being continually updated on senior issues, and 25% have offered to be a part of a community committee of seniors to help establish a seniors program. One of the purposes of the survey was to identify the frail and elderly, as well as the active. C/MacBride stated that it is essential to recognize that there is a large group of citizens in the area that have the potential to offer experience, education and care. CSD/Rose reported that staff intends to take the furn- ishing request to the seniors to receive their input as to the type of equipment needed for the Heritage Building. Charles Lohan, 2086 Peaceful Hills Rd., requested the Council to help the seniors group. With no further testimony offered, M/Miller closed the Public Hearing. MPT/Papen asked if ADA -required access ramps could be included in the grant application to the federal government for improvements on Diamond Bar Blvd., Grand Ave., and partially on Golden Springs and reduce the funds to be allocated for the handicap access ramp program. ICE/Wentz stated that staff could include those retrofits at the intersection as part of the project. It would not affect the current design because a specific standard is addressed. However, it is not certain whether or not all of them would be approved. CM/Belanger noted that there is still $7,000 remaining in the budget for the CDBG fund. MPT/Papen expressed support for increasing the YMCA fund by $7,000 because their request only represents 20% of the costs for the YMCA programs, and they are probably FEBRUARY 2, 1993 PAGE 16 the only program meeting childcare needs. C/Werner suggested that perhaps the $7,000 dollars should be proportionately distributed among the other programs. It was moved by MPT/Papen, seconded by C/MacBride to reduce the handicap access ramp allocation by $7,000 and increase the allocation to the Diamond Bar/Walnut YMCA by $7,000 for their school year childcare program. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Werner., MacBride, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None Following discussion, it was moved by C/Forbing, seconded by C/MacBride to adopt the Community Development Block Grant Program budget for Fiscal Year 1993-94. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None offered. 11. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 10:13 p.m. ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, CMC/AAE City Clerk MINUW55 or xna cszs cvvnesL I ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FEBRUARY 9, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Miller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the AQMD, 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Miller. ROLL CALL: Mayor Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen Forbing, MacBride and Werner. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer; Bob L. Rose, Community Services Director; and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2. PROPOSED MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY (MRF) BY THE CITY OF INDUSTRY - CM/Belanger reported that the purpose of the meet- ing was to receive testimony from D.B. residents regarding a proposed 5,700 -ton per day material recovery and transfer station facility to be located on a 40 -acre parcel east of Grand Ave. and south of Valley Blvd. in the City of Industry. The City has retained Ultra Systems to assist in evaluating the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared by the City of Industry. Industry will conduct a public hearing on the DEIR at 8:30 a.m., February 11, 1993 at the their City Hall. Chris Lancaster, retained by Industry, will give a presentation on the proposed project followed by a presentation from staff and Peter Lewendowski with Ultra Systems. Chris Lancaster, representing the City of Industry, stated that the purpose of the EIR is to identify the impacts of the proposed project on the potential site. A MRF is being con- sidered by the City of Industry as a result of AB939, mandat- ing all cities and counties to reduce their waste stream by 25% by the year 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. The MRF will give the City of Industry the opportunity to stabilize its refuse costs over a long period of time and develop a guaran- teed place to contract out with another local landfill, or distant remote landfill to dispose of their waste stream for a long period of time. He then presented a series of slides identifying the crises facing LA County regarding the closure of landfills. Mr. Lancaster further stated that the MRF plays an important role in processing the trash and facilitates the need the cities would have in disposing of their trash for the future. He stated that this 40 -acre site, due to the proxim- ity of lines for Southern and Union Pacific railroads, would be available to receive the trash as well as compete with one another, giving the best available price for trash. Further- more, all access to the site would be off Grand Ave., and trucks would be routed so that there will not be any traffic backup on Grand Ave. Also, the roadway to the rail road would be landscaped every 30 ft. with trees. He displayed aerial photographs and stated that the area is zoned industrial or FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 2 manufacturing; many of the homes will not be able to look down on the site because of the ridge, but that there are some homes that will not be able to be screened; the facility will be made of tilt -up concrete and on reflective material so that there will not be any type of sun glare, or night light glare off of the facility; all lighting at the facility will be directed down and in; there is a lot of debris, trash and tires stockpiled on the site presently; it is proposed that the site will include a 124,000 sq. ft. building, about 40 ft. high and a wood processing structure; the major facility will be 1,000 ft. from the YMCA building and 1,200 ft. from the nearest home; approximately 25 cities will be able to utilize the facility; it is estimated that in 1994, when the facility is scheduled to be in operation, up to 1,000 tons a day of trash will be processed, most of which will be recyclable; in the year 1996 the facility has the potential of receiving, in a second phase of about 4,500 tons of trash a day; in the year 1996, in the third phase, it can receive up to 5,700 tons of trash a day; 76% of all truck traffic will travel on the free- way to Grand Ave. to the facility; the whole perimeter of the site will be landscaped, and the buildings itself will have landscaping abutting up against the structure; the ball diamond creates a visual buffer for some of the residents in Diamond Bar; in a worse case scenario, there will only be one train in and one train out each day; the train will only have access to the site between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; the facility will operate 24 hours a day, but will only receive trash from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with the remaining hours used to maintain the facility such as washing the interior, repairing equipment, processing any left over recyclables, etc.; this facility will not be receiving any type of hazard- ous or household hazardous waste; and it is anticipated that the rail would come into effect in the year 1995. Mr. Lancaster concluded with the following comments: when opened in 1994, it would not meet SCAQMD guidelines for air quality and would have an affect on the air quality in the vicinity, but that in the year 2000 all guidelines and requirements would be met; there will be a 6 ft. wall with landscaping built completely around the facility prior to grading to act as a type of vector control, as well as minimize some of the dust; the site will be watered down twice a day, per AQMD requirements and all trucks leaving the facility will be washed down; trash will not be there longer than 48 hours in the main facility so it will not decompose; the lifespan of the trash waiting to go out will be 96 hours and retained in closed containers the entire time; there is negative pressure in the facility itself, with filters and sands on top, so that the air pressure will be changed to suck air in and brought up through the roof to filter out all odors to eliminate waste odor; the facility will have a minimal noise level impact facing the City of Diamond Bar because it is quite a distance from the homes and the YMCA; there will be a minimal amount of noise due to the distance between the homes and YMCA and the facility; all workers will receive health and safety training; there will be staff trained in identifying household hazardous FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 3 waste, which will be pulled and stored until it can be proper- ly disposed of; a vector control firm will be consulted to implement vector control to minimize the amount of rodents and the proper disposal of them. Peter Lewendowski, Ultra Systems, stated that the City of Industry conducted a preliminary review of the proposed proj- ect and determined that the project has the potential to produce significant impacts upon the environment. An EIR was conducted representing a detailed analysis of the project --the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of that action. He gave a preliminary summary of their findings: the potential environmental impact report as represented in the DEIR may not be accurately represented and that the conclusions presented in the DEIR may not be well founded based upon clearly pre- sented scientific principles and methodology which allows them to be independently reviewed: the information presented in the DEIR does not allow the public to review the document and understand how conclusions were derived; in many instances, the range of mitigation measures and project alternatives that may be available to a project applicant have not been fully explored, particularly in the area of alternative analysis, and alternative sites for the development of this project; the cumulative analysis section of the DEIR fails to look at this project in the context of both other reasonably perceivable development activities that may occur in the area; there are currently at least four other MRF's being processed or pro- posed and there are only so many MRF's necessary to accommodate the needs of the City of Industry as well as the needs of other communities in the area; there is no basis provided in the DEIR allowing Industry's site to be evaluated in terms of the comparative pluses and minuses of this site relative to others. Ultra Systema will attempt to articulate, in its final report to the City, the significant new information that will be necessary to address the potential deficiencies in the DEIR. In response to C/Werner's inquiry, Mr. Lancaster stated that he would support having a MRF in the City of Covina if there was a large enough size parcel 'with access to rail lines because it is very attractive in terms of revenue. C/Werner asked if there are other projects planned and what is likely to be congregated next to the MRF. He also inquired as to Mr. Lancaster's relationship to the project. Mr. Lancaster stated that he is a public relations consultant with the City of Industry. Since the site is zoned indus- trial/manufacturing, it would attract those types of busines- ses in that area; however, he is not aware of any plans in the process for that area. Industry is the owner of the land and a proponent of the project and will be building the facility. The project is not being leased to EBA Waste Technologies and it is unknown who will be managing or operating the facility. FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 4 C/Werner asked if Industry would be willing to convert that hillside industrial property, which has been alluded to as a buffer for the proposed MRF, to permanent open space. Mr. Lancaster stated that he is unable to respond for the City of Industry regarding such an inquiry; however, he will present the question to the City Manager and the Mayor. In response to C/Werner, Mr. Lancaster clarified that, to his understanding, all types of truck activities, both delivery and exporting of trash from the site, would be done between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and that the remaining hours would be used to clean the facility, and other activi- ties. He further stated that even though Brea Canyon Rd. and Grand Ave. and Diamond Bar Blvd., could be used by the trucks as possible entrances and exits to the 60/57 freeway, most of the truck traffic will get off on Grand Ave. because of the accessibility. In a worse case scenario, there could be as many as 1,111 additional trips a day. C/Werner stated that he feels that Grand Ave, as a primary access point, and Brea Canyon Cut-off, as a secondary inter- change, are not adequate to accommodate that extra level of truck traffic. Mr. Lancaster stated that the City of Industry is proposing to improve the intersection on the off ramps of the 60 freeway coming up to the Grand Ave. area, as well as improve the intersection of Valley Blvd. and Grand Ave. The concern regarding maintenance of Brea Canyon Rd. should be submitted so it can be considered. MPT/Papen, noting that the project contributes to a 5% increase in traffic to the 60 and 57 freeways, stated that, as a mitigation measure, the City of Industry should contribute up to 30 million dollars to share in the improvements to the freeway itself, as well as improvements on Grand Ave. She then questioned the manning procedures as indicated in the DEIR. Mr. Lancaster stated that these types of manning procedures are accurate and adequate. A lot of the waste stream that will be coming in will already be sorted and recycled as well. MPT/Papen inquired what the ultimate site will be for the material that will be diverted. Mr. Lancaster pointed out that this question needs to be asked of the State of California because there is a risk that there may not be a market for the recyclables and it could end up back in the landfill. The EIR is not able to identify markets that are not yet available. MPT/Papen questioned how trash, which will be kept at the facility for as long as 48 hours can be kept as sanitary as it FEBRUARY 9, 1993 . PAGE 5 is kept in the current landfill. She then asked what criteria was used to select the site, and noted that the alternative sites section of the EIR does not adequately address the alternatives sufficiently enough to make a determination one way or the other. Mr. Lancaster stated that space availability, accessibility and the two available rail sites were considered. This facility will have access to two different rails that will be able to take trash to various locations from Utah to Riverside County to Imperial County and San Bernardino County. Furthermore, another reason that made this site attractive is that, because the Spadra landfill is close by, truck traffic patterns are already established for this area. Mr. Lewendowski, in response to MPT/Papen, stated that the question of when the wall will be built is not clearly described in the EIR. Though the City of Industry's design guidelines require an 8 ft. wall, only a 6 ft. wall is being proposed, and yet the DEIR states that the project is con- sistent with the design guidelines. The DEIR does not discuss how trains and trucks will get into the project site to deposit or haul the refuse. Any opening in the wall represents failure for the wall to attenuate any noise. Furthermore, a 6 ft. wall would be insufficient to mitigate noise. Mr. Lancaster, in response to C/MacBride, stated that there would be someone available on site to inspect incoming trucks for household hazardous materials. If found, they would be removed and stored until such time as they are taken for disposal. C/MacBride asked why the Pico Rivera air quality station was used for the air quality data and statistical information rather that the Pomona air quality station. He also asked why there is no monitoring system mentioned in the DEIR to assure that the mitigation measures are effective and are progressing rationally. C/Werner, pointing out that any fair consideration of this site is impossible because there is no quantifiable data for all the alternative sites, requested that the DEIR give equal attention to the alternative sites. M/Miller asked how this project would benefit the City. Mr. Lancaster stated that, if the worst-case scenario with the landfills materializes, then the City of Diamond Bar would benefit because it could process its trash with that MRF, utilizing the waste by rail. Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., noted that the East San Gabriel/Pomona valley is the worst smog area in Southern FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 6 California. He then read a letter sent last summer to the City of Industry by the Pomona Unified School District responding to the EIR and indicating that they do not antici- pate that the project would significantly impact school facilities. However, the district does not appear to consider dust, dirt, rodents or smog. He then inquired if the City of Industry is going to make up the loss of value to the homes of residents of the City. Curtis Postel, 531 N. Deep Hill Rd., expressed the following concerns: that there is a proposed siting for the Union Pacific, which is on the Diamond Bar side of the property; it appears that the facility could be expanded on the Benton property; what will keep the City of Industry from attempting to run an incinerator; even though trash will not be hauled after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m., what guarantee is there to prevent heavy equipment moving within the site, or the train being loaded during those hours; trains currently oper- ate on their own schedule, and what is to stop them in the future; what will keep seagulls and pigeons out, which are also considered vectors; it is inconceivable that no odor will be emitted from the proposed 124,000 sq. ft. building that has a total of 23 large bay doors; the motors and fans needed to run the air assembly would have to be very large, and there- fore very noisy; and how can an air current be used to miti- gate insects in a negative air facility. Kim Chapman, 22713 Happy Hallow Rd., co -president of Neil Armstrong Elementary School PTA, noting that in the past, school athletic days have been cancelled due to first -stage smog alerts, stated that it is unacceptable to add more smog to the area and that the proposed project is too close to many youth oriented activities. Evelyn Kuida, 22635 Dry Creek Rd., expressed opposition to the proposed project because of the long and short term health risks associated with pathogenic micro-organisms such as viruses, funguses and bacteria that cause disease. Mike Gilson, 521 N. Deep Hill Rd., made the following comments: presently, he can hear the trains at night when they are being loaded; the proposed containers must make noise when they are being loaded on the train; Grand Ave. is already impacted and does not need more trucks on the road; why should the City have to pay the price for the City of Industry to make money on trash; and why spend the money on recyclables when there is no market for it. Jim Reynolds, 267 S. Rock River Rd., suggested that the City Council post a weight limit on Grand Ave. that would prohibit the trucks from using that as access, thereby making it too expensive to develop this property and more desirable to seek alternatives. Jennifer Cady, 316 N. Gunsmoke Dr., stated that mitigation FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 7 measures should not be an issue but rather that it is the position of the City that this MRF is an incompatible use for the area, affecting residences, hospitals, schools, day care facilities and youth sports. She inquired if the EIR addresses this facility as a possible hazardous waste facility and if it will comply with the requirements of the Hazardous Waste Materials Act in the California Health and Safety Code. Lee Ganteaume, 22921 Dry Creek Rd., inquired into the kinds of improvements being proposed to make the facility meet the standards of the SCAQMD by the year 2000. Furthermore, what steps will be taken to mitigate noise pollution caused by trucks and trains. Clyde Hennessee, 22702 Sunset Crossing Rd., expressed opposi- tion to the project because of the noise and air pollution, a potential increase in rodents, insects and health related problems. The proposed project should be located in a less dense area. Kim Weingarten, 22601 Sunset Crossing, President, Diamond Bar Little League, stated that it is not appropriate to consider 1,000 children playing on the baseball field as a buffer to the noise, smell, dirt and trash that will be on the other side of the tracks. She made the following comments: trains run all day long and not just once or twice a day; there is presently back up traffic on Grand Ave. and to bring in truck loads of trash is a concern; children play on the baseball fields all year long now and they will be affected. Richard Pauwels, 311 No. Pintado Dr. expressed concern that property values will decrease because of this proposed proj- ect. Jack Istik, 22607 E. Dry Creek Rd., expressed opposition to the project because of the following: the at -grade trash sorting; lights, noise, traffic and odor 24 hours -a -day, six to seven days a week; trash will be aerated and on the site up to six days; it will have the atmosphere of a rail yard switching facility with the noise, the transients and vectors; it is inappropriate for the City of Industry to be the sole agency responsible for ensuring that the conditions of approval are enforced; the MRF should have been proposed prior to all development in the area; property values will decrease; and the facility has a lot of opportunity to expand and could become a waste by rail point for the entire County. Elena Mafla, 615 Chapparal Dr., an employee of Teledyne Cast Products, a neighboring business to the proposed facility, noting that Teledyne has been hit with hefty penalties by the AQMD, inquired how the proposed facility would avoid penal- ties. She also inquired if the City of Industry will pay for the medical bills for the ill health affects of the children. Greg Arakelian, 634 Silver Valley Trail, Walnut, partner in an architectural firm who has designed similar facilities, stated that he is overwhelmed by the magnitude of this facility in FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 8 terms of the amount of tonnage of material being discussed. Similar facilities have a substantial amount of truck traffic and are located considerably further away from residences and are within industrial areas. Alternative sites need to be fully addressed in the DEIR. Currently, the State does not regulate MRFs, but rather transfer stations, and the mitigat- ing factors for a MRF is different that what is being proposed for transfer stations. Tipping fees for the City, and surrounding neighborhoods could increase to $65 to $85 a ton to help pay for the facility. Gary Neely, 344 Canoecove Dr., pointed out how difficult it will be for a truck every 30 seconds to travel on the 60 freeway and cross two lanes of traffic to get to the Grand Ave. off ramp. Since, as an alternative, the trucks will most likely get off at Pathfinder or Diamond Bar Blvd., the EIR should address the traffic impacts to the community from the County line and the 57 freeway all the way down to the south end of Diamond Bar. He suggested that the City not only write to the City of Industry, but also send a video copy of this meeting so that there won't be confusion regarding remarks that are made. Furthermore, he noted that the letter, read by Mr. Calkins, from the PUSD indicating that they did not oppose this facility, was written last summer and perhaps they would like to reconsider their response upon reading the responses made by the City of Diamond Bar. MPT/Papen stated that Dr. Moskowitz, Superintendent, Pomona Unified School District and Brenda Engdahl, School Board Member, have indicated that the response made last summer was made by a technical person responding to a technical issue and that they will probably have an additional response. Mr. Lancaster stated that he would take the concerns and com- ments expressed to the City of Industry, discuss the issues with the City Engineer and turn the concerns over to the con- sultant, EBA Waste Technologies, who provided the EIR. He then made the following responses to comments made: loading and unloading of the containers on the train will occur on the northside of the boundary, with a rail spur from the Southern Pacific line to the Union Pacific line; the possible expansion of the facility cannot be determined at this time; there has never been any discussion of the possibility of a waste incin- erator site at this facility; loading will be between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; since the trash will be inside, it will not attract seagulls and vectors; negative air current will be utilized; air quality will not meet SCAQMD standards by 1994, but because of the emissions generated during the year 2000 operations will not exceed the SCAQMD threshold levels attrib- uted to a combination of factors, including the use of rail haul, and anticipated vehicle control standards; the trash will not be exposed to any type of rain water because it is kept inside; since the containers can hold up to 32 tons each, having the site at this location, between the two rails is beneficial because there is no weight limit restrictions as FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 9 part of putting the amount of tonnages in the containers to be placed on the cars to be shipped out for rail; since busines- ses will need to know if their waste stream has a place to go for years to come, the City of Industry is looking at their responsibility, as a local government agency, to provide this opportunity for the businesses in the City of Industry, and not as an opportunity for making money per ton; the average tipping cost per ton is around $1.25; even if recyclables are pulled out at the other end, there would still be a need to have an operation to remove it from trucks, compact it into containers and load it onto trains; Diamond Bar does not have jurisdiction or the authority to place a weight limit on Grand Ave.; and there will only be one train coming in and going out; in a worst-case scenario the train would hold up to 88 cars, ten containers per car, each car totaling up to 200 ft. long. M/Miller stated that staff had already been directed to attend upcoming meetings and keep the Council posted. The Council has also asked for additional proposals to further evaluate the EIR. C/MacBride, noting that the EIR indicates that the City of Industry is willing to bear its fair share based on its portion of the overall impact, stated that he feels that the City of Industry should bear all the responsibilities for the impacts that this project will create. Mr. Lancaster explained that the City Industry is willing to participate in the mitigation measures up to their fair share. However, the EIR also took into consideration some of the developments that will occur in the City of Walnut, such as the major commercial center at the intersection of Valley Blvd./Grand Ave., and the City of Diamond Bar, such as the medical plaza being built, that could have a tremendous traffic impact on certain aspects of the area and those impacts would be their fair share of responsibility. C/MacBride stated that the EIR should include an analysis or discussion of potential impacts to the area from these future major projects. Debbie Carter, 611 Ocharo Rd., suggested that Mr. Lancaster give the message to the City of Industry the importance of preserving health and the health of our children. Greg Arakelian, 634 Silver Valley, stated that the Vehicle Code indicates that trash trucks going to a trash facility cannot be restricted by weight limits; therefore, the City would not be able to restrict trucks coming from Walnut or Chino Hills. He also pointed out that the EIR does not address where the polluted water will go after washing down the facility. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/MacBride, stated that staff FEBRUARY 9, 1993 PAGE 10 mailed out approximately 1,200 notices per Council direction at the meeting of February 2, 1993. Peter Lewendowski, per C/Werner's request, stated that Industry's public hearing is scheduled for February 11, 1993 at 8:30 a.m. The time is reserved to receive public input, with a time limit of 3 minutes per individual. CA/Arczynski stated that if there are residents unable to attend the meeting or who have more to say than 3 minutes would provide for, they can put their comments in writing and send them to the City of Industry. MPT/Papen directed staff to continue to work with Ultra Systems to do an independent analysis and to verify data that has been presented in the EIR as to conformance with CEQA. She suggested that the Council also direct the Mayor to send a letter to the City of Industry, along with a video of this meeting, with the following points: the City of Diamond Bar reserves the right for further comment based on further tech- nical analysis; the City requests an evaluation of an altern- ate site, such as the Benton site, the Southern Pacific yard site, and any vacant land in the City of Industry where rail spurs could be built. The City should suggest alternative sites, such as at the Katella Business Park, where other industrial uses would be the buffer to the residential zone. She also suggested that the City Manager meet with Industry staff to determine their intent on this project and report back to the Council. C/Werner, noting that Mr. Lancaster indicated that Industry is unable to identify what development might be anticipated surrounding the MRF site, suggested that Industry be asked to agree on what they are willing to restrict on the remaining properties. M/Miller stated that he will include all the aforementioned points in his letter to the City of Industry along with a video copy of this meeting and announced that he plans to attend the Public Hearing. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None offered. 4. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 10:11 p.m. ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, CMC/AAE City Clerk MINUTES OP THS CITY COVNCxi. 1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FEBRUARY 16, 1993 1. CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 P.M. Litigation - G.C. 54956.9 Personnel - G.C. 54957.6 No reportable action taken. 2. CALL TO ORDER: M/Miller called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. at the AQMD, 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Miller. INVOCATION: The Invocation was given by Reverend Jim Lawer of the Diamond Bar Congregational Church. ROLL CALL: Mayor Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen MacBride, Forbing and Werner. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., thanked Council and staff for their assistance in opposing the proposed Material Recovery Facility (MRF) in the City of Industry. He also stated that the City should unite in regard to the General Plan. Curtis Postel, 531 N. Deep Hill Rd., also thanked Council for their support opposing the MRF in the City of Industry. He presented the Council with a copy of the 42 petitions submitted to the City of Industry containing 600 signatures. William Gross, 21637 High Bluff Rd., indicated that the citizens in Diamond Bar have clearly stated that the General Plan, as designed, is not what is desired for the future of Diamond Bar. M/Miller asked Mr. Gross, as a representative of Diamond Bar Citizens to Protect Country Living, to meet with staff and give them a list representing their disagreement with the General Plan so that the City can move forward without going to an election. Mr. Gross stated that he would be glad to meet with staff next week and identify the particular issues that they are involved with. However, he stated that he is unable to supply staff with a complete list because that would entail rewriting the General Plan. C/Werner noted that an exhaustive list is not needed, but a list identifying the issues that are of significant difference so that it can be determined whether or not they can be resolved. FEBRUARY 16, 1993 PAGE 2 Mr. Gross stated that he will contact staff and set up a date to meet next week. Jennifer Flood and Winnie Nahali, students at Diamond Bar High School, proposed that the City develop a mandatory composting and recycling program for residents, park maintenance and local businesses to reduce waste currently sent to landfills by the City. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Ln., made the following inquiries: where.will the funds come from to pay for the lawsuit filed by Diamond Bar Associates; does M/Miller hold any vested interest in the South Pointe Master Plan development in regard to R&P; is there an association with M/Miller and Mr. Lancaster in regard to the MRF project; why is there no record of a property line concerning the hill adjacent to Brea Canyon Rd., under consideration to be destroyed by the South Pointe Development; why was the letter from the Department of Fish and Game, received by the City January 26, 1993, not made public during the Planning Commission meeting for public input; and, in reference to a comment made at the last Council meeting stating that Oak trees cannot stand much water, he inquired why then do the largest oak trees within the confines of the City found to either straddle or locate adjacent to flowing streams. M/Miller requested staff to give Mr. Schad a copy of the letter he wrote to the Council, all Department heads and Planning Commissioners disclosing his former interest and stating that he no longer has a vested interest in South Pointe or R&P. He stated that he has publicly announced that he will abstain from any hearing process of that entire Master Plan. Further, he stated that he has no involvement whatsoever with Mr. Lancaster and his employment with the City of Industry as far as the proposed MRF. CA/Arczynski stated that in regard to litigation filed on Tract 47850, Council has directed that special counsel be retained. In regard to the record of the property on Brea Canyon Rd., he explained that the property was originally acquired by the State as part of freeway and highway right-of-way. Upon construction of the 57 freeway, the property was relinquished to the County of L.A., in fee. By operation of law, upon incorporation, the street became a City street. CDD/DeStefano stated that the letter from the State Department Of Fish and Game, as well as all letters and comments received on the South Pointe Master Plan project, are being commented upon and will be contained within a document that will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the end of the week. Clair Harmony, 24139 Afamado Ln., expressed concern regarding the City's costs in fighting the referendum. He also expressed concern regarding 30 policy changes made to the FEBRUARY 16, 1993 PAGE 3 General Plan by the City Council behind closed doors. He suggested that there be significant changes made to the General Plan document to preserve open space and protect the City's resources, keeping the City a nice place to live. Mary Colmack complained about the Sheriff's handling of an incident that occurred at her residence in which two officers entered her home, and another detained her friend, who was in her garage with her permission. She expressed concern that undue roughness was used because her friend is black. M/Miller asked Ms. Colmack to speak with Sheriff Deputy Larry Luter and provide him additional information for investigation. The City will follow-up on the incident. Martha Bruske, 600 S. Great Bend, suggested that the General Plan be rewritten rather than taking it to ballot so that the City can move forward to solve other problems in the community. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., pointed out that the issues of concern regarding the General Plan have been well stated both during the General Plan process and during the referendum litigation. Council needs to make a decision tonight, to change the General Plan, rather than costing the City more money by taking it to ballot. Citizens need to be involved in the changes to the General Plan, perhaps in a fashion similar to the General Plan Advisory Committee. Bill Tinsman, 1014 Capen, Walnut, reported that he too had a situation in which the Sheriff Department responded to a neighbors phone call regarding a concern involving a strange truck parked in front of his home belonging to a contractor doing remodeling on Mr. Tinsman's home. He thanked the Sheriff's Department for their quick response and stated that he recognized the fact that they did not know what they are coming into. 4. COUNCIL COMENTS: C/MacBride expressed appreciation to those who took the time and effort to relate their concerns regarding the City of Industry's MRF. He then commended the Diamond Bar Improvement Association (DBIA) in their efforts in organizing a community program to combat graffiti. C/Forbing stated that the California Resources Agency awarded a $563,000 grant to the City of Diamond Bar to plant more than $5,000 trees adjacent to the Pomona Freeway. The work is to be done by the California Conservation Corps and the Los Angeles Conservation Corps and is scheduled to begin this month. CalTrans is sponsoring a brief ceremony on February 19, 1993 at 1:30 p.m. at Peterson Park. C/Werner, noting that the leaders of the petitioners are requesting that the Council heed the concerns voiced by the citizens regarding the General Plan rather than taking it to FEBRUARY 16, 1993 PAGE 4 the ballot, suggested there be an additional forum before the Council to discuss the issues of concern so that proper decisions can be made. MPT/Papen, in response to the comment made that the Council made 30 policy changes to the General Plan, explained that those 30 changes were highlighted by the consultant, and that the entire GPAC was immediately reconvened to review the document and approve or disapprove those items. They were never a part of the final approved draft from the GPAC, nor part of the approved plan that went through the Planning Commission, nor part of the approved plan by the Council. Law states that, if the General Plan is set aside, the City cannot adopt a similar document for a year, thereby creating a moratorium for a year on all planning and development in this community. The other alternative is to call for an election. The Council needs to hear from other citizens who have not spoken, nor have been involved in the petition drive. Perhaps these major issues cannot be decided without a vote of the people. M/Miller directed staff to regularly communicate with the City of Industry's staff to see if the MRF issue can be resolved and another site for this facility located. In regard to the General Plan issue, he stated that he feels that the document is substantially good. If the General Plan is rescinded, then the City, by law, is prohibited from adopting a substantially similar document. It would be better if these major issues can be resolved, without spending money to put it on a ballot, or rescinding the document. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Werner moved, C/Forbing seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Forbing, MacBride, MPT/Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1.1 Planning Commission - February 22, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.2 Parks & Recreation Commission - February 25, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - March 2, 1993 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 WARRANT REGISTER - Approved Warrant Register dated February 16, 1993 in the amount of $460,890.21. 5.3 TREASURER'S REPORT - Received & filed report for the Month of January, 1993. FEBRUARY 16, 1993 6. 7. M PAGE 5 5.4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of December 17, 1992 - Received & filed. 5.5 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by Brian Parmelee on January 25, 1993. Rejected request and referred matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 5.6 RENEWAL OF AUDIT CONTRACT -Renewed the contract for auditing services (as outlined in the proposal letter dated January 7, 1993) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1993 at a maximum annual fee of $15,000. 5.7 NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE 1992-93 SLURRY SEAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - AREA THREE - Accepted work performed by IPS Services, Inc. and authorized the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion and release any retention amounts per previously approved specifications. 5.8 BOND EXONERATION FOR GRADING OF PARCELS 1 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP 14819 AT 22344 AND 22364 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE - Approved exoneration of the bond posted for Phase I Grading on Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel 14819 in the amount of $135,758. 5.9 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-08: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, TO ACCEPT THE OFFERING OF THE EASEMENT DEEDS LOCATED IN COUNTRY HILLS TOWNE CENTER ON DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AND DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD THE EASEMENT DEEDS. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC. 6.1 PROCLAIMING SUPPORT FOR IRENE OREJEL, MISS DIAMOND BAR, IN REPRESENTING THE CITY IN THE "MISS CALIFORNIA WORLD" BEAUTY PAGEANT TO BE HELD AT KNOTT'S BERRY FARM, MARCH 20, 1993 - Miss Orejel accepted the Proclamation and thanked the City for supporting her in the "Miss California World" Beauty Pageant being held at Knott's Berry Farm. NEW BUSINESS: 7.1 REPORT ON TRANSIT OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTS - CM/Belanger reviewed the summary of the types of transit services available to residents as presented in the staff report. Staff will provide monthly updates regarding any additional opportunities for residents to capitalize on transit services. ANNOUNCENZNTS: C/MacBride reported that the Diamond Bar Improvement Association is hosting a meeting at FEBRUARY 16, 1993 PAGE 6 the Radison Hotel on Thursday, February 25, 1993 at 6:30 p.m. regarding the FADE Program (Fight Against Drugs Effectively). MPT/Papen reported that the City has an opportunity to nominate a Diamond Bar senior citizen to receive an award, in recognition for their community services, as presented by the L.A. County Board of Supervisors for "Older American Recognition Day." Nominations must be received at City Hall by March 15, 1993. M/Miller stated that it is the consensus of Council to recess to Closed Session to discuss litigation regarding the General Plan. 8. CLOSED SESSION: M/Miller adjourned the meeting at 7:22 p.m. for discussion of Litigation matters. 9. ADJOURNMENT: M/Miller reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m. and the City Attorney announced that no reportable actions had taken place during Closed Session. With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 P.M. ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, CMC/AAE City Clerk I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor Pro Tem Pape and Councilmember Forbing FROM: Linda G. Magnuso:Y,' Accounting Manager SUBJECT: Voucher Register, March 2, 1993 DATE: February 25, 1993 Attached is the Voucher Register dated March 2, 1993. As requested, the Finance Department is submitting the voucher register 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 listing of vouchers dated March 2, 1993 has 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 115 Int. Waste Mgt. Fund 125 CDBG Fund 138 LLAD #38 Fund 139 LLAD #39 Fund 141 LLAD #41 Fund 225 Grand Ave. Const. Fund 250 CIP Fund TOTAL ALL FUNDS APPROVED BY: Li da G. Magh on Accounting Ma ager Terrence L. Belanger City Manager alLauCeany $399,049.45 23.45 3,224.00 5,707.64 6,278.93 3,732.24 3,610.00 107,153.75 $528,799.46 Phyllis E. Papen Mayor Pro Tem John A. Forbing Councilmember itv of 3iaEOnd Sar NUN I'MF: 16+:28 8':'J26i93 r 0 U C 41 F R R E 6 I S T E R PA6F 1 DUE THRU.............03/62193 V'ENDO'R N M�- .VENDOR iD. a f'R= PA1D ACCOONT PRI1,1JX-NO BATCH POUINEW. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE D6CRIAi'i4iN Ak"uUNT DATE ARAICory Refreshment Svcs ARA #001-4999-2325 1383020 02/23 03792 meptino Saoolies 80.75 III ;Ai_ I'I E VENDOR --------, 86.15 Accurate i.andcsrarp Accurate #138-4538-5520 1 MOM @5/1434 Bc123 03/E'2 27199 Sanfl aos-Dist 38 256.92 *138-4538-2210 1 303020 32124 03/92 27484 Fertilization -Dist 38 1.879.82 #138-4531-2219 2 3232?0 0212+ @V02 27485 Reqtake Trees Dist 38 I58.0 #139-4539-2210 1 393ND 02/'24 93192 2NAS Re=take Trees Dist 39 153.0'3 #139-4539-2210 2 32322) 0124 23102 27486 Weed Abatmt-ChnoHllsArk. 250.03 +139-45379-5588 2 30302D 0111421 02/24 43/82 27596 Fah t'DntractSyrs—Dist39 5.698.03 #138-4538-5520 3 32322D 0111428 02/24 93192 275955 Feb CnntractSvcs-Dist 3A 3.261.63 lOiAL "WE VENDOR -------- 11.04.0 Alzate. Elena 556 #881-3418 4 323824 02123 83102 6634 ReFreation Refund 3U.09 10 1 4L i, 3E 4'END6R --- ---- 30.02 Aperican Storace AD AS:er3toraq +001-469-2140 1 323220 921123 03102 Rent for 2 Units -March 1521.00 TOTAL D!:E VEND.OR-------- 153.02 Arboleda, Elizabe-h 5,57 #091-3418 S 323228 @?M 03;4;2 6761 Recreation Refund 29.08 ;DIAL DisE VENDUR --- ----; 29.0`e Ar�pentrrut, Phil Arnentrout *001-440-40W 1 303024 0212:; 03492 6137 EmerCoord9vcs-218-2/19/93 1.152.02 TOTAL Di.E VENDOR --------. 1015M) Artistic i.andsrare I r'_nor Artistic4.a +001-4555-5549 1 333220 011445 02123 0312 4196 iandscpe Plaint -62 FWy 1,nme TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------- I.Ais9.03 Bautista, Estrella 545 1001-3418 16 383VA 82i23 93182 6719 ReF.reation Refund 1111.0�' TOTAL DUEEN7UR--------, 10.03 ** i t v of Diamond Sar +* RUN !IMF: 16:20 0`,3126193 V O U C H E R R E G 1 3 ' E R DUE THR,O.............03102193 VENDOR NAME VENDOR iD. ACCOUNT PRJiJ,T1-NJ BATCH PO.tIN€1NJ. ENTRYiDiiE TNVOTCI DES;:RIPIItIti Bayless Statione7i Bayless *01-421e-120 1 33302A Beiber Lighting +001-4316-221@ BEke, John C. +321-4553-4100 Beiberi_ipt 1 333320 PO P1 3 303020 Bellofatto, Ja*,es 5ra }001-34 T8 11 30302A Bill's Lock & Safe Bills! +001-4312-1223 1 32322A @5/1415 Calif. StatEwire C:a5tatec:ra +331-4092-2399 1 333020 CalilPrt5BRec:3oci?ty CPR3 +001-4319-2340 1 303VD Camnatelli's Cam Well] +001-371@ 1 32322i, Canaday, Cheryl 546 +001-3476 13 30322A 02/2.3 @3192 11.265220 Microfiche Paper .DOTAL DiIE VIENUR--------- 02124 03i@2 2536bh MaM t Suonlies-Mahle Hill UTAL DIiE VENDUR---------1 22124 t3i@2 T17 Cns� Mtg 2111193 "Al DUE VENDC---------. W23 031@2 646+ R creation Refund 10TAL "ui:E VENDOR --- - —'s @2x23 03102 3/6219 5, op;.iF;-Keys 1GiAL DiE VENDOR -------- V/24 03/02 Travel. 'v'okichets VAL f,I;E VENDU'R ---- -- 02/24 0312 Coof 3/11 -3114 -Rase TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----', TUTAt DUE VENDOR --------, 02/24 031@2 5;Aoolies-SrndBrkngGermony IDTAL (`REPAiD AMjJUNT ----: 101Ai DUE VENDOP---------, 0123 03=t2 6164 Recreation Refund PASS 2 * * PREPAID * i WONT DAZE CHEK -------------------------- 610.30 810.@ 40.00 45.20 45.0 56.65 56.65 535.@0 X35.00 165,03 03102/93 020001729`,' e.00 °° 13 @31@2193 0026317093 36.13 t.@3 b0.t0 $ :ity c�f D i a T o n d Bar +� * RUN LIME: 16:20 "/-'ti/93 V B U C N E R R E G I S T E R DUE THRU.............03/02i93 +.'ENDOR NAME VENDOR iD. AC!'UtINT P? i-I,T -ND BATCH PU.LIhE/NJ, EYTRYfD=iE TNVQJCt DESCRIPTION Century Computer ';,nro. CentryCou *001-4090-2200 2 30302A 01/1582 02/23 03/02 5226 Charles Abbott & isc Inc CharlasAbb *001-2308-1011 3 303020 02/24 03/22 007 *001-2300-1011 4 30302D 0"1124 ?,3102 001 *001-4210-4210 1 303020 02/2+ 03/02 0, *081-4551-5221 1 30302D ¢2124 03/02 007 *021-4551-5221 05•!93 2 303020 02/24 03/02 0:17 Chavers, J. Todd Chaa?rsl-ff *801-4553-4100 1 30302C 0/24 03/02 Cheng, Diana CrentiD *101-4553-4100 4 30322C 02124 03/02 Clayton, Engineeri g Inc. 0 aytnEnnr *258--4310-6415 04693 9 32302A 0111489A 02123 0311102 *250-4310-6415 04593 6 30302A 01/1461 02123 e3/82 22"/3 *2;2-4310-6415 04693 7 PWA 01/1487 02123 03102 2273 Clayton Engineering Inc, C.i.aytnEngr *250-4310-6415 04593 2 30382A 01114691± 02/2:3 03/02 22.4 Clayton Engineeriig Inc. Clayt5Engr *2C8-4310-6415 04.593 4 323224 W1489011 0212;+, 03102 22;2 D. B. Chamber cf "ommerce I:BChaIfber *801-4010-2325 2 30380D 02/2+ 03/02 PASS 2 ? PREPAID* a AM UNT DATE C�l1ECx:: Como tauip Repair 121.64 "'AL ID F VENDOR --': 121.64 DecEngrSvcs-FPL92-19 476.62 DecEnurSYc.s-FPL92--30 60.60 De--EngrSvcs-FPL93-•06 220.40 Dec Enur Sys 6.360.02 DLcEngrSvcs-CnuntrySaxar 760.10 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --...._-.__- 9, P'; .02 €&T Coma Mtg 2/11/93 40.00 TOTAL D!1E VENDOR -- - --; 40.02 TQT Comm Mto 2/11/93 40.00 TUTAL DUEVENDUR ---- - 40.:2 Prof Svcs-ComaCenter 1,516.00 DFmo of Existing Bido 5,900.0& Asbestos Rzmovai-Heritage 9,208.02 €UTAL DI;E VENDOR --------:s 16,616.02 ProESres-CommCenter 51,232.?_: TUTAL DUE VENDOR --------, 51,230.-°5 Prof Svcs-CommCenter 39,321.50 IWAL DUE VENDOR --------? 9 ?!7 52 Mtn 2119-Miller,Forbing 17.00 HUTAL f,;E VENDUR-------- 17.02 ±+ City a Diamond Bar ►* RUN (ItF: 16:20 01/26/93 V (I U C H F R R E 6 I S; R Di iE THRU.............03?02193 PAGE 4 VENDOR NAME VENDOR fl. * * I'RLPAID * * ACCOUNT PRi!3.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/NO. ENTRY/DUE INVOlU DtSCRli`!10N AMOUNT DATE CHECK, Diamond Bar Business Asoc D00asAssoc +001-4090-221@ 1 3^,3+i2A 02+23 @3/@2 March Common Area taint 657.00 Diamond Bar Pettv Cash Fettycash *001-4010-2325 4 30392D *001-4030-2325 3 30302D *001-4090-1202 4 303025 *901-•4990-2325 2 30302D +001-4350-1200 3 30302D *901-451@-2325 1 30392D *115-4515-234@ 1 30302) Dickenson Lumber Diclen4r,,n }001-4350-1202 2 32302A 01/1510 T 0AL DOE VENDOR -------- 1.57.00 02124 03/02 City Council Mtos 02/24 03/02 City Manaoer Mtos 02/24 03/02 G, -neral Supplies 92124 03102 >eneral Mtgs 92124 03/02 Recreation Supplies 02/24 03Y02 Public Voris -Mfg. 9?124 03/02 911id Waste Conf. Eastman Inc.. Fa.stTan 10 AL PRLPA1D AMOUNT ----: OTAI DUE VENDOR --------- 02123 03192 179140 Recreation Saoplies IOiAL :DUE VENDOR ------- 22.40 03/02/93 0000017897 20.9@ 03102193 0000017997 5.78 03/02/93 0029217097 21.-x3 03102/93 0000017097 9.58 03192/93 @210001709; 3.30 a3iv2/93 0990017097 14.45 03/02/93 0000017997 97.54 9.99 29.03 '29.93 Dwight French & A>soc. P;wightFrsn *225-4510-6411 @6393 2 30302A 011'1457 0212:1 03/92 1009993 Sr.and AVE Imprvmnts 3,010.00 'OTAL DUE VENIDUR -- ----- "a.tl .9 Eastman Inc.. Fa.stTan +001-4090-1200 1 3$3828 8211397 0212 03/02 010@71195 Supplies -General 20.52 +901-•4950-1200 1 20302B 83/1397 0203 0312 010071199 Supplies -Finance 1.75 +001-4319-1200 2 303028 84/1397 02/23 03/02 01075089 Supplies-P3M 26.93 *@01-4310-1202 3 30302B AS?1397 92123 03/32 019093810 ;uool1ps-P&M 12.80 TUFAi D;E VENDOR --------'> 62.90 FKA Copier Produc-s EEM +001-4090-1100 2 303526 0111593 92123 03/02 238928 Xerox Toner 8 Lube 153.12 J TAL Di;E VENDOR Federal Express C?rp. FedEXnress +115_.4515-21296 1 303828 @?/23 03/02 468701393 Express Mail Secs-SldW;te 9.00 *001-4090-2120 1 30302B 962/x3 03i02 469346719 Expre=s Mail Svcs -lien Gov 13.0 22.99 `LITA, DUE VENDOR --------; ty e± Diarond $ar tit UN TIME: 16:29 K'/2093 V 0 U C H E R R E G I S T E R PAG 5 DUE THRU .............03"W193 VE%'D,OR NAME VENDOR 10. PREPAID ACCOUNT PRIjJ.TX-NO 8A1CH P0,IINEIN0. cP41RY/DI:E 14, V0 ;E DESCRIPHON AMOUNT DATE HE Cr Flamenhaum, Druce Flamenha+,m 00i-4210-4192 4 303028 01(2+ 0312 Plna Cowl Mtas 1/11.1/25 12e.r9 10TAL DI,E VENDOR Fromex Fromex }991-2349-1010 1 303228 02/23 03/02 52,57511 Film Processing -Ping 7.29 ft01-2329-1912 2 393928 02123 93/02 5262594 Film Proce55ing-Ping 8.:9 1421-4019-2119 1 303028 92/23 93/42 5788413 Film Processing CCouncil 10.07 1001-4219-2116 1 323228 92123 03/02 5788413 Fila Proce55ing-Ping 1i�.2b TLITAI DUE VENDOR --------; 35.83 6TE California 6;E {321-43:31-2125 1 323228 92;23 4:3142 Phone Svcs-S,camare Cyn 28?.07 QTAL DU'. VENDOR --------- > 282.91 6TE California SIE 031-4313-2125 1 323228 9212:3 03/02 Phone 5dcs-Heritage Prk. 53.87 i O i AL JoUE VINDUR-------- 53.87 6TE California GIE }991-4W-2125 1 323228 0/23 03i02 MaddT Sres 11 1WAL DU=`" vFUCR --- ---- 17,11 6TEL DIEL +001-4999-2125 1 30322 02/24 93/92 March Falui.o Rental 824.15 TOTAL O E VENDOR ---- ---i 824.15 Gardner, Anna '65 +091-3412 1 30302A 42123 030"2 6361 Recreation Refand 30,00 IOTAL DUE VENDUR--------- 3A.49 Gehhardt., L°wis niF,6 X021-3472 2 38302A 012:3 03102 b!6 Rarreatian Refund 60.00 ILITAL DIE VFNDUR---.__._-- 1.0 03 gon.salves ti Son. lr..e A. 6orsalvps X901-4410-4000 1 30'3028 02/23 !3102 March Prof Svcs 2,100.40 10TAL DUE VENDUR-------- 2.1-n.Nt3 TUTAt DUE VEN=DOR ------- 3,970.75 Inland Valley t1ly Rulietn IvDR +001-421@-2115 6 303320 +++LE,tt 031@2 of Diamond Sar +++ 66.5@ RUN "IMF: 16:20 0,'1116,'93 02/23 V O U C H E R R E 6 1 5, E R PA6E 6 +0w^i-4219-2115 5 343021 02124 DUE THRU .......... _ A3/02793 Hrg-LCA 93-1 VENDOR NAME +001-4210-2115 VENDOR D. 02123 03102 dc20@90 PC Mtg DR 92-6 + + PRLPAID + + ACCOUNT PR.i1.T1-N0 BAtCH PD.lIhflNt. fNTRYiD1IE dc22371 1 vDICt DtKgIP(10n AM, 00NT DATE CHE_:k: Grothe, Jack 02123 GrotheJ dc21356 Pub Hrg-ZnneCodepmendmnt 68.86 +001-4210-2115 +001-4210--4i0@ 2 323228 0724 03102 Hro'-PM 23712 Ping Corm Mtgs 1/11,11'25 122.00 6 303216 02;24 03!02 dc21551 Pub Hrg-ADR 93-2 DOTAL DUE VENDOR --------i 120.00 Ha, 'acqueline 02/24 541 dc.21912 Pub Hrg-CUP 93-2 61.75 1@01-4040-2115 +001-3478 14 30322A 0723 03/02 6721 Recreation Refund 52.00 iW AL DUE VENDOR -------- 56." Hansen, Laura 55 +001-3418 7 303KA 072:3 03702 653E Rerre.ation Refund 34.04 TUTAL DUE VENDOR --------'? 34.00 Henderson, Alison 569 +001-3412 5 30322A 0?723 03102 6196 Recreation Refund 3=9.00 101AL BE VENDOR - - ----i 30.00 IC"A Retirement T�ust-457 1CMA 0.01-2110-1007 1 DN28 0tj23 03jEt Mar--DefCompCont. AIIDeots 41@.00 +001-401@4080 1 303028 0203 00.702 Mar-DpfrcmoContrar_tContrb 402.05 +001-4030-2090 1 303328 02723 0342 Mar -Cate Cnntrih-Lrgr 4.17.5A +001-4040-0090 1 3@3028 02/23 037162 Mar -Cafe Contrib-CClk 494.78 +001-4050-0090 1 323225 02/23 03102 Mar -Cafe Contrib-Fin 170.92 +001-4210-0090 1 30302B 02/23 031@2 Mar -Late Contrib-Ping :44.43 +001-4310-0090 1 32322E 02!23 0312 yyliar-Lail Contrib-P&R 297.72 +001-45104090 1 303021b .x2/23 03102 Mar -Cafe Contrib-Ener 985.32 TUTAt DUE VEN=DOR ------- 3,970.75 Inland Valley t1ly Rulietn IvDR +001-421@-2115 6 303320 @2!24 031@2 DC19453 Pub Hag -ADR 92.21 66.5@ 1001-4040-2115 3 303028 02/23 (3702 dcl9761 Pub Hrg-Walnut Rus Center 52.115 +0w^i-4219-2115 5 343021 02124 031@2 dc19914 Pub Hrg-LCA 93-1 65.5:9 +001-4210-2115 1 3@3018 02123 03102 dc20@90 PC Mtg DR 92-6 ':9.38 +021-4040-2115 2 323228 @2/23 031@2 dc22371 Bids -Baas Guard Railing 34.00 +801-404@ 2115 1 303@1B 02123 03102 dc21356 Pub Hrg-ZnneCodepmendmnt 68.86 +001-4210-2115 7 32322D @2/24 03102 dc2145t Pub Hro'-PM 23712 61.75 +001-4210-2115 6 303216 02;24 03!02 dc21551 Pub Hrg-ADR 93-2 61.75 +021-4210-2115 9 32322;1 02/24 @31@2 dc.21912 Pub Hrg-CUP 93-2 61.75 1@01-4040-2115 6 3i0.KD 02,124 03102 dc21915 Pub Hrg-TT 5@519 64.13 Tu TAE DUE= 'VENDOR ------- 600.89 Cite, cf Diaaond Bar RUN l`M E: 16:20 U/26193 V 0 t l C N E R R E f I S T E R DUE THRl1.............@31102!93 VENDOR NAME VENDOR Iu. ACCOUNT PRU.'iX--NO BA-jCH PO.LiPUM, LN':.RYipUE "MiU-DESCRIP116N Inland Valley Dly Bulletn IVDD t-001-421@-4222 2 303020 21%1426 Jennings Engstrand Jennina:En }@011-402@-4021 1 383828 John Alden G.T. ,Johnson. Steve *001-4350-41@0 JohnWen 1 303028 John=.•urSte 2 303028 K 4 V Blueprint S?rvir.e kMluePrt 1921-421@-1190 1 3@3028 Kia, Christine {61 }@21-3418 2 32302A L.A. County-Sheri.±f's Dep LACSheriff +001.-4411-5491 1 30322B L.A.County Public Works LALPub'Wk t@@1-2328-1012 1 303028 L.A.County-Dist. attorney LACD.istAtt WI -4020-4021 2 383828 Landscape rest LandsrapcV X141-45+1-5500 2 303028 01!1419 *141-4541-221@ 1 3@3@2B 4141-4541-221@ 2 303028 PAG 7 t PREPAID A11M0UNT LATECP, C --------------------------------- 92124 @302 @2502601 General Plan! Ad 961.50 MAL D:;E VENDOR -------- 981.53 92123 93i92 San Pro' Svcs 16.31 )MAL DI,E VENDUR--------: 16.31 92123 @31@2 Mar Cafeteria-Mvr Muller 452.@9 TOTAL DILE VENDOR --------; -4:2.92 0+2124 0302 PIR C izi Mtn 1128 42.9'1,' luTAL DL,E VENDOR -------- > 40.92 02723 03102 53992 Xerox Paoer 25.84 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------; 28.84 01123 93/02 61.71 Rarreation Refund 30.90 MAL DUE VENDOR --------: 38.02 02(23 431@2 11898 ?an Contract Svcs 271,822.96 MAL DiE VENDOR --------: 271.82236 @2:2:3 03102 93x M6278 WWV Radio -EN 93-007 915.43 TOTAL JRUE VENDOR --------' 715.43 @2723 93102 Dec Legal Svcs 37.48 TOTAL D!IE VENDOR -------- 1 37.46 0123 93192 9289 Jan Contract Svcs 3.21;..60 02!23 @311@2 33^8 iandsclie Svrs-Dist 41 3@3.92 ('212:3 OM2 9319 l.anda pe Seca -Dist 41 130.90 `:,ENDGR - - --- 2.644.60 }* Cit•, of Diamond Bar} RUN '!TIME: 16:20K126/93 V0UCHER RE?1IST ER DUE THRO.............63/62193 VENDOR NAME VENDER 11). ACCOUNT PRO.I.TR-NO BATCH PO.LINE/N+i. ENTW DUE INVOTCti DESCRIP[i0N League of Ca. Cites League 1001-4216-233$ 1 PP20 Leaaue of Ca. Cit es League *001-4210-2334 2 383420 Lehr, Rese 567 *481-3472 3 30382A Leighton and Assn:iates Leighton }421-2380-1812 2 383825 Lewis Engraving Inc. I_ewisEnora +001-4314-1280 4 383028 081-4553-1128 1 323221) }buy --1-4616-2116 3 383820 Li, Michael LiMike {021-4210-4168 5 383$2;; Los Angeles Count; LACInt3vc +041-4090-2138 1 3x3$25 I.oya, 30anne 344 X081-3479 17 32302A Maripcsa Horticultural Mariposa X041-431)-5381 1 363•a,.'rC X061-4313- 5366 1 3K@?C *001-4316-5388 1 343020: 4081-4319-4300 i 3020?C *001-4322-5320 1 3t P,?C X001-43?5-5't0 1 ?0-0222 62124 63162 42124 43192 0/23 0182 6666 0123 03/62 77937 02/23 03162 01.2534 62124 03)62 012567 62/24 03162 612646 0212+ 03162 &,42/23 03162 517 02/23 03102 65)0 62/24 63102 43„7 =02124 a31`A2 4361 6?/24 63162 4367 K/24 03;02 40,67 0.124 63;02 436' 1 f 1.14 y3/fy i --;Ci R2servP1nrs1nst3/16,3i12 IUFAL PREPAID AMOUNT --- TLITAL DUE VENDOR ------- Plnrslnstitute-3118,3/12 !DIAL PREPAID AMOUNT -- TUTA. DUE VENDOR -------- Recreation Refund IOTAL DUE VENDOR --------; Gan;ech5vcs-Dec [DIAL DUE VENDOR ---------; Nameplate-P&RComm Jnhnson Name Plate -David Liu Brass?lates-Ec9n otns TUTAL DUE VENDOR, -------- Ping Comm Mtgs 1111,1125 10TAL DI;E VENDOR ---------- Dec pager Services 100L. DUE. VENDUR Recreation Refund 161AL DI.E VENDOR -------- Jan Maint-PaulGraw .'.:an Maint-Heritage jar: Maint-Mame Hill ,lag Maint-Petersen Jan Maint-Regan ':an in*-Itarshi^e PASE 8 a PREPAID a WONT DATE CRE;lK --------------------------------- 460.60 03/02/93 604-017691 464.ea 6.60 825.04 03/02/93 0000617094 825.0a 6.66 3$.H 3a.4a 647.32 647.33 15.91 9.17 9.41 34.55 124.00 128.02 76.34 %9.38 29.00 29.;33 1,63+;.82 66h..'',6 88.84 1.288.76 ,03x.82 4:9.'4 #* i:ity of Diamond Bar* RUN TIME: 16:20 02/26/93 Y J U C H E R R E 6 I S T E R PAGE 9 DOE THRJ .............03/@2193 VENDOR NAME VENDOR iD. '`REPAID 1 { ACCOUNT PRITJ.Td-NJ BATCH PO,LINE/NJ. ENTRY/1)LIE IN'4[U DKICRlaiiCIN AMOUNT DATE CHF a: Mariposa Horticul-ural Mariposa iC(INT1NUE0 1001-4328-5300 1 3@302C 02/24 03/02 4367 Car, Maint-SunmitRidge 1.545.71 }001-4331-537@ 1 303820 02/24 @3192 4357 Jan Maint-Sycamore 1,583.03 1001-4328-2210 1 3@30C 02/24 03i@2 4368 Repairs -Summit Ridoe 15.41 *00L-4319-2210 1 373720 02124 0317 4369 keaairs-Petersen Park 14.37 TOTAL DUE VENDUR ----- -- 8.554.58 Markman Arczynsk.i Hanson Markaar.Arc *@@1-4024-402@ 1 303728 02/23 03x@2 Jan Lenal Svcs 5,50@.00 *01-4020-4221 @5693 3 ud302B 02/23 03/02 Legal SVCS-CountrySEWer 157.5) *001-420-401 4 323823 07/2:3 0102 Legal. Svcs-DRCitizens 1,857.50 *001-4029-4021 5 3@302B 22/23 03/82 Legal Svcs-DevAgreements 27.0 +701-4022-4021 6 32322$ 02/23 0:3102 Leuat Svcs Gen Litigation 96.0@ IOTAL DUE VENDOR --------; 71648.0 Martin & Chapman '.a. MartiniCha 001-4310-1240 6 373+12" 0111482 @2/24 03/02 93412 Minute Book Paper 156.5` 1001-4040-1100 2 303020 01/1471 02/24 03i@2 930/3 Minute Back. Parer 1,6..'5 TLITAL DUE VENDOR --------: 313.10 McCown, Lee McccvnL *041-4410-2325 1 323278 @7123 03102 S:,cnlies f,.: Mtn 1121 5.00 16TAL DUE VENDOR ----- --: 5.@0 Medina, Raul MedinaR *001-4354-4100 3 303726 02/2; 0342 P&R Comm Mtc1 1/28 40.00 ?OTAL DUEENDORI------- > Mehta, Ajit 95i *01-3478 1@ 32922A 0212:3 03/02 6316 karreation Refund 10.00 (UTAL DUE '.'_NDUR-------- 10.00 Meyer, David MyerD *@01-4210-410 1 333426 0124 03/07 Ping Comm Mtas 1/11.1/25 124.@0 [UTAL DUE "VENDOR -------: 170.00 Mistrv. kumud S4." 10@1-3418 15 3KKA 0123 03102 _098 Recreation Refund 45.02 u;;AL DOLE VENDOR _______._ 4F £.� ±** C—,ty of Diamond Bar ** RUNS !IMF: 16:20 02/26/93 V O U C H E R R E 5 1 5 T E R PAcE 13 DtIE THRd.............03/02/9:1 VENDOR NAME VENDOR 1D. PREPAID it ACCOUNT PROS, TX -h4 BATC4 PJ.IINE/kO. ENTRY/DOE IN'VOlu Dt3CRIPHON WONT DATE CHE k Mobil Mobil *001-4310-2310 1 303928 02/23 03/02 0467452 Fuel -PLM 34.02 X901-4310-2319 2 30392'B 02f23 03/02 0169541 fuel -PLM 36.18 }001-4219-2310 1 303028 92/23 03/02 0169865 Fuel -Ping 16.92 4001-4310-2310 3 393028 02123 03192 k52684=.4 fuel -PLM 20.76 {001-4310-2310 4 30302B 02/23 03/02 k5268995 Fuel -PSM 3A.99 1001-4310-2310 5 30302E 22/23 03102 6268955 F!;el-PLM 34.08 1001-4090-2310 1 303028 02/23 03/92 k5268970 Fuel -Sen 13.0E' *001-4030-2319 1 30302B 02123 03/02 ksle&8981 Fuel-CMRr 11.02 TuTAL DUE VENDOR ---------f% 204.95 Mt. Baldy United 'ay United0av }901-2110-1909 1 303020, 02/24 03102 PayrollContrib-PP1thruPP3 H .50 IOTA" DUE VENDOR --------- 88.52 Myers, Elizabeth Myer5E +001-4049-4900 1 323928 02/23 03/02 93db4 Mnts-0,CMtns 212.2/9 620.90 001-4210-4000 1 303028 01'/23 0310: 93db4 Mn+s-P1ng1-oid1mtg 218 429.02 1901-4219-4000 2 303028 02123 03/02 931b4 Mats -ADR -1/25,2/8;93 6.00 1901-4553-4000 1 30302E 02/23 03/x2 93db4 2111 230.02 TOTAiL DUE VENDOR -------- If 1.3:30.00 Cffire d Planninj CflPingRQs W-1-4210-2320 1 303+23 02:2:; 03102 Plno Publications IOTA" DIIE VENDOR -------- 14.02 Pa^en, Phyllis Paner;P +*901-4010-2330 1 303023 02/24 03/a,2 IndCtvAssoc2/12-2/14 249.51 0312i93 0:it1001 05 LUTA" PREPAID AMOUNT ----; 249.1:5 TUTAt DUE VENDOR ---------- 0.00 Parks, Evelyn 58 +0al-3472 4 3039PA 02/23 03/02 6}22 Re-reation Refund 31.00 1�11AL DUE VENDOR 0 Pasut, Noliv' S49 foal -3418 12 30302A 02123 03102 6549 R2-reatI09 Refund 12.00 IUTAL '''E VENDER -------- 142.02 �* Cita- of Diamond Bar* RUN IIMF:16.20K'1r6/93 VOUCHER R E G T , ER DIUF THRO.............03i92/93 VENDOR NAME VENDOR 11). ACCOUNT PRiMI-NO BATCH PD.LINEMO. ENTRY1DLIE TNVOTCt Dk.31:i21PiION Payroll Transfer }001-1020 Plunk, Lydia F. +001-4210-4100 Postage By Phone +021-4090-2120 Payro+.lTr 1 30302D Plunk, 3 303028 FostByPhan 2 333228 Premiere Leasing :o. Premierele }021-4350-2140 1 303028 03/146° Prietto, Rutheleni 153 +W-3476 9 31312A Prietto, Ruthelena r,62 +081-3476 1 39392; R & D Blueprint +001-2308-1010 +901-2300-1910 +001-4210-2109 R&DBlue 3 303020 4 303020 1 32302C Richard or Christine Hunter8rao +021-4210-1223 2 393021), RW iCka, 3eseph T. Ru2ickaJ *031-43s1-4100 1 3+3328 RASE 1i i PREPAID WONT DATE E:tiEU�: ----------------------------- 02/24 tr3%02 Payroll Transfer-PP3 36,000.00 03102193 000063013 IOTAL PREPAID AWNT ---- 26,000.0a MAL DLIE VENDOR --------r 0.08 02124 03/02 Ping i;omm Mtg5 1/11,1125 120.00 TOTAL DIjE VENDOR ----- --: 12x.00 0212:1 03/02 Postage R2plenishm2nt 520.03 IOTAL DUE VENDOR -------- ,9x.08 02,124 0342 128,32 Bl.da Rental 2116-3116193 564.62 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> ;64.6:2 02'23 03/02 6399 Recreation Refund 36.00 TOTAL DISE VENDOR -------- ';6.00 02123 03/02 679,6 Recreation Refund 100.08 MAL DUE VENDOR -------- 10.09 02124 03/02 10356 BluPrints-Wte Fl!' 9219 46.22 02124 03182 103'6 BluPrints-SoFte FPL 92-c9 6.12 e2124 03/02 1eaS8 BluPrints-SaPte FPL 93-06 22.16 10 AL DUE VENDOR --- ---i 76.5a @;P24 03/02 c912 Namenl.ate-Mever,VC 15.90 IDTAL DUE VENDOR ---------t 15.00 02123 03102 P&R Coal- Mtq 1128 40.00 luiAL DUE VENDOR -------- 4�.0a iUlk 'OUE VFN1?uR --_.__._-- Li'l."cs *{ Lit, of Diamond Bar+* PUN 1IMF: 16:20 9:;26193 V 0 U ': H E R R E G 15 T E R PAGE 12 DUE THRU.............03102/9 VENDOR NAME VENDOR i1n. ACCOUNT PRi.I.TX-N3 BATCH P0.1INE/W. ENI RV/DUE Ip+t}diC Dt,it1P;I0h WONT D81E CHECK S.G. Valley Asn o- Cities 53'JAsniity foal -4010-232S 3 303220 02124 03.'02 Meeting 2118-Papen 181@0 03102/93 @M017094 TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----? 18.0@ TOTAL Di1E VENDOR --------; 0.00 San Francisco Hil-on SfHilton tOK-4310-2330 2 3030220 @2/24 9312 CPRSC:onf 3111 -3114 -Rose 362.97 03/02/93 @020@ MM IUiAL !"RLPAID AMOUNT ----" 362.97 TLiTAi DUE VENDOR --------- 0.00 San Gabriel Vly T-ibure SGVTrihune *001-4210-2115 1@ 30302D 0124 93162 sgvt@611 Pub Hrg-ADR 92-27,92-19 76.@S 4991-4210-2115 11 20302D 92/24 03102 sgvt9612 Pub Hrg-RFP MG 50.31 *001-2308-1019 6 MUD 02/24 03162 s3pt075S Pub Hrg-SoPteFPL92-19 58.97 *001-2300-1010 7 30202D 02124 03102 Ggvta755 Pub Hrg_5oPteFPL92-30 7.49 *001-4210-2115 12 303020 @2124 03162 sgvt@755 Pah Hrg-S0teFPL93-06 21.14 *901-4210-2115 2 30302D 02724 03102 ;gvt6865 Pub hrg ADR 92-21 ;8.50 *001-4210-2115 3 303020 02:24 03102 s:?vt@897 Pub hrg ZCA 93 i 64.34 *9@i-4210-2115 4 3@ 02D 02/24 03M sgvt0917 Pub hrg DR 921-6,CUP 93-1 -.8.50 *021-4@+0-2115 4 373a2C 62124 03162 sgvt09'+0 Bids-b?am Guard Rail 32.76 *e01-4047-2115 S 393=d)C 02124 03102 sgvt1041 P!;b Hrg-•VIT Sf:Si9 ;6.16 TOTAL Di-iF VFNDOH------- 490.23 Se-urirorp Intl inr. Serurirorp *001-45;3-5531 1 373020 02124 031x2 1S'+.51. Jan Classing Gaurd Svcs 5,674.45 *691-4553-5531 2 303a2C 92124 03/02 IS4S4 RETain:naCrssnGrdSvrs-Dec 1.54'M"5 TuTAL DUE VENDOR -------- 71719.8r, Shah, Yogi IS9 t0e1-3478 3 30302A 92123 93102 6441 Rarreation Refund MAL 1111E VENDOR --------: 3.9.00 Siecke, Varren C. SieckEO W-1-2307-1612 3 R302C e2124 63102 2'?72 12 Prof SvcsTrfcSign1EN93-002 17e.@7 *991-4553-5222 2 2KIM 92124 63/02 29@3-8 PrGfSVrs-TrfrSignals 192.00 t@a1-4553-5222 1 30322C @2/24 63/02 297+-8 Prof Svcs-TrfcSignals 352.0 i0fk DUE VENDOR -------; 714.90 Silver Image Phot.?graphy 511verimag *001-40i0-2110 2 37372/ e2124 610? Portrait -Mar Bride 211.25 iUlk 'OUE VFN1?uR --_.__._-- Li'l."cs + C1ty 0 5iaR0nd Bar * * RUN !IMF: 16:20 02/26193 V O U C H E R R E 6 I S T i R PA8E 13 DIE THRU........... —0102193 VENDOR NAME VENDOR .1D. + 4 ACCOUNT PR'lQ.Tx-NO BATCH PO.lISE/NO. ENTRY/DuE INVOIC, DESCRIPTIO: AMOUNT DALE wHFCY Sir Speedy SirSaeedv +001-421e-2116 2 30382, 02124 63/02 108"4 PrintingSvcc-Bi.isCards 1h5.5'9 +001-4696-2116 1 30302C 02/24 03/02 11661 PrintingSvrs-Envelopes 246.19 TUTAf. DUE VENDOR -------- 414.31, SkillPath Inc. SkillPath +001-4516-2346 1 30382C 0212+ 03/02 Seminar 3116-ban.al.e 99.08 101AL DUE VENDOR --------, +9.00 Southern Ca. Edis)n SoCaEdi4on +001-4311-2126 1 38382D 01.124 63162 ElectSvcs-Paul brow 25.20 1001-4316-2126 1 36301D E2/24 03/02 tlectSvcs-Manle Hill Prk 316.99 +041-4319-2126 1 3838211 62124 63/62 Elvt9-cs-Petersen Prk 31.44 Q01-4331-2126 i 30302D 02i24 03/12 Cvn 336.40 TUTA DUE VENDOR -------- 712.0 Southern Ca. Edis3n SoC2Edison +0ai-4553-2126 1 30302D 02124 63162 ElectSvcs-TrffcControl 2,573.16 1U[AL DUE VENDUP--------; 2.573.76 Southern Ca. Fdis)n SnC;Fdison +138-4536-2126 1 303020 e2i24 03/02 ElectSvcs-District 38 161..64 ICTAL WE VENDOR --------: 161.04 Southern Ca. Edisin SnCaEdison +1019-4539-2126 1 303820 02124 e3/e2 ElectSvc4-5istrict 39 160.93 1 b ,"AL DOE VE dDGR-------- 196.93 Southern Ca. Edis n SoCaFdison +141-4541-2126 1 3838211 02/24 e3/02 ElectSvcs-District 41 67.64 101AL ai;E VENDOR -------- 67.64 Standard Insurance of Ore Standardln +601-2116-1065 1 30392C e2/24 13162 Mar Supplant Life Ins 17.00 0TAL DUE ':ENDUR--------; 17.k0 Tanahara, Karen 554 +601-341$ 3 38302A 02/13 6312 6195 Recreation Refund 33.00 lufAL D11E VENDOR --------i 3.Ee * mita of Diamond Har RUN FIMF: 16:23 3':'/26/93 V 0 U C H E R R E 6 I S T E R PAK i4 DOF THRU ............. U Q217i 4'ENDUR NAME V'FNDOR 1D. PREPAID * + AGC,ui.►fi1 PR41J.T1(-N9 BATCH PD.IIkF/hD. ENTRY/DUE IA`rDlCt DFS1RIPiiDtt AMUtitdT DATE CHEEK Towne Center. Travel, TowneCente *831-4316-2333 2 303020 62/2+ 63/62 Sar.r-Werner,Miller 224.33 03/62/93 OOU017015 *W -4046-2333 1 30302D 32/24 33/32 Ch:pbrRetreatChras 231.08 03/32/93 0606017096 *031-4316-2333 1 303020 07/24 63/62 AirChrgs-1PRS Conf.-Rose 12&.00 03/02/93 6330017t?8 FETAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----> 563.03 TOTAL DUE VENDOR------- 6.0n Traffic Control Sprvi,_es FrfCntri5v *021-4556-5500 2 333070 0l/1530 07/2+ 03102 a3S7 3 Construction Signs &+S.9& TUTAL DliE `,`ENDUR--------- 845.916 US Sprint U5prir.t *061-4510-2125 1 30302C 07/2+ 03/02 Eagr Lana Dist Pine Svrs 10.s8 TUTAL DUE VENDUR-------- 1e.'6 U1traSystems Engileers UltraSyste *331-2333-1e10 5 30302C 02/24 63162 121060 DP. Prof Svcs-FER 92-01 6,519.45 *031-2368-1811 1 30302C 02;24 03/02 121660 Dec Prr5f Svrs-fcR 92-02 3.019.43 *061-2333-1011 2 303021C 0/2+ 03/62 121063 Dec Pro: Svcs-FER 92-0{ 8+2.95 TOTAL ''. �E VCNDUR -- --- -_ 13,411.83 Unocal Unocal *601-4033-231.6 2 30302C 07/24 63/62 409184 Fuel-CMar 17.76 *4^31 4318-2313 6 303021 82/24 83)02 469202 Fre!-P&M 34.26 TOTAL DOF VENDOR-------- 52.61 Urns, Donald 'UryD *00i-4553-416e 2 303321 0712+ 83/62 T&F Cum; Mtn 2/11193 4t�.00 1!11fAL i i;F dENDUR--------; 48.00 walnut Station BD Afer WSir* aoster *021-4016-2325 1 30WC 0212? 03/02 Sheri-f's Dinner-Forbing 2`-;.00 iW AL Da VENDUR--------> 25.r0 Walnut Valley Uni ipd WVU" D *001-4354-2146 2 30302' 0712+ 63/62 Fac 1?tyhe-Fall 9? 141261.00 161A+_ *# C: t v o f D i a m o n d B a r # RUN 1IMF : 1b:20 6126193 'Y U U C H f: R R E b 1. I E R P,seF 11 DUE THRJ .............e310203 VENDOR NAME V000F ID. * PREPAID f + ACCOUNT PRO.7.T1-N0 BATCH PO.LINS/N'Ll. ENTRY/DUE INVOf.I DESCRIPTION AmikINT DATE CNE_X gelling, Yvonne 556 *001-3478 6 30302A 02i123 03102 6176 Recreation Raiund 34.0"0 TOTAL DUE VENDUR--------- 34.03 West Cnast Arborist Inc. WCArbor {021-45SS-SS29 3 32382. 0111417 02/24 03/02 75`F8 EzerSvcs-Tree Trim 380.0 TOTAL DUE VENDOR West Publishina West?iib *001-4090-23220 1 30302C e?Q4 03102 66+41482 Cali; 3udicidlFormBook 23.82 TOTAL 4444E VENDOR ------- 23,62 Wright, Paul WrightP *021-2380-le1e 8 3238?D 02124 03/02 Audio7resPingComm-2122 44.52 *001-2300-1010 9 2K02D 02;24 :3102 AudioSvcsPingCaam-2122 43.63 *001-2322-le1e 10 32322v 02124 03102 Audio3vcsP1ngComm-212.2 30.00 *001-4210-4200 3 30302D 82/24 Audir-SvrsPinuComm-2122 12.03 TUTAI DUE VENDOR --------. 182.08 YMCA VMCA *125-4215-2355 1 303 2'x. 324?4 034? san,reh%DdSteimb-Chld%are 1,384.00 10TAL 00.E VENDUR---------; I, ^84. t 3 YMCA VMCA *125-4214-23SS 2 303820 e2/24 03102 Deci:,08SR2imb-ChldCare 1.858.00 03/02/43 0202017096 101 -AL I'REPAiD AMOUNT ---- 178.:68.03 ?UTAS DUE 'VENDOR --------? 0,03 Zellerbach Zellerbach *081-4090-1202 3 3232211 01/1586 02/24 03/02 1101436115 Copy Paper 274.41 i01AL DUE "L41i0 ---- -- 274.41 TUTAL. PREPAIf1 - -- - ----' 42,570.19 10fAL DUE ---------------- 486.2:9.27 TUTA1 REPDRf------------; 528.199.46 11ty of DiaaoliI bar +*# RJN TIM -C: 16:20 t?''i2093 v D U C H E R R E G 1 5 T E R FUND SUMMARY REPORT DUE THRU.............0:3i22193 tiiSBUkEE 8i._ u::E wTl,_ PC;T b E 1195 PCSILD tUTUPE 1RAMSAIGIJ k FUN^ TU,AL D?RcC; PAY REVENUF FXPc NSi hVENJE EtPt:ti r. MENUE EXPEN'S I: Hi General. Fund 3991649.45 51.,584.3.4 638.13 346170.16 1:36 LLAD E..^;6 Fund 5,1�i7.64 5,137.64 139 LLAD 139 Fund 6,276.93 61276M PS6 F.I.P. Fund 137.1 3.75 137,153.15 115 Int Waste Mgiv F 23.45 2:3.45 225 brand Av Cons. F 3161a.t8 141 LLAD 141 Fund 3,732.24 3,732.24 125 CDBS Fund 3.244. t 3 3.244.0 TUTAL------------ ----------- ---------------------- ALL FUNDS L28,759.46 =_1.544.14 P"8.13 476,4:7.19 MEMORANDUM TO: Pro Tom pan qu. and Councilsem1bor Potbing FRONS Linda GoMagauson Accounting Manager if, SUBJECT: Voucher Viegistor., March 2, 1993 DATE: FebrU&17 29t 1993 Attached is the Voucher Register dated March 2, 1993. As requested, the Finance Department is submitting the voucher register for the Finance.Comwittee's review and approval prior to their entry on the Consent Calander. The checks will be produced after any recommendations and th*final approval is received. Please review and sign the attached. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR VOUC13ER REGISTER APPROVAL The attached listing of vouchers dated March 2, 1993 has been audited approved and recommended for payment. Payments are hereby allowed from the following funds in these amounts: FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION —AMOUNT 001 General Fund 115 Int. Waste Mgt. Fund 125 CDBG Fund 138 LLAD #38 Fund 139 LLAD #39 Fund 141 LLAD #41 Fund 225 Grand Ave. Const. Fund 250 CIP Fund TOTAL ALL FUNDS APPROVED BY: 6" 1 -�6w�� Linda G. Magriatbn Accounting Manager Terrence L. Belang r City Manager $399,049.45 23.45 3,224.00 5,707.64 6,278.93 3,732.24 3,610.00 107,153.75 $528,799.46 Phyl is E. Papen Mayor Pro Tem John A. Forbing Councilmember CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CDD/DeStefano stated that a member of the audience expressed his concern regarding traffic in Diamond Bar, and the need to look at how the South Pointe Master Plan project might impact the Pathfinder Bridge. The suggestion was made to look at the future bridge construction planned, and consider developing it into possibly 6 lanes, or at least developing the bridge with a secured emergency access lane. CDD/DeStefano informed the audience member that the Pathfinder Bridge plans are available at City Hall, for his review, and that the South Pointe Master Plan would not come before the Commission any sooner than January 25, 1993. CDD/DeStefano stated that he will forward the comments made, regarding the bridge, to the City Engineer, as well as the City's Environmental consultant on the South Pointe Master Plan project. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Plunk stated that she will be abstaining from voting on the Minutes of December 14, 1992 because Minutes of she was not present during that meeting. Dec. 14, 92 Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of December 14, 1992, as presented. C/Plunk abstained. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at Air Quality Management 7:08 p.m. at the South Coast District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Meyer, Grothe, Li, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. SWEARING IN: Newly appointed Commissioner, Lydia Plunk, was fill sworn in, by City Clerk Lynda Burgess, to seat vacated by Dexter MacBride. PRESENTATION: Chairman Flamenbaum presented Dexter MacBride with Planning a plaque commending his services as Commissioner. MATTERS FROM THE Chair/ Flamenbaum informed the audience that the AUDIENCE/PUBLIC scheduled South Pointe Master Plan review has been COMMENTS continued to a date unknown, but no sooner than litigation January 25, 1993, due to the pending involving the General Plan. CDD/DeStefano stated that a member of the audience expressed his concern regarding traffic in Diamond Bar, and the need to look at how the South Pointe Master Plan project might impact the Pathfinder Bridge. The suggestion was made to look at the future bridge construction planned, and consider developing it into possibly 6 lanes, or at least developing the bridge with a secured emergency access lane. CDD/DeStefano informed the audience member that the Pathfinder Bridge plans are available at City Hall, for his review, and that the South Pointe Master Plan would not come before the Commission any sooner than January 25, 1993. CDD/DeStefano stated that he will forward the comments made, regarding the bridge, to the City Engineer, as well as the City's Environmental consultant on the South Pointe Master Plan project. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Plunk stated that she will be abstaining from voting on the Minutes of December 14, 1992 because Minutes of she was not present during that meeting. Dec. 14, 92 Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of December 14, 1992, as presented. C/Plunk abstained. January 11, 1993 Page 2 M PUBLIC HEARING: PT/Lungu showed a silent video of the site while presenting the staff report. The applicant, Corner Tentative Parcel Stone Partners Walnut, LTD., is requesting to Map No. 23629 subdivide one parcel into ten parcels, with four of the ten parcels divided into units A and B, Lot A for the private street, and a common area consisting of parking and landscape space for the purpose of commercial condominiums, to be located at the Walnut Business Center, 20418 Walnut Drive. The applicant has indicated that trash enclosures, for parcels 3 and 7A, are provided, but was just not clearly delineated on the site plan. The Planned Sign Program was approved by the Planning Commission on November of 1992. The applicant is planning on selling all parcels, except 1, 2, and 3 in which the applicant will retain ownership of these parcels. PT/Lungu, correcting the staff report, stated that there are 258 parking spaces provided, with 56 spaces provided on Yellowbrick Road, totaling 314 parking spaces. With the proposed subdivision and the existing uses within the business center, 292 parking spaces are needed. The Fire Department will agree to parking on both sides of Yellowbrick Road. Staff feels that the street parking should be counted toward the number of parking spaces required for the business center. For the purpose of the proposed parcel map, a reciprocal parking agreement by and for all lots will be necessary to meet the parking requirement. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the Mitigated negative Declaration and Tentative parcel Map No. 23629 with the Findings of Fact and conditions listed. It is staff's recommendation to amend the conditions in the Resolution that the fire lanes not only be delineated on the map, but also be delineated on the site, and that the reciprocal parking agreement be recorded. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. James Camp, an employee of Corner Stone Partners, Inc., stated that the intent of the subdivision is to sell the individual buildings to small business owners in the Diamond Bar area. In response to a series of inquiries made by C/Meyer, James Camp made the following comments: all the buildings are individually metered for all utilities; there is one master meter for all the landscaping, to be maintained by the Maintenance District created in the CC&R's; because the building code requirement, requiring a one hour fire wall on each side of a property line, was unachievable, Lot A, building 4, 5 and 7, cannot be divide into separate legal January 11, 1993 Page 3 parcels, therefore, those buildings will be sold as condominiums; there are two billboards located in the common area space of the site; two individuals have the rights and the easement for those billboards, and at the termination of their agreement, they are obligated to remove them, or continue to operate them; the applicant would not be amenable to a condition requesting the removal of the billboards at the termination of those agreements because of the costs involved, and because the applicant does not have legal rights to the billboards; though the billboards are on our property, we have no control over them, and we do not participate in the revenue; there is presently on site lighting for the buildings, and light fixtures on Yellowbrick Road; and there are public utilities on site, and easements recorded for all the utilities. C/Li inquired about the present vacancy rate for the Center, and if the applicant is subdividing because of economic factors. James Camp stated that the park is presently 100% occupied. The property was purchased with the intent of dividing it, and eventually selling the building. There are many tenants in the project now that are interested in buying their buildings. James Camp, in response to C/Plunk, stated that they are aware that there is a graffiti problem. To combat the problem, we have planted vines along the Pomona freeway. We are amenable, as a condition, to participate with the City to combat graffiti at that location. C/Plunk inquired if the applicant would be willing to have graffiti resistant paint applied to the project as a condition to the project. She suggested that casings be placed on the roof ladders as another possible deterrent. James Camp indicated that they would first want to investigate the costs and benefit of the graffiti resistant paint, versus simply repainting on a continuous basis, before agreeing to such a condition. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the condition, in the CC&R's, indicating the need to go to court for enforcement of the CC&R's, be deleted and replaced with the condition indicating arbitration pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), or some other neutral body. He January 11, 1993 Page 4 also suggested that the CC&R's include a condition that, in case of new ownership, present owners can remain for a yet to be determined number of years before they are evicted. Martha Brusque, residing at 600 South Great Bend Drive, expressed her concern that allowing street parking, to be used to help meet the parking requirements, may cause crime and other such problems. Chair/Flamenbaum pointed out that Yellowbrick Road is a private road, in which street parking is presently permitted. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. PT/Lungu, in response to C/Meyer, stated the following: the Fire Department has indicated that the 4 existing hydrants meet their requirements; and the AQMD Rule 15 requirement, regarding a Parking Management Plan for areas with over 100 employees, does not apply to this project because the use has not changed. C/Meyer suggested that the City explore the potential of having the Property Owners Association maintain some sort of incentive program for a Parking Management Program. PT/Lungu, in response to C/Plunk, stated that the billboards are owned by Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Boller. A legal non conforming sign, such as the billboards on this project site, can be removed when the City's Sign Code is 15 years old, per the amortization clause. DCA/Fox explained that the Outdoor Advertising Act allows billboard owners vested rights to maintain a billboard for up to 15 years without being compensated by a public entity that wishes to have them removed. In response to C/Meyer, DCA/Fox pointed out that since the owners of the billboards are not present to address their rights, it would not be appropriate to work out an arrangement to address the existing nonconforming condition. In regards to the CC&R's, DCA/Fox suggested that, though there is a condition requiring that the CC&R's be maintained as approved by the City, there should be an additional condition, to condition 5C, that any modifications to the CC&R's be approved by the Commission or the City Council. He also suggested that a condition regarding graffiti January 11, 1993 Page 5 abatement may be more properly .placed in the CC&R's. C/Grothe expressed his concern that the multi tenant buildings 1, 2, & 3, should remain as one parcel because there is a potential for disagreement between possible multiple land owners, multiple policies and procedures with tenants, and the Association, in regards to parking, and maintenance of the common area. C/Meyer suggested that a transportation demand management program, under the responsibility of the Property owners Association, could help mitigate potential parking problems. C/Grothe stated that the configuration of these buildings do not lend themselves well to be subdivided. The property lines jog in front of the next building, the differences in the buildings are not identifiable, and changes in ownerships could mean a change in standards in maintaining the common area, as well as parking. James Camp, in response to C/Plunk, explained that their intent is to keep parcels 1, 2, & 3 as a leased investment. However, we desire the flexibility to sell it to smaller investors because there are'very few multi tenant buildings the size of parcels 1, 2, & 3 available in the market place. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum, James Camp stated that there are many light fixtures, approximately one near each building, similar to parking lot light fixtures, illuminating Yellowbrick Road. Motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Li to approve the project subject to the conditions as recommended by staff in the staff report. C/Meyer requested that a condition regarding a Transportation Demand Management program be added to the CC&R's. In regards to the graffiti program, he stated that he does not feel it is appropriate to require the property owners, in a request for a subdivision, to pay additional revenue to combat graffiti, penalizing them because someone, without invitation, is putting graffiti on their building. The citizens have, through taxing methods, hired police to apprehend and prosecute people violating laws. The property owner is being asked to pay more for protection he should already have, which does not seem appropriate as a subdivision requirement. January 11, 1993 Page 6 DCA/Fox indicated that the CC&R's could include a condition that the property owner, or the Association, shall maintain all of the property in a graffiti free condition. In this way, they have the option of eliminating the graffiti themselves, and are not being required to participate in the City's graffiti removal program. C/Grothe, concurring with C/Meyer that a graffiti program is not appropriate, suggested that the Commission recommend that the owners fix a few of the deficiencies so that the property is more graffiti preventive. C/Plunk pointed out that it may not be appropriate to ask the general tax payer to pay extra for someone not maintaining their property, and keeping it graffiti free. C/Meyer pointed out that it is in the City's judgement that, it is in the public interest, to have the City graffiti free. If a graffiti program is required for this project, then perhaps it should also be required as a provision for room additions on single family homes as well. It does not seem appropriate to demand participation of a graffiti program on a request for a subdivision. Since combating the graffiti problem is a cooperative venture, he stated that he concurs with requiring such items as additional lighting and security as a means for graffiti prevention. C/Meyer then suggested that item 2, requiring participation in the City's graffiti removal program, and item 3, requiring the use of anti - graffiti paint, in the supplemental staff report, be deleted. In regards to the anti -graffiti paint, C/Meyer explained that using the paint is extremely expensive and labor intensive. C/Meyer recommended that the applicant be encouraged to explore the possibility of having an arbitration clause included in the CC&R's. He also suggested that a time notice be given regarding the billboard issue. Chair/Flamenbaum recommended that there also be a condition protecting the lessee against eviction, if there is a change of ownership, preserving the tenants rights in the property. DCA/Fox pointed out that a prudent lessee would have in the lease a provision contemplating a change of ownership. Staff will investigate if there are appropriate safeguard options available, January 11, 1993 Page 7 if the Commission so desires, and include them in the Resolution if. feasible. The Commission concurred. C/Grothe recommended that, as a graffiti preventive measure, there should be a condition indicating that the applicant shall add additional lighting and landscaping along the property adjacent to the freeway, and encourage the applicant to secure the exterior ladders to the roof. PT/Lungu stated that condition 5.V of the Resolution, should be deleted. Chair/Flamenbaum directed staff to draft the Resolution of Approval, determining if the recommendations made should go into the CC&R's or into the Resolution of Approval, to be brought back to the Commission for approval at the next meeting. The Commission then voted upon the Motion made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Li, and amended as follows: to approve staff's recommendation subject to the conditions as recommended by staff in the staff report, deleting condition 5.V of the Resolution, and deleting items 2 & 3 of the supplemental staff report, and adding items 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8, of the supplemental staff report, in which item 6 is the Transportation Demand Management, item 7 is the Arbitration Clause, item 8 is a relocation plan protecting the rights of the tenant, and to also include the recommendation for additional lighting and landscaping, as well as modifying item 4 to secure the exterior ladders to the roof. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Li, Grothe, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. The meeting was reconvened the meeting at 8:47 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: C/Grothe nominated C/Meyer as Vice Chairman. C/Li seconded the nomination. Selection of Vice Chairman AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Li, Grothe, Plunk, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. The nomination of C/Meyer as Vice Chairman was approved unanimously. January 11, 1993 page 8 COMMISSION C/Grothe indicated that it would be appropriate to COMMENTS: have a policy of informing Commissioners of personnel changes on the Commission or staff prior to reading about it in the newspapers. C/Li requested information regarding the formation of the Sewer District formed within "The Country". ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. to January 18, 1993. Respectively, J mes DeStefan Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman 42vu MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Plunk. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Plunk, Grothe, Li, Vice Chairman Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum. C/Plunk excused herself from the meeting at 12:00 a.m. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Interim City Engineer George Wentz, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MATTER FROM Oscar Law, residing at 2150 Pathfinder, expressed THE AUDIENCE: his concern for the need of an access lane for emergency vehicles during the construction phase of the Pathfinder Bridge Widening Project. He also expressed his concern that the project only proposes 4 lanes, when in actuality, it requires 6 lanes to maintain the traffic increase from future growth. ICE/Wentz explained that the Pathfinder Bridge Widening Project is under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. The contract for the project has already been awarded, and the anticipated date for construction is April of 1993. Staff will contact the County and Caltrans to discuss the concern related to emergency vehicle access. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of Minutes of January 11, 1993, as presented. Jan. 11, 93 OLD BUSINESS: PT/Lungu reported that a Resolution of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629 is before the Tentative Parcel Planning Commission for consideration, as well as a Map No. 23629 memo from the Deputy City Attorney, Craig Fox, addressing the issues of arbitration and relocation of tenant, and the addition of statements to the CC&R's regarding these issues. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, and seconded by C/Li to approve Resolution 93-1. C/Plunk, noting that Mr. Camp, the applicant's representative, had indicated, at the last meeting, his willingness to participate in combating graffiti and partake in a cost benefit analysis of painting with graffiti resistant paint versus January 25, 1993 Page 2 continuously repainting, suggested a substitute Motion to approve Resolution 93-1, with the amendment that the applicant be required to participate in the City's graffiti abatement program. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that it was determined, at the last meeting, that it would not be appropriate to penalize this one single applicant by requiring him to participate in the City's graffiti abatement program. The applicant is willing to take measures, such as additional lighting and vegetation, as a means for graffiti prevention. C/flunk's substitute Motion died for lack of a second. The Planning Commission voted upon the Motion made by VC/Meyer, and seconded by C/Li to approve Resolution 93-1 for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: CDD/DeStefano reported that, the proposed before the Commission, is a request for approval of a General Plan mixed use project consisting of land uses which Amendment 92-2; include residential, commercial, open space and DA 92-1, 92-2, school facilities. The project site, approximately 92-3; Vesting 171 acres, is located within the South Pointe TT Map 5140, Middle School/ Sandstone Canyon area, and is CUP 92-8 & presently owned by 5 entities, three of which are Oak Tree Permit private and two are public. An Environmental 92-8; Vesting Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance TT 32400, CUP with State guidelines, circulated to various State 91-5, Zone and local agencies, and has been available to the Change 91-2 & general public for over 6 weeks. This is the first Oak Tree Permit public hearing on the proposed South Pointe Master 91-2; TT Map Plan project before the Commission. The Planning 51253-& CUP Commission will not take any action on the merits 92-12; Oak Tree of this project this evening, but will receive Permit 92-9; the testimony, and provide comments and direction to South Pointe staff. Discussion of the merits of this project Master Plan; & will be continued to February of 1993. There can EIR 92-9. be no final action on this proposed project, until the issue of the pending litigation with proponents of a referendum upon the City's General Plan is resolved. CDD/DeStefano then introduced Peter Lewendowski, from the firm of Ultrasystems, who prepared the EIR, and Hardy Strozier,. of the Planning Associates, who is the project manager. Hardy Strozier explained that a project team as been pulled together to manage the preparation of an EIR, which evaluates all topical issues required January 25, 1993 Page 3 under State Law, and put together a Master Development Plan, which guides the planning and the execution of various engineering entitlements as the project develops over the next five to ten years, if approved. The 42 page staff report, presented to the Planning Commission, is a condensed version of the environmental documentation previously presented to the Commission. The following 8 specific items will be reviewed by the Commission over the intervening weeks: the EIR (the Commission still has the option to either deny or approve the project, even if the Planning Commission chooses to recommend certification of this EIR to the City Council); the General Plan Amendment (the existing water district property needs to have a redesignation to Planned Development); the Development Agreement (this will be provided later for the Commission's review); Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 - Arciero (no staff report); Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 - Patel (no staff report); Vesting Tentative Map No. 51407 - RnP (no staff report); Hillside Management Ordinance CUP; and an Oak Tree Removal Permit. The Notice of Preparation of the draft EIR was distributed for 30 days, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and there was a 45 day review period to allow for written comments regarding the draft EIR, which ended January 18, 1993. The notices for public hearing was mailed,on January 14, 1993, to approximately 1,100 property owners adjacent to the project site. The EIR was prepared by the independent firm of Ultra Systems, and they provided independent conclusions on the analysis of all the topical areas found in the draft EIR. Two impacts were identified, in summary of the independent consultants review, that could not be mitigated below a level of significance: traffic and air quality. The intent this evening is to solicit community input on the draft EIR, and respond to any questions that the Commission may direct to staff and the planning consultants. VC/Meyer requested Mr. Lewendowski to explain the purpose of an EIR. Mr. Lewendowski explained that CEQA requires governmental agencies, who have authority over particular projects, to include, in their decision making process, an analysis of the projects impacts upon the environment. The City prepared an initial study for this project and concluded that the project implementation had the potential to result in significant impacts upon the environment. Based January 25, 1993 Page 4 upon that conclusion, the City directed the preparation of an EIR, which represents a detailed technical analysis of the project's direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts upon the environment. The intent of CEQA is to provide an environmental basis for the decision making process, and to insure public access to the decision makers so as to insure a full disclosure of the projects potential impacts, potential alternatives that may be available to the decision makers to adopt project alternatives that may produce lesser impacts, and to identify and develop mitigation measures which might further reduce the impacts identified in the analysis and brought forward through public testimony. Upon conclusion of the review period, the environmental consultant will return to the City a document called a Response to Comments. Based upon all the written and oral comments received during this review period, formal written replies will be provided, furnishing technical, analytical conclusions for the various comments raised. The Response to Comment document and the draft EIR, in addition to whatever other documents the City may wish to include, constitute the final EIR for the project. The certification of the final EIR is a precursor to the City's ability to take any action on the project. Frank Arciero, Jr., a principal of Arciero & Sons, who has owned the property on Brea Canyon Road up to the existing school site, adjacent to the old water tank site, and adjacent to the existing subdivision built by Shea Development for about 7 years, explained that, prior to incorporation, they sold 23 acres to the School District for the school site. At that time they were in the process of moving an R-1 project along through the County, with the understanding to grade the school site and move the balance of the dirt onto our piece of property. Following incorporation, we applied to City to get the R-1 development built so we could move the balance of the dirt, from the school site, then the School District could build their structure. The City approached me, two years ago, and I concurred, to meet with the adjoining property owners to master plan the entire area. he concurred. The plan is very beneficial to the City. He then indicated that Mr. Forrester, the owner of the adjoining property, who was unable to attend this meeting, also supports the Master Plan. Mr. Patel, owner of the property on Morning Sun Dr., which is adjacent to the RNP tract, stated January 25, 1993 Page 5 that he bought the property 8 years ago and planned to build about 25 homes. When the City asked him to join in the Master Plan, he concurred. The project will benefit the City and the community. Hardy Strozier gave a brief overview of the components of the project: 171 acres; Tract 51407 (RnP) identifies 90 dwelling units; Tract 51253 (Patel) identifies 27 dwelling units; Tract 32400 (Arciero) identifies 91 dwelling units; a 31 acre two parcel commercial site; a new collector road, identified in the Master Plan as Road A, which connects Morning Sun Drive to Brea Canyon Road; and a proposed 20 acre park, in which approximately half passive and half is active. The EIR not only identifies the adverse impacts of this proposed project, and those impacts that cannot be completely mitigated, but community benefits as well. He then highlighted some of the benefits identified in the project description: a proposed community park site, of which 12 acres are usable; changes in Road A provides a relative benefit to the park site in terms of access and parking; it has been identified that the 31 acre commercial site can generate up to $400,000 to $500,000 dollars a year net revenue to the City; there is a proposed dedication of 10 to 15 acres of property to the City that has a value to the City between $4 and $6 million dollars of improved land value; it would generate 465 new jobs in the City; it would allow the completion of South Pointe Middle School; it would remove 400,000 cubic yards of dirt located on the school site that, according to the School District's EIR, would be deposited into the upper part of Sandstone Canyon to complete the buildout of the school; the improvement of Street A would allow a new connection to allow transit of students to and from the school, reducing the dependency upon Larkstone and Lemon Street to access the school; and there are numerous off site traffic improvements provided through the EIR mitigation program that would provide signalization and other intersection geometrics in widening of various streets adjacent to the project site. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 7:53 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:03 p.m. Hardy Strozier explained that the purpose of the public hearing is to receive comments on the draft EIR. The EIR is an information document. The Planning Commission is to ensure that there is enough information, in the EIR, that would allow a decision on the project. He reiterated that January 25, 1993 Page 6 approval of the EIR does not connote approval of the project. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Chair/Flamenbaum reminded the audience that the consultants will be responding to any questions or comments made, regarding the EIR, at a later meeting. Sharon Bowler, residing at 1603 Morning Sun Ave., Walnut, expressed her concern that notice for the public hearing was put in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, a newspaper that one must subscribe to, and not put in both sections of the Highlander, one for Rowland Heights/Walnut and one for Diamond Bar. She made the following comments: since the Morning Sun Ave. area consists of existing homes on lots ranging from 1/3 acre to 1/2 acre, there should be a minimum of 12,000 square foot lots on the proposed development; the proposed collector street should be circled through the proposed complex, and not directly on to the Morning Sun Ave. area; opening up the street will create more traffic, affecting the children who play on that existing cul-de-sac, especially since presently there .are no sidewalks. Since currently, there have been mudslides running into the cul-de-sac area due to the recent heavy rains, she questioned what would happen when development occurred on those unstable hills in the proposed site, particularly to the 4 homes at the bottom of the hill at the end of the cul-de-sac; and there is a flood hazard zone in the middle of the site. Anne Flesher, residing at 20647 Larkstone Drive, stated that the residents of Diamond Bar need to work together to make this the best workable situation possible, instead of looking to who is good or bad. She expressed the following concerns: allowing the 400,000 cubic yards of dirt to be removed coming down Larkstone Drive, as has been suggested by some, would require 26,000 truck trips over a 4 1/2 month period, with a truck leaving every five minutes, ten hours a day, six days a week; Larkstone Drive was designed for 200 car trips a day, but it now carries 1,200 car trips a day; and something must be done by the Planning Commission to alleviate the traffic on Larkstone Drive that will also benefit the children, the residents on the existing property, and the developers. She pointed out that all of the homes January 25, 1993 Page 7 in Diamond Bar were developed on cut and fill property. William Gross, residing at 21637 Highbluff Road, made the following comments: he questioned what was known at City Hall about this project while the City was buying the surplus land from the Water District; since Mayor Miller, at one time, owned various parcels in this project, the EIR should address his involvement in any transaction involving this property; though the consultant has indicated that 1,100 homes were notified of the public hearing, only about 300 to 400 homes were actually notified because the mailing lists not only overlap, but are outdated; the public was charged .25 cents a page for a copy of the mailing lists; the 4,000 people who signed the referendum are a good representation of the City; mitigation is a method of ignoring the problems; the EIR should address the impacts of putting 400,000 cubic yards of dirt into the Sandstone Canyon, as well as address how that dirt got there, and who is responsible for it; the EIR should address alternative methods of removing the dirt, such as trucking it out the Brea Canyon side; since it has been indicated that 400 plus jobs will be created from the project, then the vacant centers throughout the City should be explained; Street "A" will be another means by which motorists will by pass the freeway and travel through the City; and there are other alternatives to building the school and moving the dirt that need to be explored and that will save the canyon. Nellie Reyes, residing at 1728 Morning Sun Ave., Walnut, 91789, pointed out that, with all the time that has passed, the developer could have removed a quarter of the dirt by now. Furthermore, the Government apparently recognizes the need to maintain open land otherwise they would not have federally funded parks. Open land needs to be preserved for our future children. Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane, pointed out that when the hillside along Brea Canyon Road is graded, 9 million cubic yards of dirt that will be pushed into that Canyon, killing over 97% of the tree existing there. In reference to Section 10, of the consultants report, regarding the Hillside Management ordinance, indicating that the proposed project includes grading techniques which minimize grading in portions of the project by incorporating extensive open space and significant use of green belts, he stated that his January 25, 1993 Page 8 interpretation of the EIR is quite different, and there are many questions that are being left unanswered. Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shaded Wood Road, expressed the following concerns: the project will increase the decibel level from 45 to 55 decibels to over 90 decibels, severely impacting those homes along the Pathfinder Road and Shaded Wood Road areas; the traffic problem will become insurmountable on Brea Canyon Road; what is the height of the finished structure, both commercial and residential, relating to the grade level of the existing homes on Shaded Wood Road and Starshine; will the views of the existing homes be impacted by air conditioning equipment; what will happen to the wildlife, such as cougars, deer, raccoons, redtail fox, titmice, when their entire natural habitat is destroyed; what controls are there for light pollution; what controls are there for commercial development, and will it be manufacturing, wherehouses, etc.; will privacy of the existing residents be impacted; what kind of land clearing will come up to the existing properties; will the toes of the existing hillsides, supporting existing homes, be disturbed, and create sliding; what security safeguards will be used when the natural canyon, the present intrusion barrier, is destroyed; the tree count in the EIR is incorrect because it is based upon the Tree Ordinance, which does not recognized many>of the trees; 97% of the vegetation in the canyon will be destroyed, along with some of the wildlife; the City has the last vestige Black Walnut forest left in the State; children can no longer go on wilderness trips through the Canyon; there are trees, in the Canyon, that are 400 to 500 years old, and many 250 year old trees; the EIR should have been done during a peak wildlife activity in order to get a proper count, particularly for the birds; there are rare birds, that may exist in the canyon, that were not accurately observed; and the EIR did not address an alternative use of the Canyon, such as recreation programs that could bring revenue to the City, preserving Sandstone Canyon. Phil Duarte, residing at 1343 Red Bluff, pointed out that the Los Angeles County Planning Commission denied a similar scope type of project five years ago for that same area. The purpose of incorporation was for local control, emphasizing slow growth for the City. We, as residents, want to preserve our properties to maintain our lifestyles, preserving a small amount of open space January 25, 1993 Page 9 for ourselves, our children, to enjoy nature. We do not have the resources attainable to the developer, who chooses to utilize their property for a profit. He then presented the newspaper article, headlined "A Radical Change in the Environment", dated November 22, 1987, which talked about the project, proposed by Arciero & Sons, that was rejected by the County of Los Angeles. Joe Larutta, residing at 2546 Sunbright Drive, stated that he recently relocated his business office to the north end of Diamond Bar from Pathfinder Road because his clients were unable to ingress/egress due to traffic. This project may be great for development now, and may encourage the development of the school site, but the affects to the City in 20 years need to be considered. Elaine Kim, residing at 2074 Peaceful Hills Road, a Real Estate Broker, stated that there must be a compromise that will allow the property owners to develop the land to it's highest and best use, yet still protect the homeowners living in the area. She stated the following concerns: the density of the proposed project; preventing slippage of the hills; who will be responsible for cleaning up the repairs if slippage was to occur, the City or the Homeowners Association; and the preservation of the trees in the Canyon. Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, made the following comments: if there is no difference between rural and urban living, then why do move to this City which advertises "Country Living"; if there are no significant noise impacts exceeding municipal standards, then what are our standards and perhaps they should be adjusted; why is the cutting down of 700 trees considered an "insignificant" impact; there are hundreds of vacant commercial properties, throughout the City, including Mr. Arciero's property at Colima and Brea Canyon, thus indicating that the 31 commercial acre site may not be a valuable resource; many citizens do not consider this project as beneficial, nor is it considered to be without significant impact to the residents; she was assured by Brock homes that there would always be open space; since she paid a hefty premium for the property and view, if the project is developed as proposed, then she will ask for reassessment, and lowering of property taxes, resulting in the loss of revenue to the City; since Brock took back promised land from the community Association, which involved Mayor Miller, there is a conflict of January 25, 1993 Page 10 interest; having the City of Diamond Bar as an involved party in this development is also a conflict of interest; and people voted for cityhood to stop the excessive building in Diamond Bar. Roy Marcosi, residing at 1664 Chappel Hill Drive, Walnut, stated that the project will put all the traffic from the proposed development on to Morning Sun Ave., a short cul-de-sac street, to Shephard Hills Drive, to Chappel Hill Drive, and to Tamaschaner, all of which do not have sidewalks. The school bus pickup, for the neighborhood children, is located on Tamaschaner Street, which is presently impacted by heavy traffic. Home values will decrease because of the unmitigated traffic, the unmitigated air quality, and the 5 to 10 years of construction in the area. There is no benefit to the existing area. Norman Beach Cuschane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, President of the Pathfinder Homeowners Association, stated that they are currently investigating if the land below their tract is actually the property of the Homeowners Association. He inquired if the development, proposed by Mr. Patel, will become part of the Homewoners Association since Mr. Patel is presently a member of the Association. He requested that the EIR address land slippage, specifically in the area where RnP proposes to develop on a canyon with an 89 degree slope downwards. Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder, pointed out that the area proposed for development is an unique environmental area for all of us now and for future generations. Once that area is destroyed, the wildlife and vegetation is lost forever, and can never be seen again except in a make shift environment such as a zoo. The developers don't care what is destroyed, as long as they make a profit. Boran Ahmed, residing at 1810 Peaceful Hills Road, requested that the dollar value for both the advantages of the project, and the disadvantages of the project be evaluated to determine the actual benefits of the project. Art Fritz, residing at 20635 Larkstone Drive, expressed his concern of the notion that all development can be stopped by simply preventing people from doing anything with their property. This, essentially, would be a taking of property. None of us would be living here if this attitude January 25, 1993 Page 11 prevailed as the City was developing. There would be "Country Living" for about 5,000 people. The City appears to be making an attempt to make this a reasonable development. Those who would like the property to remain as a park, should consider buying it. Bob Roberts, residing on Morning Sun Ave., noted that the map indicates that part of Mr. Patel's property is located in the County of Los Angeles. Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, a development consultant for the applicants, stated the following: RNP Inc., Dwight Forrester, is dedicating 42% of his entire ownership to the City, for park/open land, and commercial capabilities; the park dedication of 28 acres, for this proposed project, far exceeds the requirements in the Quimby Act; the entire project is within the City of Diamond Bar; and the land owners, in this proposed development, feel this project provides the best opportunity for the community itself. The audience seems to be confusing the developers with the EIR consultants. The only association the developers have with the professional EIR consultants is that we give the City the funds to pay for their service, and they give all the directions to staff, and the public. The intent of the developers is to develop legitimately within the confines of the community. Judy Newman, residing at 1652 Chappel Hill Drive, inquired how Diamond Bar can open the streets and funnel traffic into this unincorporated area, if the City does not have jurisdiction outside of the City limits. She also inquired when and how Diamond Bar will settle the traffic problems that will come into the unincorporated area. Norman Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, inquired who will pay for the traffic signal at Brea Canyon Road. He also inquired how much of the land, to be dedicated by RnP, is buildable. Swany Fong, residing at 20879 Missionary Ridge, inquired if the elementary schools, which are already crowded, will be able to hold these additional children from this proposed development. She also stated that there are already many parks in the City that appear to be vacant most of the time. If a 26 acre park is developed, the City will have to pay to maintain the park, but if it is January 25, 1993 Page 12 left as a canyon, nature takes care of it at no cost. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed, and continued to February 8, 1993. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:30 p.m. VC/Meyer directed staff accordingly: he would like some empirical analysis, provided by a traffic consultant, relative to the opening of Street "A" into Morning Sun Ave., that includes some additional data concerning the traffic issues brought up; additional data relative to how the grading would occur; and additional data that would mitigate impacts relative to grading, such as the issue of the migration of the wildlife. Hardy Strozier, in response to VC/Meyer, explained that there is no zone change associated with the project because the Development Agreement will be used as the zoning tool. The Planning Commission will first consider recommending, to the City Council, the certification of the EIR, then consider the entitlements, the General Plan amendment, which changes the Water District property to PD, the three Tentative Tract Maps, one Development Agreement, the Hillside Management Ordinance CUP required for the hillside grading, and the Oak Tree Removal Permit. The Master Plan will be considered along with the Development Agreement. C/Grothe expressed his concern that the EIR indicates practically everything in the canyon to be nonsignificant. He requested a more detailed circulation plan, further information on the project's impacts regarding noise and view, and more information regarding the exact placement of these proposed homes. C/Plunk requested an analysis of the additional cost and benefit, if any, if the dirt would be moved to another canyon. Since the area was not listed as an SEA in the 1980 Master Plan by LA County, the importance of Sandstone Canyon is local, therefore local money will have to pay for it. She stated that she would prefer that the development is below grade. She requested an analysis of the relative safety of slippage occurring on cut and fill land, and on land left in its natural state. January 25, 1993 Page 13 Chair/Flamenbaum requested the following: a discussion of the pros and cons of the openings of any roads, in this project, to Rapid View and Larkstone; address the discrepancy in the tree count; review the Biological Resource. Section, Existing Setting, and determine why it indicates that there are no amphibians, which would include frogs; distribute, to the Commission, the responses to the comments made no later than February 2, 1993; a copy of a more detailed index, only if it takes half a minute to generate; information regarding the SCAQMD standards, and their meaning in practical terms; and a more detailed analysis as to why concept #4 is good or bad, and how it compares to concept three. chair/Flamenbaum stated that the public hearing is continued to the meeting of February 8, 1993. CUP 91-1 & AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the EIR 91-4 request, made by the applicant Inter -Community Health Services, to develop a three phase 425,000 square foot medical building plaza project, to be located at 887 Grand Avenue, that will include the following services: medical office buildings, acute care hospital, hospital support, outpatient services, diagnostic and treatment center, and a community conference and education center. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive comments on the EIR, and direct staff to respond to comments addressing the document, and return with the final EIR at the next public hearing, which will address the Development Review and Conditional Use Permit application. Mark Blodgett, from David Evans & Associates, summarized the process, related to the Diamond Bar Medical Plaza application, as follows: the City prepared an initial study that identified a potential for a number of environmental impacts that would need further evaluation in an EIR; the initial study and a Notice of Preparation was circulated to a number of City departments and local, County, and State agencies, alerting them that a draft EIR will be prepared for this project; the comments received from those agencies are included in the draft EIR; upon completion of the draft EIR, a notice of completion was filed; and prior to the circulation of the draft EIR, City staff, the applicant, and the consultant attended a scoping meeting to receive additional input from interested parties. Mr. Evans then briefly reviewed those areas evaluated, as presented in the draft EIR before the Commission. January 25, 1993 Page 14 Deborah Nicolas, Vice President of Corporate Development for Intercommunity Health Services, Inc., stated that Intercommunity Health Services is the parent company of three affiliates: Intercommunity Medical Center, located in Covina; Hospice of the San Gabriel Valley; and Intercommunity Foundation. Intercommunity Health Services purchased the site in May of 1990 after the strategic planning process identified that the Diamond Bar area was in need of medical services, not currently provided in the area. The intent is to provide a facility that will be utilized long term. The facility, in phase one, will include a medical office building, a diagnostic and treatment center, based on the demand for out patient oriented services, and a recovery center. The second phase facility will include a hospital building, hospital support facilities, a conference center, and a helipad. The third phase, projected in 10 to 20 years if there is a growing demand, will be a duplication of phase one and phase two. She pointed out that the helipad will only be used in extreme case, which is anticipated to be about once to twice a year. Ken Liu, the project architect, presented a material board illustrating the material and color to be used for the construction of the facility. The proposed materials will have substance and permanence. There will be accent colors as part of the pallet that will be treated not only at ground level but from above as well. It is our intent to be sensitive to the neighbors, who have a view of the roof tops, by enclosing major pieces of equipment, or integrating them into the design and the volumes of the buildings. It is also our intent to break down the scale of the building, in regards to the elevation visible to Golden Springs Road, so that it is not a massive structure. The facility will be a future building geared towards evolving health care that will meet the needs of the community. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Lloyd Duncan, with Comprehensive Property Management, representing the Montefino Homeowners Association, expressed the following concerns: it would be beneficial to actual see the design of the enclosed structures proposed on the roof top; since Grand Ave. is already heavily impacted by traffic, the additional 500 to 800 vehicle access will create a condition of bumper to bumper traffic back January 25, 1993 Page 15 to the freeway; emergency access to the facility, from Grand Ave. and the freeway, will be blocked by traffic; ambulatory access, or emergency access, should be gained off of Golden Springs Ave.; the parking facility should be made close to this Golden Springs entrance, to minimize the impact of traffic in and out of the complex, and perhaps access to the parking facility should be shared with the additional development below this area; the EIR should investigate significant geological aspects in regards to the movement of the slope at Montefino; the fire aspects should be investigated; the height of the facilities should be restricted, in the CUP, to 4 stories maximum for the life and the duration of the project; there should be some interlocking architectural integrity with this facility, and future developments to the north; and there should be some restrictions, in the CUP, that would not allow a trauma center in the facility so that helicopter trips are kept at a minimum; and the location of the helipad should be addressed to minimize the noise impacts. Bert Ramer, residing in Diamond Bar, on the Citizens Advisory Committee, in favor of the project, stated that he has been impressed with Intercommunities willingness to listen to the communities input, and to make modifications. Richard Jancowski, residing at 22801 Shardennay Drive, #2 in Montefino, expressed the following concerns: there will be more than the indicated 1 or 2 helicopters a month coming to the facility; if the facility is to be duplicated in phase three, then that means there could be 2 or 3 helipads; the noise impacts could not possibly be mitigated, as indicated in the EIR, since Montefino is only about 150 feet away from the facility; Grand Avenue is already seriously impacted by traffic without this facility; the noise and traffic impacts created from this proposed facility will destroy the property values of Montefino; and the notice of the public hearing could have been better communicated, other than the notices put in the Tribune and the Daily Bulletin. Mrs. Jancowski, residing at 22801 Shardennay Drive, #2 in Montefino, stated that this facility does not just impact the property values of Montefino, but of all of Diamond Bar. The City is inundated with air traffic noise pollution as it is. This is a major hospital expansion in a City that does not need all the noise, traffic, congestion, waste material, or nuclear medicine associated with it. January 25, 1993 Page 16 The Planning Commission should consider denying the project in it's entirety. Dan Buffington, residing at 2505 Indian Creek, a member of the Advisory Committee, pointed out that the proposed facility is not a major facility, but a small facility to be comprised mainly of medical office space, to include an urgent care center that is much needed in this area. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed, and continued to the meeting of February 22, 1993. Mark Blodgett stated that the consultants will respond to all the comments raised at the public hearing, as well as respond formally to all the comments received from the various agencies, and included in the final EIR. Mr. Liu pointed. out that there will only be one helinad at anv one time. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 11:00 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 11:08 p.m. VC/Meyer pointed out that there has been significant notification of this proposed project, which included literature mailed to households in the community, as well as a sign on the site itself. He then made the following comments: though motorists may not have difficulty leaving the proposed site because of traffic signals, the increase in traffic will significantly impact Grand Ave., which is already heavily impacted; there seems to be a tremendous amount of accidents at the merging area of the 57/60 freeway, which tends to impact surface streets; there should be serious consideration to the analysis that the traffic is a significant impact that more than likely cannot be mitigated; explore alternatives to access Golden Springs; it should be considered that air quality, at build out, may or may not be mitigated to a level of nonsignificance; arterial intersections that are impacted by traffic tends to throw the traffic onto collector streets; there needs to be consideration of potential spills of hazardous waste in and around this facility; since phase three is a 20 year projection that could change measurably, and may not resemble the original concept, the scope of the project could be scaled back to be within the foreseeable construction budget of the applicant, allowing the Planning Commission an opportunity to address it more January 25, 1993 Page 17 intelligently in the environmental review; the mitigation of the jobs housing balance is a positive aspect; the facility may generate a cumulative development of medical ancillary facilities, and offices in the area to support it; there needs to be further information relating to the safety of the heliport in regards to landing, as well as the possibility of crashing; and he noted that the design of the facility is pleasing. C/Li expressed his concern regarding the increase in traffic. He requested further information regarding the frequency of the use of the helicopter compared to the facilities in West Covina, and other such comparable facilities, both now and at it's buildout point in 20 years. C/Grothe expressed his concern regarding the traffic impacts to Grand Avenue. There needs to be some consideration made to transferring some of that traffic to Golden Springs. C/Plunk noted that the project is very well planned out, and, once the concerns regarding traffic and roofscaping are addressed, it will be a good project and one that is needed in the City. Chair/Flamenbaum made the following comments: input should be solicited from the highway patrol because they will probably divert their accident victims to this proposed facility; the potential impact, of this project, to the existing slope should be explored; are the proposed suggested improvements to surrounding roads, as indicated in the EIR as mitigation measures to traffic, within the existing right-of-way or is a greater right-of- way going to be acquired; the impact to the traffic mitigation, long term, should be explored if the use of the adjoining property turns out to be a high traffic generation facility; there should be some consideration made to the impacts to the Fire Station; he questioned the validity of the EIR in the third phase; there needs to be consideration made to runoff and surface reflectivity of the parking area when the proposed project is at buildout; what would be the impact if the flight path was restricted so that it either does not pass over the homes in adjacent areas, or is limited in how low the flight path can be; the amount of paper product trash generation should be considered as it relates to AB939 requirements; following all the rains, the amount of degradation of the existing slope at the south side, north of the project, should be explored; and there needs to be further consideration made to the traffic impacts. January 25, 1993 Page 18 Chair/Flamenbaum stated that this item will be continued to the meeting of February 22, 1993. CUP 92-11 & AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the DR 92-5 request, made by the applicant Smart SMR of CA, Inc., to locate a 200 sq. ft. building housing an unmanned mobile radio communication facility and a 74 foot monopole, to be located at the Diamond Bar High School. There are two monopoles and related repeater stations currently located on that site. Though the staff report indicates that the pole is made of wood, the applicant has corrected that the monopole will be on a 60 foot metal pole, reflecting the existing light standards on the football campus. Residents have expressed their concern that this mobile radio facility will interfere with T.V. and radio reception, however, the information provided by the applicant indicates that the frequency used by this service would not interfere with either FM/AM radio or T.V. transmission. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Negative Declaration, Conditional use permits 92-11 and Development Review No. 92-5 with the Findings of Fact and listed conditions. Fred Wink, representing SMR of Ca., Inc., 1335 S. Acacia Ave., Fullerton, presented computer enhanced slides, to the Commission, simulating what the project would look like. This location is suitable because the facility will blend with the existing light standards, which will mitigate visual impact, clustering of these facilities is beneficial from a planning standpoint, and the students will benefit by an income flow from this lease. The FCC allows us to operate in the frequency range of an 800 to 900 megahurst range, which is a similar frequency range the other two facilities currently operate under. C/Plunk inquired if a study has been done supporting that there is not intermodulation distortion from the many repeaters so close to each other. Mr. Wink stated that intermodulation has been studied with these two other carriers in several other locations, which are on school grounds as well. All of the studies indicate that, as long as the frequencies used are coordinated with the frequencies used by the other repeaters, there should not be any interference problem. Presently, we are planning to start with five radios, and will probably have a maximum of twelve radios. We do January 25, 1993 Page 19 not interfere with the new 900 megahurst phones because we operate under a different frequency range. C/Grothe inquired about the difference between this mobile radio service as compared to the cellular phones service. Mr. wink explained that the mobile radio service is primarily used by fleet users who have dispatchers talking one person to several persons, possibly at the same time. There will also be the ability to place cellular phone calls on the system as well. VC/Meyer inquired if the applicant would be amenable to a condition that, in the event that there is interference with the surrounding property owners telephone, radio, T.V., that, within a specified period of time, the applicant would either fix the situation or cease operation. Mr. Wink stated that he would not object to such a condition, given a reasonable time period to address and identify any problem. The intent is to be good neighbors. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Joe Larutta, residing at 2506 Sunbright Dr., expressed the following concerns: the applicant is installing a third tower because he is overloaded, and there is a possibility that he will request a fourth or fifth tower in the future; the towers and antennas can be seen from the 57 freeway going north; and public schools are not the appropriate place for private concerns to place their equipment. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Wink, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry, made the following responses: it operates under a maximum of 100 watts per channel; the other towers presently existing are owned by Pactel and LA Cellular, and we do not own any other tower in this City; there is no objection to condition 7; a fence is built around the monopole to prevent climbing; the pole will be of galvanized material to match the existing light standards; because it is a line of sight technology, there is a need for a 60 foot rad center to be able to talk to the January 25, 1993 Page 20 other sites; and the nearest light standards are approximately 100 to 110 feet to the north. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if it is technically feasible to mount the antennae either around the existing light standard, or on top of it. Don LaFoy, the construction expert for SMR, stated that a structural analysis of that existing pole, and the foundation that supports it, would have to be done to determine if that would be possible. The weight put up there will be insignificant but the usual problem relates to wind loading. Also, because the athletic bleachers are in between two of the light standards, on the west side of the field, the School District may be concerned it may fall on the bleachers in case of an earthquake. C/Grothe inquired why the antennas could not be placed on the gymnasium, along with the other antennas, since they operate under different frequencies. Mr. Wink explained that the question of interference becomes more difficult to deal with the closer you get to those other facilities. Mr. Winks inquired if the project could be conditioned requiring that we first determine if the school will allow us to put the equipment of the light standards, and if not, then proceed as first proposed. C/Meyer noted that the School District does have the authority to exempt themselves, under a given set of circumstances, from local zoning requirements. CDD/DeStefano stated that it is staff's opinion that this application does not fall into the category that allows the School District to exempt themselves, nor does it fall under a broader PUC category that allows them to exempt themselves from local jurisdiction and review. Motion was made by C/Plunk to deny the project since there are already two antennas at that location. The motion failed for lack of a second. C/Plunk excused herself from the meeting at 12:00 a. m. January 25, 1993 Page 21 C/Grothe requested that there be a condition restricting the use of microwave dishes on the pole. He stated that he would prefer a condition that the applicant mount the equipment on the existing light standards, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. DCA/Fox advised that such the condition, regarding mounting the equipment to the light standards, would make this a different application, in which the Commission would not have had the opportunity to review the effect of such an installation as related to potential safety, and other problems that may arise. The applicant would have to make a new application. Motion was made by C/Grothe to continue the project, with the condition that the equipment be mounted on the light standards, if engineeringly feasible and acceptable to the School District. The motion died for lack of a second. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Resolution as submitted by staff with the following added conditions: microwave dishes are not to be installed on the pole; in the event that this facility causes interference or disturbance with audio or television reception of the residents, within 500 feet of the facility, the applicant will repair the facility within 21 days of notification, or cease it's operation; and the plans be modified to change this from a wooden pole to a steel pole galvanized of the same color of the existing light standards. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Grothe, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. Variance 92-3 & AP/Lungu presented the staff report regarding the Planned Sign request made by the applicant Steve Porretta to Program 92-4 develop a Planned Sign Program at Diamond Bar Village Shopping Center 325-379 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. and 23341-23499 E. Golden Springs Dr., and approval of a Variance for six monument signs, each fifteen feet in height and 84 square feet of sign face area. Though the proposed project is an opportunity to correct sign deficiencies and improve sign visibility for tenants, staff does not concur with the applicants request for six (6) January 25, 1993 Page 22 fifteen foot monument signs, and feel that a variance from the maximum height allowed by the Sign Ordinance is appropriate with limitations listed in the staff report. It is recommended that the Commission consider reducing the 3 monuments signs, located adjacent to buildings A, D, and H, to 10 feet in height, and 3 monument signs, located adjacent to building B, E, and I, to be reduced to 6 feet in height. It is further recommended that the Commission approve the Planned Sign Program, the recommended reduction in the height of the monument signs, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. Steve Porretta, President of Southland Management, Inc., stated that because many of the tenants in the center do not have a budget for advertising, which is critical to their operation, they relay on the advertisement of the center. The signs need to be 15 feet in height so that they are seen by motorists traveling 45 mph. Connie Nicholson, owner of BCN Lighting & Signs, explained that the basis of the design for the 15 foot signs is on sign readability tests which indicate that the letters need to be between 9" to 12" in height to be seen in a 45 mph area. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Hearing no testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. VC/Meyer stated that, since the signs are to be remodeled, they should be made to comply with the Sign Ordinance. All the businesses along Diamond Bar Blvd., near the intersection of Grand Ave., comply with the Sign Ordinance. Connie Nicholson explained that such a sign, as is allowed by the Sign Ordinance, which is a 6 foot maximum, with a 72 square foot sign band area, allowing a 12 foot width in sign, would block the line of sight. She further stated that this center is unique in that it has 106 tenants. Due to the configuration of the center, everything faces internally to the center. Exterior advertising is very important. These plans would allow about 52% of the tenants to advertise. VC/Meyer stated that one of the reasons for the Sign ordinance is to encourage property owners to advertise the center, and not the individual January 25, 1993 page 23 tenants. In order for the Commission to approve a variance, there needs to be a finding that this center is being denied a substantial property right that is afforded your neighbors in the same vicinity or zone. Mr. Porretta pointed out that if they install signs permitted under the Sign Ordinance, which would allow a 12 foot long sign. Then a traffic hazard would be created because it would block visibility into the center. C/Grothe pointed out that, just because the Sign Ordinance allows a 6 foot sign, with 72 square feet, does not mean that is what has to be put in. There does not seem to be any grounds for a variance of the Sign Ordinance. Connie Nicholson, in response to VC/Meyer, stated that they are not in concurrence with the recommendation made by staff regarding the sign height because it would reduce the amount of tenants that can advertise from 52% to about 30%. VC/Meyer suggested that the applicant research the City of Scottsdale, a very economically viable community, that does not allow any monumen signs over 6 feet. The sign criteria used by the applicant seems to be out dated and the method of advertising is antiquated. The center should be advertised, not the tenant, because it is doubtful, with the amount of conflict occurring in those driveways, that anyone is going to read the little signs placed on the monument signs. Chair/Flamenbaum, noting that staff's recommendation to allow three monuments signs to be 10 feet in height would also require a variance, inquired what criteria was used by staff to establish a variance. PT/Lungu explained that staff based the variance upon the following unique conditions: the topography of the site; the center is on a slope; the buildings are set more than 150 feet back from the street; and the tenants are not visible from the street. The applicant is attempting to clean up that center, even though those monument signs are permitted to remain as they are. If the applicant is allowed the 7 monument signs, as indicated in the code, there would be 504 square feet total sign face area. But, if staff's suggestion is followed, there would be 480 square feet total sign face area. January 25, 1993 ADJOURNMENT: Page 24 C/Grothe stated that there are other centers in town, such as the Pepper Tree Plaza, that have the identical set of circumstances. Motion was made by C/Grothe to deny the application. The motion dies for lack of a second. C/Li suggested that the item be continued to allow staff and the applicant additional time to discuss the matter and to come up with a compromise. Motion was made by Chair/ Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Meyer and CARRIED to continue the matter to the next meeting, with direction that staff and the applicant attempt to resolve the issue regarding the height of the signs. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Li, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. Grothe. Plunk. None. Motion was made by Chair/ Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 12:50 a.m. Respectively, /�f T, nPStPfann James DeStefano Secretary Attest: /s/ Bruce Flamenbaum Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE•TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Chavers called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Cheng. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Ury, Cheng, Beke, Vice Chairman Gravdahl, and Chairman Chavers. Also present were Interim City Engineer George Wentz, Senior Engineer David Liu, Administrative Analyst Tseday Aberra, Sergeant Rawlings, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MINUTES: Dec. 10, 1992 C/Beke requested that the Minutes of December 10, 1992 be amended on page 7, sixth paragraph, second line, to delete the word "no", and replace the word "does" with "may"; page 8, sixth paragraph, second line, add the words, of motorists exiting", following the word "protect"; and page 10, fourth paragraph to correctly spell the word "eligible". Chair/Chavers requested the minutes be amended on page 11, to delete the phrase, "due to a drainage problem from the heavy rains". Motion was made by C/Ury, seconded by VC/Gravdahl and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of December 10, 1992, as amended. CONSENT CALENDAR: To install stop Chair/Chavers requested that item A, of the Consent or yield signs Calendar, be pulled to allow for public testimony. on King Lake Dr. at Gernside Dr. AA/Aberra presented the staff report regarding the request, made by a resident, that the City install a stop or yield sign on King Lake Drive at Gernside Drive in order to encourage motorists on King Lake Drive to stop or slow down when approaching the intersection. King Lake Drive and Gernside Drive are both cul-de-sacs adjoining to form a T - intersection, and the unrestricted view and lack of traffic volume from this street do not warrant stop or yield signs. Furthermore, as governed by Section 21800 of the California Vehicle Code, King Lake Drive motorists shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicles on Gernside Drive. It is recommended that the Commission deny the request to install stop or yield signs at the intersection of King Lake Drive and Gernside Drive. January 14, 1993 Page 2 Deborah Wendoll, residing at 20559 E. Gernside Drive, concurred that there have not .been any accidents in the past three years at this intersection, however, there have been many close calls. The other residents in the area could not make plans to attend the meeting on short notice, but they have indicated their willingness to submit a petition, if necessary. Jennifer Prince, residing at 1441 Fair Lance, Walnut, pointed out that the tennis courts on King Lake Drive have increased traffic in this area during the evening. C/Ury suggested that the foliage, on the corner of King Lake Drive/Gernside Drive, be trimmed to improve the line of sight. Sgt. Rawlings, in response to C/Beke, confirmed that Section 21800, of the California Vehicle Code, clearly states that at an intersection where one street tees into another street, the traffic on the street that tees must yield to the through traffic. VC/Gravdahl suggested that, since many of the residents were unable to attend the meeting, the matter be continued to the next meeting to allow an opportunity for further public testimony. C/Beke pointed out that the decision would be the same, based upon the facts presented by staff. Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Ury and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommendation, and to direct staff to investigate the foliage at that intersection, and determine what can be done to improve visibility. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng, VC/Gravdahl, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. OLD BUSINESS: 112 -Hour Parking ICE/Wentz reported that this matter is before the 8:00 a.m.-5:00 Commission in order to discuss and clarify the p.m. Mon. -Fri." original intent of the Commission as it pertains to on Fallow Field the three restrictive signs installed on westerly Dr. between Brea side of Fallow Field Dr., between Brea Canyon Cut- Cnyn. Cut-off Rd.off Road and Pasco Court. Mr. Clem Ziroli, Manager and Pasco Ct. of the First Mortgage Corporation, requested that the three 112 -Hour Parking, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Monday -Friday" signs located on the westerly side January 14, 1993 Page 3 of Fallow Field Dr. between Brea Canyon Cut-off Road and Pasco Court be removed because employees of First Mortgage Corporation desire to utilize this area for parking. ICE/Wentz reported that the Department of Public works received 18 responses, to the 50 surveys sent out, to the Fallow Field Dr. and Pasco Ct. residents soliciting their comments regarding the three signs on Fallow Field Drive, of which 9 indicated that the signs should remain as they are, and 2 indicated a desire to eliminate all parking restrictions in the area. C/Beke stated that the intent of the signs posted was to allow for visitor parking, and to keep carpoolers out of the area. This seems to have been accomplished. Mr. Ziroli should have adequate on site parking for his employees. ICE/Wentz, in response to C/Ury, stated that the signs are presently posted on the westerly side of Fallow Field Dr., and between the first and second house on the First Mortgage side of the street. There is room for at least 6 cars to park on the First Mortgage side without restriction. However, carpoolers would also be able to park in that area. Bruce Norman, with First Mortgage Corporation, on behalf of Mr. Ziroli, distributed photos, to the Commission, of the front of the building to illustrate the area being discussed. First Mortgage does not have a desire to infringe, on the parking in front of any of the neighbors homes. However, there is an overflow of parking at the First Mortgage Building, and it is requested that parking be allowed on Fallow Field Dr., between Brea Canyon Cut-off Rd. and Pasco Court, across the street and in front of the First Mortgage Building, because it would accommodate about 15 cars, and it is not in front of anyone's home. Furthermore, since there are plans to expand on a lower floor of the building, additional parking spaces may ti- needed. oneeded. several suggestions, such as carpooling, have been made to the employees to reduce the amount of cars. He suggested that parking I -- allowed, in that area across from the buildir.i. Monday -Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with park,.- - restricted before 8:00 a.m. to keep the carpool— out of the area. Heber Rodriguez, residing at 20920 Pasco Cc expressed his opposition to permitting F.: Mortgage to park along the west side of Fa. Field Dr. because it infringes on the appearanc. their neighborhood, affecting their property va. January 14, 1993 Page 4 Cars are currently parked all the way to Pasco Court, on the west side, creating a risk factor because visibility of vehicles approaching from Brea Canyon Cut-off Road on to Fallow Field Drive is blocked. Also, carpoolers arrive early and take the parking spaces immediately in front of the building to the second residence on the southside of Fallow Field Dr. because there are no signs posted in that area. He recommended that either the signs remain, or the residential area have a "No Parking" zone. Frank Barkowski, residing at 20920 Pasco Court, stated that the employees of First Mortgage Corporation are moving their cars a couple of feet rather than complying with the signs. Furthermore, the employees throw their garbage onto that slope area because they apparently feel no one owns that property. He suggested that the three signs, indicated in the staff report, be changed to "No Parking", and that the rest of the tract be restricted to the 112 -Hour Parking". Armando Samoncona, residing at 20940 Pasco Court, also stated that the employees throw their trash onto the slope area. He suggested that the employees park across Brea Canyon Cut-off Road, and that "No Parking" signs be posted in lieu of where the three signs are currently located. Lee Foster, residing at 20933 Pasco Court, stated that the signs posted need to include arrows indicating the direction of the parking restriction. He suggested that a crosswalk, or a signal, be installed at Brea Canyon Cut-off Road to provide a safe access for the employees to park in that area. Sharon Foster, residing at 20933 Pasco Court, stated that even though the carpoolers have been eliminated, the amount of cars parked in their area have not decreased, indicating that the cars are a result of overflow parking from First Mortgage Corporation. The 112 -Hour" signs should remain, or be replaced with "No Parking" signs because cars parked in that area block visibility. C/Ury recommended that the sign, on the east side, be moved to the property line separating the first home and First Mortgage's property, and that there be an arrow to designate the parking restriction. He also recommended that "No Parking from 6:00 a.m.-8:00 a.m." signs should be posted on the east January 14, 1993 Page 5 and west side, with painted curbs to improve visibility. C/Beke indicated that he is opposed to removing the signs because the purpose of the 2 -hour time limit parking on the westerly side of Fallow Field Dr. was to help serve First Mortgage's visitors needs. VC/Gravdahl pointed out that, since some of the cars are parked at the end of the curb on Pasco Court, there should be red marking on the curb, giving sight clearance for those people coming out of Pasco Court. Chair/Chavers, in response to C/Cheng's inquiry regarding parking across Brea Canyon Cut-off Road, explained that the City does not want to encourage pedestrian traffic until there is adequate protection, and a stop sign is an inappropriate device for application in that area. Chair/Chavers stated that red curbing may be needed on the same side of the street as First Mortgage as well. Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by Chair/Chavers and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to install 2 or 3 signs, directly in front of First Mortgage's property, prohibiting parking between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., (for the purpose of keeping carpoolers out of the area), and to include arrows on the signs to indicate where the restriction begins and ends; leave the 112 -Hour" time limit parking restriction on the slope slide (which will allow for visitor parking); move the 112 -Hour" parking limit sign, that is currently located on the east side between the first and second residence, to the property line separating the first home and First Mortgage's property, to include an arrow on the sign indicating that the control point starts from this point up the street; and look at the curb returns at both intersections of Brea Canyon Cut-off and Pasco Court, and determine the appropriate distance it should be painted red. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng, VC/Gravdahl, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. January 14, 1993 Page 6 Cut -through Chair/Chavers stated that staff has recommended traffic on that discussion, regarding cut -through traffic on Quail Summit Dr. Quail Summit Drive and the right turn overlap from Diamond signalization on Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave., Bar Blvd. to be combined because the action of one may effect Grand Ave. the other. AE/Liu reported that the Commission requested staff to solicit comments from the Quail Summit Drive, Rolling Knoll Road, Winterwood Lane and Country View residents pertaining to the possible installation of "No Right Turn, 4:00 p.m. -6:00 p.m., Monday -Friday" signs on Rolling Knoll Road and Country View Drive at Grand Avenue. Of the 146 residents who reside on the indicated streets, a total of 24 responded, of which only one resident was opposed to the right turn restriction. To provide a better balance between deterring bypass traffic and minimizing inconvenience to residents, staff recommends that at this time the Commission consider implementing the right turn overlap signalization for northbound Diamond Bar Boulevard traffic at Grand Avenue first. This will make the arterial street route more attractive and reduce the potential for bypass through the residential area. However, if the Commission does not concur with staff, it is requested that the Commission consider the recommendation of the installation of "No Right Turn, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday - Friday" signs on Rolling Knoll Road and Country View Drive at Grand Ave., and the installation of a W-41 sign on Rolling Knoll Road in advance of the traffic signal at Grand Avenue. Don Lemly, residing at 1387 Rolling Knoll Road, pointed out that regardless of what is implemented on the corner of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave., there will not be a significant change to the cut - through traffic because people have become habitualized to do so. He suggested that the time restriction be changed to 4:00 p.m.- 7:00 p.m., and that there be adequate enforcement. Karen Mahoney, residing at 23834 Country View Drive, expressed her opposition to the right turn overlap signalization on Diamond Bar Blvd. at Grand Avenue, and the "No U-turn" on Grand Avenue, because it would be very difficult to come out of Ralph's and come back into her neighborhood. She then expressed her support for the "No Right Turn" on Rolling Knoll Road and Country View Drive at Grand Avenue. January 14, 1993 Page 7 Raul Medina, residing at 23852 Country View Dr., and Ken Klein, residing at 23812 Country View Dr., expressed their support for the "No -Right Turn" signs. John Murphy, residing at 23742 Country View Dr., suggested making Country View Drive a cul-de-sac. Ken Klein stated that they have written letters, to the City, on April 7th, September 30th, and December 18th, 1992, requesting that their street be made into a cul-de-sac, but have never received a response. Jack and Wanda Tanaka, residing at 23805 Country View Drive, expressed their support for the proposed signs, or the cul-de-sacing of Country View Drive. They presented a petition of 35 signatures supporting the signs. Deborah Renegar, residing at 1386 Rolling Knoll Road, stated that the problem in their neighborhood needs immediate action, regardless of what is done at the corner of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave. Alan Singleton, residing at 23467 Quail Summit Drive, expressed his support for the proposed signs, but suggested that the time restriction be changed to 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. because cut - through traffic continues past 6:00 p.m. Sgt. Rawlings indicated that, since there is no parking allowed on Grand Ave., the officer would have to enforce this on Rolling Knoll Road. It would be helpful if the officer could sit in someone's driveway so that they are less visible. Chair/Chavers suggested that staff discuss this possibility with some of the residents on the corner. Motion was made by C/Ury, seconded by C/Cheng and CARRIED to accept staff's recommendation regarding mitigating cut -through traffic on Quail Summit Drive from Diamond Bar Boulevard to Grand Ave., but amending the recommended sign to indicate "No Right Turn, 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday -Friday" to be posted on Rolling Knoll Road and Country View Drive at Grand Avenue. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Gravdahl. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. January 14, 1993 Page 8 Right Turn AE/Liu reported that, pursuant to the Commission's Overlap request, staff presents for discussion the Signalization feasibility of installing a right -turn arrow signal on Diamond Bar for motorists traveling northbound Diamond Bar Blvd. at Blvd. and attempting to make right turns at Grand Grand Ave. Avenue. In order to decrease delay and to facilitate motorists turning right from northbound Diamond Bar Blvd. onto Grand Ave., the proposed green arrow would "overlap" with the westbound left -turn phase on Grand Avenue. If the green arrow is implemented, it would be necessary to prohibit westbound Grand Avenue U-turns because of the conflict with the northbound right -turn vehicles entering the intersection during the right -turn arrow interval. AE/Liu reported that the Commission had also considered the alternative of allowing right turns from the existing number two through lane in addition to the existing right - turn only lane. He reviewed several concerns (i.e pedestrian safety, truck safety, and through traffic impact) to this alternative, as presented in the staff report. VC/Gravdahl recalled that the Commission had made a recommendation, on this item, nearly 2 years ago. ICE/Wentz stated that the item appears to have been overlooked, however, staff is desirous to get the issue resolved, and to bring the Commission's recommendation to Council so that it can be implemented. It is staff's recommendation that a right -turn arrow be installed at the indicated location, to operate in a manner described in the staff report, and that the U-turn for westbound Grand Ave. be prohibited as part of the installation. C/Ury expressed his concern that pedestrians crossing at that location may hinder the traffic flow making the right turn. ICE/Wentz stated that the pedestrian count at that location is not high enough to significantly effect that turning movement. The Commission then discussed the following possible routes that residents could take if the U- turn was prohibited: exit out of the Ralph's center turning right on Diamond Bar Boulevard and making a U-turn in the Standard Brands area; and exit out of the Ralph's center, crossing both lanes to the left turn lane on Grand Ave., head south on Diamond Bar Blvd. and U-turn back to Quail Summit. January 14, 1993 ITEMS PROM COMMISSIONERS: Page 9 Chair/Chavers requested staff to notice businesses of the proposed prohibited U-turn before the item goes to the City Council. Motion was made by C/Ury, seconded by C/Beke and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommendation. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng, VC/Gravdahl, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. Installation of ICE/Wentz reported that, though the Commission and a 3 -way stop the City Council did take action regarding the sign on installation of a 3 -way stop sign on Pathfinder Pathfinder Rd. Road at Brea Canyon, there had been discussion that at Brea there should be some coordination between this Cnyn. Rd. particular effort and the Pathfinder Bridge project. However, the Pathfinder Bridge project has taken longer than anticipated. Staff is now prepared to implement the 3 -way stop sign, coordinating with the County any traffic control plans prepared for the Pathfinder Bridge project. Disc. of the C/Ury excused himself from discussion of the draft draft EIR for EIR for the South Pointe Master Plan because of a South Pointe possible conflict of interest. He left the meeting Master Plan at 8:30 p.m. Chair/Chavers recessed the meeting at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:40 p.m. Chair/Chavers stated that the purpose of the discussion tonight is to give the Commission an opportunity to ask Hardy Strozier, the Project Manager, or Jay Nelson, the traffic consultant, any questions regarding the draft EIR for the South Pointe Master Plan. ICE/Wentz reported that staff has provided the responses received, from three of th:- Commissioners, regarding the draft EIR, to th Community Development Department, and consultants for their review and comment. Hardy Strozier stated that a response, to thc. comments raised, will be provided to the CommissI and the City Council through a formal response comments process. January 14, 1993 Page 10 C/Beke summarized the two concerns raised in his letter: the destruction of the oak trees; and the traffic problems created with the connection to Morning Sun. He stated that, in his opinion, Larkstone and Rapid View should be the alternative access, because if you connect to Morning Sun, then another Quail Summit/Rolling Knoll problem will be created. Jay Nelson, in response to VC/Gravdahl, confirmed that the Circuit City Warehouse was one of the five cumulative projects considered when the traffic study was done. Jay Nelson, in response to Chair/Chaver's inquiry as to why the City's traffic model was not utilized, explained that there was no direction given from the City to use the traffic model. Chair/Chavers expressed his concern that, because the study was done manually, the regional aspects covered in the model are not mentioned in the study, such as the Pathfinder Road connection, or -! the background traffic to be seen on Pathfinder Road. The analysis procedures will now differ from those used in our General Plan. He stated that there should have been more consideration given to the increase in traffic, from future development, that will impact Pathfinder Bridge. Hardy Strozier explained that, because the traffic study indicated inadequacies in several intersections in which the traffic cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level, the draft EIR determined that traffic is one area that significant impacts would remain after mitigation. The City Council can approve the project and do an overriding consideration statement, or deny the project because of the inability to mitigate the impacts. Chair/Chavers expressed his concern that the circulation plans, as indicated in the concept plans, have not been effectively evaluated, in this Master Plan, as to how the whole project will come together in relationship to the surrounding environment. Hardy Strozier stated that the illustration, on page 2-11, identifies planning enclaves on Street A, which is the collector between Brea Canyon Road and Morning Sun Avenue. This has been extracted from a Master Plan text, which goes into more detail and provides standards that would guide any January 14, 1993 Page 11 development within these enclaves, describing the land uses, standards of those land uses, including standards for streets, and so forth, in this area. Chair/Chavers, noting that Street A, in the concept plans, do not resolve the school access problem, inquired when the City can resolve the school access problem, and any of the other specific issues that may arise. The circulation pattern in front of the school should be specifically addressed. Hardy Strozier explained that the adoption of the Master Plan, and the further delineation to the tentative tract map process are the vehicles to resolve those kinds of issues. The reason for the full range of concept plans, and alternatives, was because there were many ideas presented, and we wanted to make sure that all the ideas were covered for the environmental process. C/Beke, pointing out that all four concept plans show a connection with Morning Sun Avenue, suggested that one of the alternatives should evaluate no connection with Morning Sun. Chair/Chavers stated that the study does not address the function of the streets internally. Jan Dabney, 671 S. Brea Canyon Road, the lead private sector consultant on this project, stated that the Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD) has made a commitment to the South Pointe community to try to resolve some of the immediate traffic impact generated by the Middle School. This project is a Master Plan project, and is the cumulative effort of the City, the WVUSD, and the development team. It is a rare opportunity for the City to actually be able to control what historically has happened in the past. Chair/Chavers stated that, since the WVUSD has not been a partner with the City, in the past, regarding traffic problems resulting from the schools, the traffic problems should be addressed during the design phase as opposed to later. Hardy Strozier stated that he will be contacting the City Engineer as to which comments the Commission would like a formal, technical, engineering response. January 14, 1993 Page 12 AE/Liu, in response to C/Cheng, stated that the County Board of Supervisors has awarded a contract to the Heritage Engineering Construction, Inc. for the construction of the Pathfinder Bridge Widening Project, which will be widened to four lanes. It is anticipated that construction may begin in April of 1993. ITEMS FROM ICE/Wentz stated that a resident has contacted him STAFF: regarding the U-turn at Cleghorn, eastbound Grand Avenue. The matter will be placed as a future agenda item, if deemed necessary. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Cheng and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Respectively, /s/ George Wentz George A. Wentz Secretary Attest: /s/ Todd Chavers Todd Chavers Chairman We have reviewed the above captioned claim and request that you t,�ke. the action indicated below: o J CLAIM REJECTION: Send a standard rejection letter to the claimant. J� CLAIM INSUFFICIENCY: In accordance with the telephone conversation of , 19 , a notice of insufficiency must be mailed to the claimant no later than , 19•THIS MUST BE MAILED TO THE CLAIMANT WITHIN 20 DAYS 015—RECEIPT OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM IN YOUR OFFICE. DO NOT SUBMIT A "REJECTION" LETTER. See Government Code Sections 910 and/or 910.2 and/or 910.4. �] AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM: Send a standard rejection letter to the claimant, refecting this additional/amended claim. 1� LATE CLAIM RESPONSE: Return the original claim material to the claimant, advising that the claim is late and that their only recourse is to file a written "Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim". (Retain copies in your file.) THIS MUST BE MAILED TO THE CLAIMANT WITHIN 45 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE CLAIM IN YOUR OFFICE. DO NOT SEND A "REJECTION" LETTER. See Government Code Section 911.4. [] APPLICATION REJECTION: Reject claimant's "Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim". See Government Code Section 911.8. D TAKE NO ACTION: Defer any written response to the claimant pending our further advice. Please provide us with a copy of the notice sent, as requested above. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, CARL WARREN & COMPANY i -, 11z 7 ster) CARL WARREN & CO. Insurance Adousters Claims Administrators P.O. Box 25180 Santa Ana, CA 92799-5180 (714) 740-7999 FAX: (714) 740-7992 Date: Feb. 22, 1993 TO: City of Diamond Bar - Attention: L. Burgess Z75 Re: Claim: State Farm vs Diamond Bar ' Claimant: State Farm/Kaiser, Wendy ' D/Event : 11-19-92 Rec'd Y/Office: 2-17-93 Our File: S 74687 AB =_ We have reviewed the above captioned claim and request that you t,�ke. the action indicated below: o J CLAIM REJECTION: Send a standard rejection letter to the claimant. J� CLAIM INSUFFICIENCY: In accordance with the telephone conversation of , 19 , a notice of insufficiency must be mailed to the claimant no later than , 19•THIS MUST BE MAILED TO THE CLAIMANT WITHIN 20 DAYS 015—RECEIPT OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM IN YOUR OFFICE. DO NOT SUBMIT A "REJECTION" LETTER. See Government Code Sections 910 and/or 910.2 and/or 910.4. �] AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM: Send a standard rejection letter to the claimant, refecting this additional/amended claim. 1� LATE CLAIM RESPONSE: Return the original claim material to the claimant, advising that the claim is late and that their only recourse is to file a written "Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim". (Retain copies in your file.) THIS MUST BE MAILED TO THE CLAIMANT WITHIN 45 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE CLAIM IN YOUR OFFICE. DO NOT SEND A "REJECTION" LETTER. See Government Code Section 911.4. [] APPLICATION REJECTION: Reject claimant's "Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim". See Government Code Section 911.8. D TAKE NO ACTION: Defer any written response to the claimant pending our further advice. Please provide us with a copy of the notice sent, as requested above. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, CARL WARREN & COMPANY i -, 11z 7 ster) rLAIM FOR DAMAGES CLAIM No. - -- ---- .-.. 56'J q X w ` 3 t� TO PERSON OR PROPERTY . II INSTRUCTIONS 1. Claims for death, injury to person or to personal property must be filed not later than 6 incs. after the occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2) 2. Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than 1 year after the occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2) 3. Read entire claim before filing. 4. See page 2 for diagram upon which to locate place of accident. 5. This claim form must be signed on page 2 at bottom. 6. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give full details. SIGN EACH SHEET. 7. Claim must be filed with City Clerk (Gov. Code Sec. 915a) To: The City of Diamond Bar Name of Claimant On; W erA44N. Kett sm-rp- F&rrh Tinsur0.f1C� 55%itIl0 - Home Address of Claimant City and State P . 0 . BO Y Atri I 'PWN-yono' CP► 011-'1 (o (.P Business Ad e s of Claimant City and State SPX' Age of Claimant (if natural person) 31 Q / Pt Home Telephone Number Give address to which you desire notices or communications to be sent regarding this claim: p� oove We have. sc+%ed 4"e. 3r# o relepphone Number 41^4- —1: How did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give -full particulars. OV1 S" lw }1, D n . Our' inSuMd di-w4r; A&rioom Cnreksal, wecs n ar�lop Or biah onti aa.r 8 W0, dLgPr00e.kin K1ou�nitetin LAIArtl In'* 2 lane %th4'nd Vi inia Wgin who s♦oppe4 dmr- +o �9T4(c. ahead. Jut -+-o 5m vel or% rmauxj our insu,reA was unablet +0 s+c P a.^d he ,rea rend eel Ms. Klein . When did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full particulars, date, time of day: -rhes acc; dean+ occu rr*d on 1 �q-4 � a+ aPproiC. S . 30P W% S > omn v 1v Where did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? D scribe fully, and locate on diagram on reverse side of this sheet, where appropriate, give street names and addresses and me urements from landmarks: � see aadtNed 0.tatra.rn :A-2 Q 0 r+h b0 LL rNd. l,ener or -NQ%#V%0 n .& $&- - l vd . A -hat particular ACT or OMISSION do you claim caused the injury or damage? Give names of City employees causing the injury or damage, if known: =t i s Q.1+ �In,��- G+,d rn" v.—Awe , b e.e.n responsible, ae&ge 1 D V\ +In(c r oa A03a 7A . What DAIVL3GE cr INJURIES do you claim resulted? Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed: Viroji n idk A'Meito sus+w;ined bod; Iy Z n`�' 4v kw : neek, L&pper'skok(ders, low back. ax -.A riooh+ hlp wi+h spro,1A A brWsirA Y h a 414 t n f 14KV 5 olds CNtlass Su#r• %VVVJti• %vas rtn ed a - D +*%l Loss What AMOUNT do you claim on account of each item of injury or damage as of date of presentation of this claim, giving basis of computation: zod;I'd ToLittxd t q 44-600.00 Poop" Uff'aie: 3oeal.4% � � 'R 1(00 • uys' LOSS of use: irip?.81 Give ESTIMATED AMOUNT as far as known you claim on account of each item of prospective injury or damage, giving basis of computation: pons i 1pIt ;wr4vNec &mo canis - u.Kk-K@ w n at 4 Wit -%i me, . SEE PAGE 2 (OVER) THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON REVERSE SIDE Insurance payments received, if any, an .nes of Insurance Company: f 3awl We have paid 0U4- : 4 83100.4 as ou+l�ned On aq.1 Expenditures made on account of accident or injury: (Date—Item) ' (Amount) see- o*ta&v-d-� -yho+e.., Sa 1 v&Ae. P ro ceeds were G'ed Name and address of Witnessei7 Doctors and Hospitals: PaMela 6J re A.scl on beV\&l P1 o -P A"O n 6►reu S e_1 i J21 rinor n % CA,3r\ r\ '> p S a vin o v\d 'ba,r , CA �i�r.�'��:o► �1e�r� , lc�w•� d l;v�.r) aoS-59��15_bOt � Vv i vvo r '�Wx(vs IN -1 C Cit CAP '.9 CA - It fol -110 "T 2 - 'ba For all accident claims place on following diagram names of streets, including North, East, South, and West; indicate place of accident by "X" and by showing house numbers or distances to street corners. If City Vehicle was involved, designate by letter "A" location of City vehicle when you first saw it, and by "B" location of yourself or your vehicle when you first saw City vehicle; location of City vehicle at time of accident by "A-1" and location of yourself or your vehicle at the time of the accident by "B-1" and the point of impact by "X." NOTE: NOTE: If diagrams below do not fit the situation, attach hereto a proper diagram signed by claimant. FOR AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS FOR OTHER ACCIDENTS SIDEWALK CUR PARKWAY SIDEWALK ce - Loko came, o tAA- recor+ : Vcwe uer_ why Ie he u= _ %*v Signature of Claimant orWsoh1f4!l -ih his relationship to Claimant: =MS MUST '3E FILED WITH CITY CLERK (GOV. CODE -SEC. 915a) . 'e— dAeA r' % "% aV • Date 14. Ka its 4&^ ai�►g3 91. LU Q .r,.,.,_ . wo s f '�. a b-. i e ,� /y � : j � •w 1� l .9 s ,� a a �P{} r� � r L Y a� •4.,n I y{ •a �Ya+� Ci. • . 8 r�. Jay ti .►,.. L..J.. i.'aA +ty y.,s 'ir ts�icr ..ya�l t.si�,s J Gi`m:1:1''' r •� ��, ';� ..'� a!'-TSTrr!r.--'.$.,.�.n a�•r `!.'fir* ra G,. i".'y'�.,y'�'R"T4.� r- �y �s,+s. � �/Y� y� ��, 'r'y�t•� �i�"�������y pi".,•.►�„ir)irb'.8YlY1.YYr r,�����f19��'�..�.i �dv_a•�Ci a• +�� _ �- _ ''9"•?Ffe s .�i. � 7 � '� �"+�' r `1 a�j� p f � r y _ f�,� y.�: )� �.a. .�sM1.�,..,,.. .a..,� � a.aa" i3:.i..J " �„ _ . f" 4� ���,..��-i_• �. i .fe7s;%,.- � r';tr �:.. 2i. 'Sri � �� -�T{., � �.a i �": - It'r _v � '+a �Ja Jr •�is Y.... Zi�1 r . ,. _ f-lla.�C81�P a'+s.�►. j ...s. f ." ,c+ w�'7 r Sv't ' }• —.-.i7rreT�Rt:,ri _"'^ryrf•r•-'�+r��.•v-• a-- `.. ;a,4}w1 r�•eu * d '.T y. r �� a i - � .Y `}i�s•ea•�� i regr_ ..,.,�,rn. %ir.a.el,.] :�" �.i+L�.i� r,r r a _i ..m.. S. a.�.�..a Rs marste" 1 � -r �' r c ; r� i - t� tai . ,� #, : S � � r '� d .. '" ✓ -t .,a..�.-,�..,.R � ..� '^,+.,�Rr,•+` .. ro^. R y lj.=Si G' n.r 1hi.i'�a_a, • _ice '.y,rilt.?ec:. t a y_ }� y!a Ry-� 4 � j, Y! � � f. t :r s� r f -gyp ��.a-•;R yr.,� a.,. { rt• ,...kw,._� /'IPSt ':R•�ii-i: SSLLry: ` r ..fir < 1 ys '. T^'�"1 �.) ",; t .-. ••-��•-' .�- TV l r+}a+E �°i�•]j i. r11rr�'� ,�.�� �� '" � , .rP`'�ifi�i`�',',rr; ti , ��ti�_T�r�l'�1,. � � � ! i. 13 fj ••qq ,. ' � ,�, ' .�; �� 'r'�." A+' -F..'. ,r i yt i�}� t -i -l -f. j sae.-t�`.'•fll.. � '-'� ;b �'~5� - t� � j �;,�e , 4�ci..j�iY4�,�.adt8.3'a:S'Y�.attr•eE.Mfix� ib i ��, a_� y�,y� ,r',y� .yy. i'ajj }, .^ is Tl,,,g " lltrS��..i `.�•�-iRa•Rr-• yF 1 f + .s- yY •+ilv. 'aV ' � 1 1 � 1 � J� �'L iR� ��J' �.,rT � '�..t�.a� �..�I��A�..s :j� �� 3°r�•�;' " al�� t?� l>� �. ! �+ - .� „ ���! �{?` , �, � j � � 4 �� •t�'F�`�fi t��,, � *�tf�r,�t v'�Ly J� , +u r�r � � t o •m si X3:_°9 �� .9J.i J.t ��r / ik lc' v �i�w> .+st .wJ •l : �P .N MJu ��j�' �• Ute ,a� ��1 t / ��!,��y �i � /,tft. _. Y �� 'a F .; : � �� '/ i a• r '1. j r 'rte ira s. '7`'M ` r^Rf �. - •- � •r: � �f�: � 5 :911 S .. PAYEE t�IRG -:-- ,1 3075ICASTLBROICK ROAD DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 TIN REMARKS ADDITIONAL RENTAL , REIMBURSEMENT REQUESTED BY Wendy H Kaiser AMOUNT $******731.13 COVERAGE PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RENTAL 205-1 $731.13 •• STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE BANK OF AMERICA 16-66/1220 _ f COSTA MESA, CA BREA, CA- CLAIM NO 55-X976-312 POLICY NO W070 -089-55A ggb,, cults uNIT 526, OPERTY LOSS.DATE 11/19/92 INSURED GREUSEL, PAMELA ` k` *"""""�"""*"'*"*"*"""••""*** CTLY SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE AND 13/100 DOLLARS Pay ro rhe j Order 014 VIRGINI ; KLEIN,* =� 3075 CASTLEROCK'�ROAD DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 TIN ' AUTH WKAIS CLAIM NO 55—X976-312 POLICY No W070 -089-55A 1- , PAYEE vI�, 307?INIA KLEINKLEEIN FOR RTA REIMBURSEMENT ` DIAMOND BAR CA 765 JIN EMARKSiiAFtEOOM$U$ PER AEME2TDAYS AT V Z 11 yy 1 EQUESTED BY Wendy H Kaiser 1:12 814406 J DATE 12/30/92 E - VEHICLE RENTAL .1 . $731.13 APPROV D BY LOSS DATE 11 / 19 / 9'2 DRAFT NO 1 12 813226 J DATE 12/01/92 AMOUNT $******246.68 COVERAGE PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RENTAL 205-2 5246.68 �•��••- STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY 1 12 813226 J SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE BANK OF AMERICA 16-66/1220 �ruur•S COSTA MESA, CA BREA, CA DATE 12/01/92 COVERAGE PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RENTAL :LAIN No 55-X976-312 POLICY NO W070 -089-55A CLAIM UNIT 520 205-2 5246.68 .OSS DATE 11/19/92 fNsuRED GREUSEL, PAMELA -------------------- -- *"'****'**XACTLY TWO HUNDRED FORTY-SIX AND 68/100 DOLLARS tiS; " ""E 6 68 7� t0 the ).de.oft VIRGINIA KLEIN aFOR RENTAL REIMBURSEMENT 3075 CASTLEROCK.=ROAD DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 TIN AUTH IS ' A VED BY I 1� CLICK'N STICK 1 ;OTO STATIONERY "zv�, li IBM nom_ ', , P.G.S. FORM 200-2-35 .:;.S- INDUSTRIES, P.O. BOX 1316, ASBURY PARK, N.J. 07712 1-908-919-0707 POLICY NO. OATE/LOSS INSURED /.3 � ^ CLAIMANT PICTURE NO. DATE/TIME TAKEN BY WEATHER LOCATION AND VIEW COMMENTS PICTURE NO. DATE/TIME TAKEN BY WEATHER LOCATION & VIEW COMMENTS ��' i/'e'v: 0 OUR FILE NO. -)(q q 7 4,-:� r Z CO. CLM # CiUMN STICK,' OTO STATIONERY P.G.S. FORM 2W2 -M P 1S. INDUSTRIES, P.O. BOX 1348, ASBURY PARK, N.J. 07712 1-9013919-0707 POLICY NO. OATE/LOSS INSURED CLAIMANT T,t=(! / egt ) PICTURE NO. OATElTIME TAKEN BY WEATHER LOCATION AND VIEW COMMENTS PICTURE NO. DATE/TIME TAKEN BY WEATHER LOCATION & VIEW COMMENTS 4:261-- 1-"-" P w (4 c� OUR FILE NO. CO. CLM # CiLICK'N STICK.r NOTO STATIONERY r DIRECTIONS: PLACE PHOTO(S) IN POCKETS. PEELTAB. PRESS PLASTIC PROTECTOR FIRMLY TO ADHESIVE. P.G.S. FORM 200-2-35 P.;;.S. INDUSTRIES, P.O. BOX 1348, ASBURY PARK, N.J. 07712 1-908-919-0707 POLICY NO. DATEMOSS INSURED CLAIMANT Pe' Jte- iJ C ` PICTURE NO. DATE/TIME TAKEN BY WEATHER LOCATION AND VIEW COMMENTS PICTURE NO. DATENIME TAKEN BY WEATHER LOCATION & VIEW COMMENTS OUR FILE NO. 2 7�'' Z CO. CLM # CLAIM PHOTO TRANSMITTAL Claim Number Lap WV11w LoatIeNYlow IaoM8latloaDow leonnnootloa Tim owner Time Owner LooeAloa/Ns Loallea/View Noollflalaa new ItloM111atlM Pat now owner nage/T/�� o� 160-6476.37-SR 60-6476.3 Rev. 1-88 Printed in U.S.A. � Taken By: _EARL PUL( CLAIM PHOTO i red TRANSMITTAL —mmber - ownw LocatloAvTo—w- Idendflutlen — Date/ Time cdkwvlsw LmOWVlew frololcome INV at Dwow -88 Printed in U.S.A. Taken W-5476.3 Rev. I EAH17 PURCE1,L 1 1 Y i7_hiLLLC fi-4St;tU i tU" :t_Pi—j ! t / ! ! 1 t Ai ii riizjQ czp r r -r:nACiU-r 0C0n0=r 4M Claim NumberClaim Representative Claim Unit Owner Phone Number FAX Number /!tel /4 Insured Loss Code Date of, Loss - Date Reported Z o 0 Location Address ; Phone Number 17�/ Towing $ Storage $ Per Da% Cause of Loss SI: Collision ❑ Theft ❑ Flood ❑ Vandalism ❑ Hail ❑Fire ❑ Other VEHICLE DESCRIPTION Yew Makeseries Badystyle License Plate Number ; Expiration Date State VIN �s 3 b :V r % /� `' �i v Z ; Exterior Interpr Color.; ✓�' L y l `� Engine Disp. No. Cyl. 2L! s 11 Diesel ❑ turbo Trans.: Auto. ( 3 - 4 ) ❑STD.` { 3 4 = 5 - 6) ❑ 4WD Mileage Mf 4 4A % of W Tires: � '7 Size z- Z�o yel K teal Belted ! LFA '' -DRi RRS,ae1,SP_ EQUIPMENT/ACCESSORIES SEATS STEERING BRAKES ROOF GLASS WHEELS ,flower ower A Power Vinyl printedO�IVon-0EM) standard Split a'Tilt ❑ 4 Wheel Disc ❑ Sun (Power/Manual) hadsd ❑ Alum/Mag Alloy Bucket ❑ 4 Wheel ❑ ABS ❑ T -Top ted (Frt� (OEM/Non=OEM) Lcbloth Steering ❑ Convertible ❑ Heads -Up Display ❑ Chrome Vinyl -❑ Telescoping (PowerlManual) 29�Power Windows ❑�Wite ❑ Leather ❑ Luggage Rack ❑ Rear Glass Wiper ,Full Wheel Cover (Wire) ❑ Heated ❑ Hub Caps ❑ Lumbar Adj. RADIO: POEM ❑ Non -OEM Brand Model No. -AM-FM Stereo 2nape Deck ❑ Amplifier ❑ Equalizer ❑ CD Player ❑ Power Antenna CB: ❑ OEM ❑ Non -OEM Brand Model No. CELLULAR HONE: ❑ OEM ❑ Non -OEM Brand Model No. OTHER INTERIOR war Locks ecr ' ]� ontrol OTHER EXTERIOR ❑ Power Mirrors PICKUP/VAN - EQUIPMENT/ACCESSORIES ❑ Step Bumper ❑ Winch ❑ Aux. Fuel Tank Tnmk Release . PEM4Non-OEM) 56V/C ❑ ag: ❑ •Special Mldgs. ❑ Ground Effects ❑ Gliding Rear Window -E)Toof-Box . ❑ Fdg Lights ❑ Removeable: ❑ Bed Liner ❑ Trailer Taw Pkg. LI Rear A/C ❑ Driver ❑ Pass. ❑ Luggage Rack ❑ Soft Top ❑ Hard Top ❑ Roll Bar ❑ Camper Shell DI90I DaAh- ... . , 3rd: Seale .:.. ❑Spoiler., . -- _ .. ❑ Rbrming•Boards... _- , . ...:f ttgflt•88r :•.:. Captain Chairs ❑ Trailer Hitch 1_1 Grille Guards ❑ 2 ❑ 4 ❑ 6 ❑ Theft Alarm Paint: nginal ❑ Repaint (+/-) $ ❑ Pinstripes/Graphics ❑ 2 -Tone ❑ Custom ❑ Wood Grain Motorcycles: ❑ Fairing (Full) ❑ Fairing (Handle Bar) ❑ Luggage Carrier ❑ Saddle Bags ❑ Headers ❑ Side Car ❑ Crash Bars Use this space to explain or describe Equipment/Accessories listed above and/or list and describe additional EquipLnent/Accessorie . dzA CC M (f CC CONTINUE ON REVERSE SIDE PRE -LOSS CONDITIAN INTERIOR: . (Explain if other than average coed' on for year, make and model vehicle) ;t " / Above Avg. Avg, Below Avg. Seats: S �� r --� .f— Z e- N Fees . . . . + -736 6 Carpets:. Of h .4. s T . •-, / D ❑ Glass: _ Remarks .,. Owner Retained Salvage • ' Dela Remittaeci3 Reo9lved �T' t� Deductible ❑ �` D Dash: _......... ' Towing." Amount Paid OwnerStorage $ Headliner: ` `, ` . EXTERIOR: (Explain if other than average condition for year, mak and model veh' ) ❑ ❑ _. ,$h6eLMetal e_ M15cellamb ExpartSB.,- . .,......... . _. .. , ,.. ... . . Cul P. SIGNATURE Net Salvage ..-..� t t. ❑ ❑ Paint: �- Paae 2 Trim: -• MECHANICAL: (Explain if other than average condition for year, make and model vehicle) ❑ ❑ Engine: ❑ Transmission: PRIOR DAMAGE:Ky es . Prior Damage ❑ No Estimate Written: ❑ Yes ❑ No Amount $ ❑ Damage ❑ Location: F - S - R - A OVERALL CONDITION: ❑ Above Avg. ❑ Avg. Below Avg. Salvage will be: ❑ Rebuilt ❑ Sold for parts ❑ Scrapped INSPECTED SY TOTAL LOSS SETTLEMENT Method used to determine base price. (Check one) Computerized Evaluation 13 comparable Vehicles Name of Vendor: C_ S Did you pay the computerized evaluation amount? Yes ❑ No If No, explain: n r DATE ❑ Boo�tn�l EvaluaAmou Source & Telephone Number Quote By Date Make & Model Avai YES Circle vehicle number(s) used to determine base price: ( 1. 2. 3. ) Explain any adjustments for difference in mileage, equipment, condition, prior damage, etc.: Ad'usted Amount $ ®� Book(s) used: Basic Book Price '$ List additions or deductions for equipment, mileage, etc. and prior damage: Adjusted Amount $ Did you pay this amount? ❑ Yes ❑ No If No, explain: Base Price $ 3 "03-00 SALVAGE Name of Purchaser Tax _ . , . . + a$ - IS t DISPOSITION Fees . . . . + -736 6 Date soa I - : - `r Actual Cash,.Value _ Remarks .,. Owner Retained Salvage • ' Dela Remittaeci3 Reo9lved �T' t� Deductible — High salvagbad g r - = C • �'C der payoft0r:• ' Towing." Amount Paid OwnerStorage $ ` `, ` . Date Settled . Disposition of Ti tle: _........ .. M15cellamb ExpartSB.,- . .,......... . _. .. , ,.. ... . . Cul P. SIGNATURE Net Salvage See CPG 2700-270- �- Paae 2 ORANGE COUNTY SALVAGE SALES, INC. Year 1985 Color : GREY Make OLDSMOBILE :_sde1 CUTLASS amage: R STA4 STATE FARM INS- DIAMOND BAR P. O. BOX 287 POMONA, CA 91766 Proceeds Transmittal Adjuster WENDY KAISER .:_aim Number 55X976312 Date of Loss 11./19/1992 rDlicy Holder: GREUSEL PAM f'-ner KLEIN VIRGINIA 29E77.......0 � `IV YIYtI 0 lY-'Iy-Yi YY'i'"Y4 C! "" Bila St. • Anaheim, CA 92806 Sao,J BERNARDINO COUNTY 13901 San Bernardino Ave. • Fontana, CA 92335 (714) 630-5602 VIN : 1G3GM69Y8FR396021 Tires . License : 2NGT593 Radio : Yes Mileage : 142,124 Battery: Yes Yard : Fontana Keys : Yes Title Received: 01/02/1993 Notice of Release of Liability sent to Sacramento: 01/29/1993 At -'::ached please find the sales proceed check for the ._.:icle listed above. Thank you for allowing orange county Salvage Sales to sell your vehicle. Your patronage is appreciated. a Date : 02/09/1993 Stock Number: 00002328-9A Sale Date : 01/26/1993 Stall No. 213 called In : 12/16/1992 Draft No. Draft Amount: .00 Sale information High Bid Amt 828.00 Advance 320.00 Tow Charges 44.50 Sale/Service 60.00 Storage .00 check charge 6.00 Print Out .00 Verification .00 DMV/Lien 10.00 Plate Removl .00 COP Re -Vin .00 Dry Run .00 Miscellanous 10.00 Payments 1 .00 Amount of Proceed 377.50 Rancho Cucamonga FEB 10 1993 AUTO i ; cccThe Authority in Yfhicit i ��. C oimf Msnagemmi 3+2 787. 26tG 800 621. 80,713 °aa 9GG 3Z' a STATE FARM INSURANCE 3179 TEMPLE AVENUE DIAMOND BAR, CA 91766 (714) 869-7200 USER ID: 47435 VALUATION — REQUEST: 13567629 12/16/92 16:45 *INSTANT* STER NAME: KAISER LOSS DATES 11/19/92 ADJUSTER ID: VIN: 1G3GM69Y8FR396021 CLAIM REFERENCE: 55—X976-312 CLAIMS CLASS: INSURED: GREUSEL OWNER: VIRGINIA KLEIN YEAR MAKE MODEL BODY STYLE ENGINE TRANS ODOMETER INSURER DESCRIPTION VINGUARD ANALYSIS ------------------------------ 1985 OLDSMOBILE CUTLASS SUPREME BROUGHAM GM69 4D SED 8 -5 -OL -4 AUTO TRANSMISSION ----------------------------- 1985 OLDSMOBILE CUTLASS SUPREME BROUGHAM GM69 4D SED 8 -5 -OL -4 142,124 NOTE: 58% HIGHER THAN TYPICAL VEHICLE VINGUARD MESSAGE(S) NO VIN ERRORS ARE DETECTED ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- VALUATION NOTES OPTIONS) ADDED BN (STANDARD) NOTE MODEL DIFFERENCE OF REPRESENTATIVE VEHI THE CURRENT LOCAL MARKET VALUE WAS DETERMINED TO BE $3,125 INCLUDES ADJUSTMENTS FOR ODOMETER AND OPTIONS; ,EXCLUDES TAX, TITLE, AND DEALER PREP. AUTOSEARCH CAN HELP INSUREDS WHO NEED VEHICLES. CALL 1-800-621-6060 (C) COPYRIGHT 1992 CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ------- '--'"'—'— ""—'-- VEHICLE CONDITION ----------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ VEHICLE VALUED IN CLEAN AVERAGE DEALER CONDITION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING SCALE., ---------------------------- 3 (ABOVE AVERAGE) ] 2 CLEAN (AVERAGE DEALER) 1 1 (AVERAGE PRIVATE) 0 (FAIR) ---------------------------- VALUATION DATABASE THE PRIMARY VALUATION AREA FOR THIS VALUATION WAS ORANGE COUNTY, CA CCC MAINTAINS INSPECTED DEALER VEHICLES FROM: 97 DEALERS IN THIS AREA THIS VALUATION REFERENCED: 8,382 INSPECTED DEALER VEHICLES 100,572 LOCALLY ADVERTISED VEHICLES v nv{vvniT in remGt G7aims Management 31? 787. 26x0 600 621, 90,70 F3, 900. 3<1 =---------------------------- ----------------- LOCAL ADVERTISEMENTS - --------------------------- SOURCE ---------------- YR MODEL ODOM'TR PHONE PRICE Q.C. REGISTER -------------- 11/15/92 85 CUTLASS SUPREME B UNKNOWN 714/768-4561 $ 3,250 O.C. REGISTER O.C.DOM.TRADER 11/08/92 85 CUTLASS SUPREME B 11/05/92 UNKNOWN 714/990-5980 $ 3,250 O.C-DOM-TRADER 85 CUTLASS SUPREME B 10/08/92 85 CUTLASS SUPREME B UNKNOWN 714/582-0959 UNKNOWN 714/441-0681 $ $ 2,700 2,995 O.C.DOM.TRADER 09/24/92 85 CUTLASS SUPREME B UNKNOWN 714/434-6645 $ 2,900 RECYCLER O.C. 12/02/92 85 CUTLASS SUPREME UNKNOWN 310/592-4280 $ 3,499 O.C. REGISTER O.C.DOM.TRADER 11/22/92 85 CUTLASS SUPREME 85,000 714/774-0430 $ 2,995 11/05/92 85 CUTLASS SUPREME B 82,000 714/894-9387 $ 3,450 ------------------------'---- ----------------- VEHICLE EQUIPMENT ------------------------------- AIR CONDITIONING INC AM FM STEREO INC AUTO TRANSMISSION STD BODY SIDE MOLDINGS STD BUMPER GUARDS STD CASSETTE INC CLOTH SEATS INC CONVENIENCE GROUP STD CRUISE CONTROL INC LIGHT GROUP STD MOLDINGS STD POWER BRAKES STD POWER LOCKS INC POWER PASSENGER SEA INC POWER SEATS INC POWER STEERING STD POWER WINDOWS INC REAR DEFOGGER INC STEEL BELTED RADIAL S.TD TILT WHEEL INC TINTED GLASS INC VINYL ROOF INC WIRE WHEEL COVERS INC ------------------ "-'-'--- VEHICLE HISTORY ---------------------------------------------=_ ----------------------------- THE MID-SIZE CUTLASS IS OFFERED IN SEVERAL BODY STYLES, INCLUDING CALAIS AND SALON SPORT VERSIONS. THESE REAR WHEEL DRIVE MODELS ARE ONE OF THE BEST MID-SIZE BUYS: QUIET, REFINED, AND COMFORTABLE, WITH STRONG RESALE VALUE. THE 442 AND HURST MODEL HOLD A HIGHER RESALE VALUE DUE TO LIMITED PRODUCTION AND POSSIBLE COLLECTQR INTEREST. 1988 WAS THE LAST OF THE REAR WHEEL DRIVE MODELS CALLED CUTLASS SUPREME CLASSIC, EQUIPPED WITH A STANDARD EIGHT CYLINDER ENGINE. RELIABILITY HAS RATED AVERAGE OR BETTER (EXCEPT FOR DIESEL ENGINE), WITH UPKEEP COSTS LOWER THAN NORMAL. COMPARABLE VEHICLES: BUICK REGAL PRODUCTION: 223,052 CCC y 1111 AV11tOtity in Vehicle Claims hbaagamant 312. 787. 2640 800 621.8070 -------------------------------- PRICE TRENDS ----------------------------- AS OF: 12/16/92 ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ $3,900 .$3,800 $3,904 $3,804 $3,700 $3,700 $3,600 $3,504 $3,640 $3,500 $3,400 $3,400 $3,300 $3,300 $3,200 + + + + + + $3,100 $3,200 $3,000 $3,100 $3,000 $2,900 $2,900 $2,804 $2,sod $2,744 $2,600 $z,700 $2,600 JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV VEHICLE RECALLS THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY ADMINISTRATION HAS ISSUED 3 SAFETY RELATED RECALL NOTICES ON THE ABOVE VALUED VEHICLE. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR ASSISTANCE, CALL CCC CUSTOMER SERVICE AT 1-800-621-8070 AND FOLLOW THE AUTOMATED OPERATOR"S INSTRUCTIONS. PLEASE USE YOUR VALUATION REQUEST NUMBER FOR REFERENCE. NHTSA IDt 89V102000 ISSUED: 06/14/89 N0. OF VEHICLES: 1,755,897 SYSTEM: CRUISE CONTROL. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH CRUISE CONTROL AND CERTAIN GASOLINE AND DIESEL ENGINES. DESCRIPTION OF DEFECT: A SMALL NYLON BUSHING IN THE CRUISE CONTROL SERVO BAIL MAY SLIP OUT OF PLACE, CAUSING INTERMITTENT AND UNEXPECTED INCREASES IN ENGINE SPEED OR DIESELING (ENGINE RUN ON WITH IGNITION OFF). CONSEQUENCE OF DEFECT: SERVO ROD ASSEMBLY COULD CATCH ON ENGINE COMPONENTS AND RESULT IN A STUCK THROTTLE WITH POTENTIAL FOR A VEHICLE CRASH. CORRECTIVE ACTION: INSTALL A NEW BUSHING IN CRUISE CONTROL SERVO BAIL. NHTSA ID: 84V154000 ISSUED: 11/20/84 N0. OF VEHICLES: 19 VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. SYSTEM: INTERIOR SYSTEMS; FRONT SEAT BELT RETRACTOR. DESCRIPTION OF DEFECT: THE VEHICLES WERE ASSEMBLED WITH FRONT SEAT BELT RETRACTORS WHICH MAY NOT PERFORM ADEQUATELY DURING A COLLISION. CONSEQUENCES OF DEFECT: IN THE EVENT OF A VEHICLE CRASH, FAILURE OF A FRONT SEAT BELT RETRACTOR WOULD INCREASE CHANCES OF OCCUPANT INJURY. CORRECTIVE ACTION: THE DEALER WILL REPLACE THE LEFT AND RIGHT FRONT SEAT BELT RETRACTORS FREE OF CHARGE. NHTSA ID: 84V124000 ISSUED: 10/02/84 NO. OF VEHICLES: 10,359 Fsx 800. 521 CCCNe Authorityin Vehicle Cteimt Mensgemem 312. 737. 2440 800. 631. 80iC �nx 9G0. 311 VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. SYSTEM: STEERING LINKAGES) TIE RODS. DESCRIPTION OF DEFECT: THE TIE RODS ARE PART OF THE STEERING LINKAGE AND TRANSMIT TURNING MOVEMENTS TO THE WHEELS. THE BOLTS THAT FASTEN THE TIE RODS TO THEIR ADJUSTERS MAY NOT BE TIGHT ENOUGH. THIS COULD ALLOW THE TIE ROD TO LOOSEN AND DETACH ITSELF FROM THE ADJUSTER. CONSEQUENCES OF DEFECT: A LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL AND A POSSIBLE VEHICLE CRASH COULD RESULT. CORRECTIVE ACTION: THE TIE ROD END BOLTS WILL BE TIGHTENED WITHOUT COST TO THE OWNER. ..... .,� _ . _ ... ........_ ..__._ _-. ccc TAq AYlhont�r 1n Y�Me1t Cii�nit Mina mint j' .. :.v.=2�,.+. �.✓CMa<`�YW7i:�YiA :Y.ki:r✓..ts...+� :.y:..t. h.•:,�.!.r t •. .�: a:� ,•. ,� �:.c 3.�sr,.=�.?�' �i:"�M-�Fa%a1K�k�S.dQ�•.�� .dQ�t.. , f7+1 1. as,�s s=saw �tsg. PLEASE DETACH ANDPROVIDETO OWNER)FVEHICLE—BEFORE SETTLEMENT. ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- AUTOSEARCH VEHICLE LOCATOR SERVICE ------------------------------------------------ FOR FREE HELP IN LOCATING YOUR NEXT VEHICLE, CONTACT AUTOSEARCH AT 1-800-621-6060. THIS FREE SERVICE IS AVAILABLE TO HELP YOU LOCATE YOUR NEXT VEHICLE. CAR OR TRUCK? NEW OR USED? CCC:CAN HELPi CERTIFICATE NUMBER 13567629 PLEASE CALL. ---------------------------------------------------------------- AUTOSEARCH VEHICLE LOCATOR SERVICE 1-800-621-6060. S. t� 4 NTER AUTEP H PR r ENTERPRISE'S Rj -• MILE. IN ERMISSION GRANTED FOR VEHICLE TO LEAVE THE STATE. , AGE OUT res NO STATES AUTH By - ENTERPRISE'S REP DRIVEN D TOTAL CHARGES CONDITION LIT IN REFUNDABLE R.F. OR/FDR j �. LESS: EXPENSES R.R. DRYFDR - NET AMOUNT t .F. ORIFDR h .R. DRIFOR RENTER A DEPOSITS IOOOiGLASS X — 1,'?c):'42 FUND RUNKISPARE ENE RISE EMPL� L IML COVERS RETURy A' , ,, ORID. °uow:' - er :.j4E=p 4U rH• C OUT E +h +/� 3/a �I Th F i ! l : O` 2�>lj , i i,i �r`3 1 , } ^AR 9v 7EP C :) _ '" E +h +h s/E T/IN -/R T/a F EXT. ADD T L 2 TO DEP cAs cHEc% .R EXT. ADDT L Y TO -•� 8 L�. I� (r R 'P R CASH REc ----� EXT. U DATE v AM9UNT TO —P BYCEIVE X _ X1 1/ 9 ADEPS 2 1 3 I j CV IM INF RMATION ADDITIONAL IN 8 1 POL. OR CL 0 Ar. r r.. F. •,wA C92-192 LOSS ` DATE PHONE -- 504�923 PE YS� OLIrS1MOBILE D98a»o. - r -EF:F_' h�'`. tr- L ,'r ,E J=,�1 E�,Acs^i�• :�� a= Ly;i i -,.o 7:J��i+--D:�)() "}:�1�}.I— 4�1;,1(�• `:JC If'1 R I�bll • 3GA- � 1 F' gip. 6:0(',F, 9: } R SU CLOSED t RENTA4 s � I __ _ " TYPE + f 0646 F'M 11 20; 9'EAR c o �NTD 9�j481 �RSPIi A`Jr NnFIAR6E START CHARGES IF CIFFERENT ODD;. ='-'l,' Cr-r:_;TLE r-%CCi- FID l �_— _ 1toeE�PyoHE ORIGINAL VEHICLE i11�rai90Tlli SAF, ATE +'?- �. �_�F�IcEP,MONf LSA 91:b0 1441) COLOR ],lC $J: NO. UREY ARJIt LOCAL ADDRESS O MARE ,r n PHONE �-_CALENDAR ;P1.AY j TOMO A416 � RI„ LI Ha ' U `4� + i E i 4/94 _ s_ MILE• IN AGE out OB NEICN i2!2�+/42 5 - \ 8RKl... RIPN a ` ' OArs16E 4 i vo DRIVEN ¢ ON Sr jLtcuRlrr Ir _y+P�Oj'€9 BETA , } CONDITION IN BILL ;�J ca"4er',i�E FAR�MLr}�YSEHiI�E+ TO R.F. pR/FDR ADDRESS `, r, R.R. ORIF P L. F. D DR CITY ---- STATE P L R. OR HOODiGLASS ATT" PHONE E%T. r TRUNK/SPARE RENTERACCEPTg RENTER "-WR RMAISTS P•RnAL 0•M•DE w•v RE OHMAGE 1(VHL COVERS RESPONSIBILITY X REVERaE NIS I! Nor IN$NP•Nc Iowl •r o... « awwN .N AaolNl«e cV.00/DAN; . F OUT u E '/� 1�• %� �/. Yh F RENTER DECLINES RENTER REOya"s PERleN•. ACGDENr I E PERSONAL •r ouAr FEE SNew.., iN •Wc r LA-�-'..1-0A.. ACCIDENT INSURANCE X _ • 1 �j DAY 1 E IN E Th % T� Y4 3A Th F L ..a H,a RE•o ^ E ^olAti aR w x REQUEST FOR PERMISSION FOR PERSON OTHER THAN RENT . ., DRIVE. NOT VALID UNLESS APPROVED ' REPLACE T VEH CL IEY u"t ER twon3RISE'S I, o"Iss." 1 a I nauElr Enraronla'a PaEmraalon ro anew, �iJO OTHERS AGE LICENSE NO - STATE TAX • r EXP. Ll N0, \� , // �/ 'a Gr..�rly �: .�NiM .MIN nN�K1EI y Inn yy i. Tv aMPI. II if uMMfl w Onwlla AN1 1AM M nI1ER ya WKIEI NY n�cryrw eenlrm >na m.PtiNn AM,IMr M �� .01 M 'MPPnMPM nlPrplN. -, MAK U N a•a t 10 M nwrvaH .MPMYaM 1s IM <gpH1.1W1^1n.PIK a1 wl Inn Inl^.n rq ePtiPnRa ^ 'MI+w LI M N EP ACIMq (j 8.00 � • - S. t� 4 NTER AUTEP H PR r ENTERPRISE'S Rj -• MILE. IN ERMISSION GRANTED FOR VEHICLE TO LEAVE THE STATE. , AGE OUT res NO STATES AUTH By - ENTERPRISE'S REP DRIVEN D TOTAL CHARGES CONDITION LIT IN REFUNDABLE R.F. OR/FDR j �. LESS: EXPENSES R.R. DRYFDR - NET AMOUNT t .F. ORIFDR h .R. DRIFOR RENTER A DEPOSITS IOOOiGLASS X — 1,'?c):'42 FUND RUNKISPARE ENE RISE EMPL� L IML COVERS RETURy A' , ,, ORID. °uow:' - er :.j4E=p 4U rH• C OUT E +h +/� 3/a �I Th F i ! l : O` 2�>lj , i i,i �r`3 1 , } ^AR 9v 7EP C :) _ '" E +h +h s/E T/IN -/R T/a F EXT. ADD T L 2 TO DEP cAs cHEc% .R EXT. ADDT L Y TO -•� 8 L�. I� (r R 'P R CASH REc ----� EXT. U DATE v AM9UNT TO —P BYCEIVE X _ X1 1/ 9 ADEPS 2 1 3 I j CV IM INF RMATION ADDITIONAL IN 8 1 POL. OR CL 0 Ar. r r.. F. •,wA C92-192 LOSS ` DATE PHONE -- 504�923 PE YS� OLIrS1MOBILE D98a»o. - CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO �j , TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: March 2, 1993 REPORT DATE: February 24, 1993 FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer TITLE: Approval of Sewer Easement Vacation/Relocation Between Parcel No.I of Parcel Map No. 15375 and Parcel No.1 of Parcel Map No. 2151, located at 3302 South Diamond Bar Boulevard. SUMMARY: This Sewer Easement Vacation/Relocation is between Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 15375 and Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 2151 at 3302 South Diamond Bar Boulevard, for construction of an Arco/AM.PM mini -mart. The Sewer Easement Vacation/Relocation has now been submitted to the City of Diamond Bar for approval. RECOMMENDATION: That City Council approve Resolution No. 93 -XX. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report X Resolution Ordinances(s) _ Agreement: _ Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) _ Other: EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ 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? X Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. Belanger City Manager CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: March 2, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer SUBJECT: Sewer Easement Vacation/Relocation Between Parcel No.l of Parcel Map 15375 and Parcel No.1 of Parcel Map 2151. ISSUE STATEMENT Approve Resolution No. 93 -XX detailing the Sewer Easement Vacation/ Relocation Between Parcel No.l of Parcel Map 15375 and Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 2151 located at 3302 South Diamond Bar Boulevard in the City of Diamond Bar and have the Los Angeles County's Recorder's office record the eaement deed for the new sewer easement executed between the City of Diamond Bar and Atlantic Richfield Company. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 93 - XX authorizing and directing the City Clerk, on behalf of the City of Diamond Bar, to accept vacation of the sewer easement shown in Exhibit "B" and accept the easement deed for sanitary sewer maintenance purposes for the relocated sanitary sewer shown in Exhibit "D" at 3302 South Diamond Bar Boulevard. FINANCIAL SUMMARY Approval of the sewer easement vacation/ relocation will not have any impact on the City's Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 92-5, which resulted in the adjustment of the lot line between Parcel Map No. 15375 and Parcel Map No. 2151, it became necessary to vacate the existing sewer easement and to acquire an adequate easement area for a new sewer main. As shown in Exhibit "D", currently the sewer easement runs north - south between parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 15375 and parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 2151. With the proposed sewer easement along the newly adjusted lot line of the aforementioned parcels, an Arco mini -mart building can be constructed on parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 2151 without the encroachment of a sewer line. Currently parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 2151 is owned by Atlantic Richfield Company, and parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 15375 is owned by Metro Diamond Bar Properties. Prepared by: Anne M.Garvey RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, TO ACCEPT 1)THE VACATION OF A SEWER EASEMENT AND 2)THE OFFERING OF A RELOCATED SEWER EASEMENT LOCATED AT 3302 SOUTH DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AND DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD THE RESOLUTION/EASEMENT DEED A. RECITALS (i) The sanitary sewer P.C. No. 8665 running north -south between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road and parallel to the west boundary of Parcel Map No. 2151 at 3302 South Diamond Bar Boulevard is located within an 8' easement to the City of Diamond Bar. Atlantic Richfield Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation has requested that the City of Diamond Bar a)vacate a portion of sanitary sewer easement of aproximately 206 feet for existing P.C. No. 8665 and b)accept a new sanitary sewer easement for maintenance of proposed P.C. No. DB -92-006 located at 3302 South Diamond Bar Boulevard in the proposed ARCO/AM.PM. mini -mart's parcel. This easement grants the City the right to construct, maintain, operate, and use sanitary sewers and appurtenant structures in and across the real property in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California:- A full, true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibits "C" and "D". (iii) The City Engineer has reviewed, approved and recommends the acceptance of the vacation and easement deed. B. RESOLUTION NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby finds that a portion of sanitary sewer easement running north -south between Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard, legal described in Exhibit A and as shown by the map in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which real property is located in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California, is no longer needed for present or prospective use based upon the following fact: That the subject easement will be superseded by a relocation, legal described in Exhibit C and as shown by the map in Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which real property is located in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California. 2. That the public easement in, over and across said property for sanitary sewer maintenance purposes legally described in Exhibit A attached is hereby vacated. 3. That the City Clerk be instructed to record the certified original resolution in the office of the Registrar - Recorder of the County of Los Angeles, at which time the area vacated will no longer be a sanitary sewer easement and the new area will be a sanitary sewer easement. 4. The City Council hereby accepts the offer of deeds of the easement set forth in Exhibit "E". 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution and forthwith cause the vacation and new easement to be recorded on behalf of the City and to execute any and all documents necessary or convenient to affect said recordation. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of Mayor , 1993. 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 of following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: , 1993, by the ATTEST• City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar EXHIBIT "C" AN EASEMENT FOR THE SEWER PURPOSE AND ALL USES INCIDENT THERETO, INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE.THERE OF, IN, OVER AND UNDER A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 92-006, IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED ON OCTOBER 2, 1992, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92-1990659 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1 OF PM 2151; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 OF PM 2151, NORTH 11058'40" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 24.06 FEET; THENCE, LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 60055'37" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 60.73 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 31033'51" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 173.16 FEET, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, AS SAID DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD IS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NUMBER 2151, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,050.00 FEET; THENCE, EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 10.29 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0°33'42"; THENCE, LEAVING SAID CURVE, SOUTH 31°33'51" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 165.21 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 60155'37" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 55.58 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 11058'40" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 34.52 FEET, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 60055'37" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 8.37 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT 'D' SEWER EASENENT IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA OWNER EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBERS REFERENCE NUMBERS ARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY 8714-15-20 & 8714-15-24 A -'4 R BLVD ,RT _ 01550.00 DIAMOND Bp► L - 10.29 I NEW SEWE] (TYP) A - 0626'52' R-10'30.00 T — 50.14 L — 11a.1e T 2 OF !.i.A. # 9-2-010-3 �1 x i BASS OF BEARINGS THE BEARINO N 57W5r E BEANO THE CENTERLINE OF BREA CANYON ROAD PER PARCEL MAP NO. 2151 REGARDED IN BOOK 34. PACE 84 IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STATE OF CALFORNIA. WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS. a 1 THIS, DOCIAIEHT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY SUPERVISION SEWEE RUANGTRAGOOL R.C.E. 32132 :; Rrr:l i r^^: ti^i i _3 34-84 / Z -T i rc LLA # 92-006 z F L)RE)EE) OH Vt. t . 2, i:l:7 �G lEbSMNO SEWER EASEMENT op TO BE VACATED 2 N RLY U SOUTHERLY 1 EOF LT UNE REO�ED ON 06 O. 92-0 N OCT. 2. 1992 AS NSTRUCMENT 1 NQ 92-1990659 GRAPHIC SCALE 1"=50'-0" SHT. 1 OF 1 SHT. EXHIBIT "A" (VACATION) THE WESTERLY 8.00 FEET OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO 2151 AS FILED IN BOOK 34, PAGE 84 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SAID EASTERLY LINE OF SAID EASEMENT SHALL BE LENGTHENED OR SHORTENED SO AS TO TERMINATE ON THE NORTHERLY AND SOUTHERLY LOT LINES OF SAID PARCEL 1. EXHIBIT 'B' SEWER EASEMENT IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA OWNER EXISTING PARCELS AP NUMBERS PROPOSED PARCELS REFERENCE NUMBERS ARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY 8714-15-20 & 8714-15-24 LOTS 1 & 2 A - 00W .1BLVD LVO = 5.155M 5 D0 DIAMpND BAR L — 10.29 .oy A RIC �y ate. 3»-54 AS :M-TDUMEN-1 1-101. EXISTING SEWER EASEMENT 70 BE VACAIM \o AS Go h b r O O tl C S6070 5'37' E 'O &J737'W V Q BASIS OF BEARINGS TO THE BEARING N 57W5S E BONG IHE CENIERUK 4' OF MA CANYON ROAD PER PARCEL kW NO. 2151 Q' f RECORDED IN BOOK 34. PAGE 84 IN THE COUNTY � /)" OF RIVERSIDE STATE OF CAUFORNIA, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS, Q i1if, 25 50 100 719 O=AlE7iT WAS PREPARED Iff AIF ' OR DNDER YY SUPERVISION �\}s' [rp 1O�'.�-.- GRAPHIC SCALE 1"=50'-0" PSEIIEE RUANGTRA00OL RCE- M32 SHT. 1 OF 1 SHT. Recording Requested by CITY OF DIAMOND BAR WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Diamond Bar CITY CLERK 21660 E.Copley Dr., Ste. 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 EXHIBIT "E" SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION GRANT(s) to the City of Diamond Bar, a municipal corporation, an EASEMENT for sanitary sewer maintenance purposes, in, over, along, under, across and through that certain real property in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as follows: See attached Exhibit "C" for legal description. See attached Exhibit "D" for plat map. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM FOR INDIVIDUALS State of California ) On this day of , ) SS in the year 19 before me, the County of Los Angeles) undersigned, a Notary Public, in and for said State, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said State ***************************************************************** ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM FOR CORPORATIONS State of California ) On this day of , in ) SS the year 19 , before me, the County of Los Angeles) undersigned, a Notary Public, in and for said State, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed the within instrument on behalf of the Corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that the Corporation executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said State. ***************************************************************** APPROVED: � ig City Engineer *************************************************************** NOTARIES: ATTACH ADDITIONAL OR OTHER FORMS, IF REQUIRED This is to certify that the interest in real property, conveyed by the attached easement deed, dated from to the City of Diamond Bar, a municipal corporation, is hereby accepted by order of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, on 19 and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by it's duly authorized officer. Dated CITY OF DIAMOND BAR By Lynda Burgess, City Clerk EXHIBIT "C" AN EASEMENT FOR THE SEWER PURPOSE AND ALL USES INCIDENT THERETO, INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE THERE OF, IN, OVER AND UNDER A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 92-006, IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED ON OCTOBER 2, 1992, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92-1990659 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1 OF PM 2151; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 OF PM 2151, NORTH 11058'40" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 24.06 FEET; THENCE, LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 60055'37" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 60.73 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 31033'51" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 173.16 FEET, TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, AS SAID DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD IS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NUMBER 2151, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,050.00 FEET; THENCE, EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 10.29 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0°33'42"; THENCE, LEAVING SAID CURVE, SOUTH 31°33'51" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 165.21 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 60055'37" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 55.58 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 11058'40" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 34.52 FEET, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 60055'37" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 8.37 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT 'D' SEWER EASEMENT IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA OWNER EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBERS REFERENCE NUMBERS ARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY 8714-15-20 & 8714-15-24 R - laar4 BAR BI -VD T - 5.15 D1AMpND L - to.29 � NEW SEWER EASEMENT (m') R - 105MOO T - 69.14 L - 116.16 F'ARr;L_I Z PH i;)37's F)titF3 �Fi5-7-5:% OCT. 2, 19 - AS 11,1!.TF)(I,td, C_t.iT t.{ft BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BEARM N 57W5 ' E SM THE CENTERLINE OF BREA CANTON ROAD PER PARCEL MAP NO. 21M RECORDED M BOOK 34. PAGE 64 M THE COUNTY OF RrA3tSOE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WAS USED AS THE BASS OF BEARINGS. a a 0 THISL DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME i OR UNDER MY SUPERVISION SEWEE RUANGTRAOOOL R.C.E. 32132 PAR'CE; I pmi5i t mg 3»-�» Z Z 107 1, r;c LLA U te r.: Cf.Rc.; i) %Fi Gi: 1 . ";992 AS {ht STF UNHENT NK) 92-1990659 me2iT37;w N11&d'� S60 -55'37-E 0 25 50 100 Fm !NNIEM GRAPHIC SCALE 1"=50'-0" SHT. 1 OF 1 SHT. SEWER EASEMENT jyEXtSTMO b �TO BE VACATED 2 SOUTHERLY • WESTERLYLINE OF T I OF LOT UNE N TT NO. �-�_ ON N OCT. 2. 1992 AS MSTRUCMENT 1 ' NO. 92-1990669 me2iT37;w N11&d'� S60 -55'37-E 0 25 50 100 Fm !NNIEM GRAPHIC SCALE 1"=50'-0" SHT. 1 OF 1 SHT. EXHIBIT 'B' SEWER EASEMENT IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA OWNER EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBERS REFERENCE NUMBERS ARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY 8714-15-20 & 8714-15-24 LOTS 1 & 2 R - oo Ft BLVD T - 1.10505 00 BA DIAMOND L - 10.20 .4, .op a E-2 2115., n = Z L0 T 1 ... LLA # ?itC L h r u' E)WNG SEWER EASEMENT o �- 70 BE VACATED N h `wT i•ir ::A f0 S b Q 56035'37-E �O 70.00 VQ BASIS OF BEAARINGS�OIT OF BREA CANYON RW PER PARCEL WAP N 5 YO RECORDED IN 8008 34, PAGE 54 IN THE COUNTY m� OF RIVERSIDE STATE OF CAUFORNIA, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINOS. i �'•c% 321? 25 50 100 Tre DOCLIMENT WAS PREPARED 8Y ME �� Erp. Wy -IV_ 3 OR UNDER MY SUPQtNSfON GRAPHIC SCALE 1"=50'-0" ow SHT. 1 OF 1 SHT. SEWEE A MPAGOM R.M 32132 "'� RU V EXHIBIT 'D' SEWER EASEMENT IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. STATE OF CALIFORNIA OWNER EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBERS REFERENCE NUMBERS ARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY 8714-15-20 & 8714-15-24 o - 00'33'4 ND R gLVD R _ 0165000 D1AMo BA L - & 10.24 .o� P O� ? NEW SEVIER EASEMENT`CG e - oe-'5r R105MOD ? ; V `, T-54.14 z # a -i _r L -11a16 - m m •�USTWG SEWER EASEMENT pHs �TO BE VACATED lo SOU FERLY & WESTERLY - 1 Y # - _ LW OF LAT 1 OF LOT LINE S v .. VGOT. 2 ADJUSTMENT NO 42-006 ui w _ / NREOORDED ON WT. 2. 1M .�'.:. ..... ..... Li1D AS INSMCMENT �+ N( 42-144065Y c M O N ft7Xi 4 S60' 55'37-E �0 N11W 70.00 2 P.O.B. &,37 CLQ If TO BASS OF BEARINGS 7K BEAR4d0 N 57W5r E DENG THE CENTERLME / OF BREA CANYON ROAD PER PARCEL MAP NO. 2181 RECORDED N BODY 34. PAOE 64 N THE COUNTY OF RTVFRSnE STATE OF CN�'ORNU` WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF Bi<JIfBNOS, v 0 i 0 0 25 50 100 M OOI%JM NT WAS PRETARFD BY ME OR MCM MY AIPERy19a1 INN GRAPHIC SCALE 1"=50'-0" a 0 sEYRF SAN Ao R.C.E. 3032 SHT. 1 OF 1 SHT. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.1 NO DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.2 NO DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE January 7, 1993 Hon. Mayor of Diamond Bar City Hall 21660 E. Copley Dr. Ste. 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 Dear Mayor, F� OD Gl RL SCOUTS Spanish Trails Girl Scout Council 4959 Palo Verde Street, Suite 101A Montclair, California 91763 (909)624-6696,(818)331-7325 (310)693-0268 FAX (909) 624-7796 The week of March 7-13 is Girl Scout Week. On March 12, Girl Scouts will be celebrating their 31 st anniversary. In honor of the occasion, the Girl Scouts in your city once again request that you proclaim that week as Girl Scout Week (a sample proclamation is attached for your consideration). We also request that our proclamation be read at the city council meeting and then posted in City Hall during Girl Scout Week. We would like to have girls in the audience, and we would be very happy to lead the flag salute, so please contact me as soon as possible at 909/624-6696, 818/331-7325 or 310/693-0268, ext 32 and let me know when or if our proclamation will be made. We are working hard to make Girl Scouting available to the girls in your city and we deeply appreciate your support. Sincerely, 6'6a'0 Sharon J. Hewitt Public Relations Director Enclosure SJH/vr AGENCY OF UNITED WAY 0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER. 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER �� Agenda Item No. 7.2 No Documentation Available Agenda Item No. 7.4 No Documentation Available RESOLUTION NO. 93-%Y A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1993, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS A QUESTION RELATING TO REFERENDING RESOLUTION NO. 92-44 ADOPTING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to general law cities in the State of California, a Special Municipal Election shall be held on June 8, 1993 relating to referending Resolution No. 92-43 adopting the General Plan of the City of Diamond Bar; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Diamond Bar, California on Tuesday, June 8, 1993, a Special Municipal Election for the purpose of submission to the voters a question relating to referending Resolution No. 92-43 adopting the General Plan of the City of Diamond Bar. SECTION 2. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does order submitted to the voters at the Special Municipal Election the following question: SHALL RESOLUTION NO. 92-44 ENTITLED: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF YES THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BE ADOPTED? NO voters is SECTION 3. That the proposed measure submitted to the SECTION 4. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required by law. SECTION 5. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. SECTION 6. That the polls for the election shall be open at seven o'clock a.m. of the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until o'clock p.m. of the same day when the polls shall be closed, except as provided in Section 14301 of the Elections Code of the state of California. SECTION 7. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. SECTION 8. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law. SECTION 9. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it in the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on MAYOR 1993. I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1993, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar RESOLUTION NO. 93-Z% A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1993 WHEREAS, a Special Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Diamond Bar, California, on June 8, 1993; and WHEREAS, in the course of conduct of the election it is necessary for the City to request services of the County; and WHEREAS, all necessary expenses in performing these services shall be paid by the City of Diamond Bar; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 22003 of the Elections Code of the State of California, this City Council requests the Board of Supervisors of the County to permit the County Election Department to prepare and furnish to the City for use in conducting the election the computer record of the names and address of all eligible registered voters in the City in order that the City may print labels to be attached to self - mailer sample ballot pamphlets; and will also furnish to the City printed indices of the voters to be used by the precinct board at the polling place; and will make available to the City additional election equipment and assistance according to state law. SECTION 2. That the City shall reimburse the County for services performed when the work is completed and upon 1 presentation to the City of a properly approved bill. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk is directed to forward without delay to the Board of Supervisors and to the County Election Department, each a certified copy of this resolution. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on , 1993.. MAYOR I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1993, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City Diamond Bar 0 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS WHEREAS, Section 4015.5 and 5014.5 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city measures submitted at municipal elections; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: . SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section 4015.5 and 5014.5 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the clerk has selected the arguments for and against the measure which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the measure to the authors of the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the authors of the argument in favor. The authors may prepare and submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. SECTION 2. That all previous resolutions providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city measures are repealed. SECTION 3. That the provisions of Section 1 shall apply at the next ensuing municipal election and at each municipal election after that time. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED MAYOR , 1993. I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1993, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING A WRITTEN ARGUMENT REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS WHEREAS, a Special Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Diamond Bar, California, on June 8, 1993, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following measure: SHALL RESOLUTION 92-44 ENTITLED: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BE ADOPTED? NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. that the City Council authorizes Gary G. Miller Council Member in Favor/Against Phyllis E. Papen Council Member in Favor/Against Gary H. Werner Council Member in Favor/Against John A. Forbing Council Member in Favor/Against Dexter D. MacBride Council Member in Favor/Against members of that body, to file a written argument regarding the City measure as specified above in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 5 of the Elections Code of the State of California and to change the argument until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the City measure may be submitted to the City Clerk. SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney, unless the organization or salaries of the office of the City Attorney are affected. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. If the measure affects the organization or salaries of the office of the City Attorney, the City Clerk shall prepare the impartial analysis. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on 1993. MAYOR I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1993, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar 21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE - SUITE 100 DIAMOND BAR, CA 917654177 909-860-2489 - FAX 909-861-3117 T E L E C O P Y DATE: - r - G•� TIME: TO: Name: / l' t tJU Agency: _��� LL) (7C Telephone No.: FAX No.: C O V E R S H E E T FROM: n Name: r 7a )1 rn ti� i U) L r Division: NUMBER OF PAGES: (Including Cover Sheet): COMKENTS: C GARY G. MILLER PHYLLIS E. PAPEN JOHN A. FOBBING DEXTER D. MacBRIDE GARY H. WERNER Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Coundbaember Coundhnember Coundlmember RECYCLED PAPER NOTICE OF &-'WarrW.1W aroma=atv NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN BY THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR that the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the following item: 1. Zoning Code Amendment No. 93-1, A City -initiated request to adopt a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance. The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance provisions are intended to comply with certain local government requirements of the Congestion Management Program of Los Angeles County. The proposed Ordinance would establish transportation demand management measures for certain new development projects and create transit review requirements for projects requiring an Environmental Impact Report. Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project requires a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration reviews the potential environmental impacts of the Ordinance and provides measures, as necessary, to mitigate the impacts. If you are unable to attend the public hearing, but wish to send written comments, please write to the Diamond Bar Community Development Department at the address given below, Attention: George Wentz . You may also obtain additional information concerning this case by phoning (909) 396-5671. If you challenge this application and project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: TIME OF HEARING: LOCATION: Tuesday, March 2, 1993 7:00 p.m. South Coast Air Quality Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Dr. Diamond Bar, California, Management District 91765 CASE MATERIALS: Are available for review between the hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. at the Public Works Department, 21660 Copley Dr., Suite 190, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. /s/ Lynda Burgess Lynda Burgess, City Clerk F:\WP5I\WORR\NOTICES\TDI4ORD.NOT NOTICE OF D11DT_T!'� LiL'�ADT1i /'� NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN BY THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR that the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the following item: 1. Zoning Code Amendment No. 93-1, A City -initiated request to adopt a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance. The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance provisions are intended to comply with certain local government requirements of the Congestion Management Program of Los Angeles County. The proposed Ordinance would establish transportation demand management measures for certain new development projects and create transit review requirements for projects requiring an Environmental Impact Report. Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project requires a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration reviews the potential environmental impacts of the Ordinance and provides measures, as necessary, to mitigate the impacts. If you are unable to attend the public hearing, but wish to send written comments, please write to the Diamond Bar Community Development Department at the address given below, Attention: George Wentz . You may also obtain additional information concerning this case by phoning (909) 396-5671. If you challenge this application and project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: TIME OF HEARING: LOCATION: Tuesday, March 2, 1993 7:00 p.m. South Coast Air Quality Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Dr. Diamond Bar, California, Management District 91765 CASE MATERIALS: Are available for review between the hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. at the Public Works Department, 21660 Copley Dr., Suite 190, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. Lynft Burgess, City Clerk F:\WP5I\WORX\NOTICBS\TDMORD.NOT CITY OP 51AM61-L BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. �_ ,. / TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: March 2, 1993 REPORT DATE: February 23, 1993 FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer TITLE: Adoption of a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. SUMMARY: The state statute requires that local jurisdictions adopt and implement a (TDM) Ordinance, consistent with the County Congestion Management Program (CMP), which encourages car pooling, van pooling, transit ridership and non -motorized transportation. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council approve Ordinance 93 -XX adopting the City of Diamond Bar's Trip Reduction and Demand Management Measures. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Resolution(s) X Ordinances(s) _ Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: _ Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's Office) Others SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? X Yes _ No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes _ No Which Commission? Planning & Traffic Transportation 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: i REVIEWED BY: J errence L. Belanger City Manager A. We4w City Engineer CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: March 2, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance ISSUE STATEMENT The City of Diamond Bar must approve a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance to comply with State Statute. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve Ordinance 93 -XX adopting the City of Diamond Bar's Trip Reduction and Demand Management Measures. FINANCIAL SUMMARY For the 1992-93 Fiscal Year, the City expects to receive approximately $311,270.00 in Proposition 111 funds. This amount is expected to increase in future years. The City must report its compliance with Congestion Management Plan requirements annually. If the City does not comply, the State may withhold our gas tax monies. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION California voters approved Proposition 111 in 1990 which called for a 9 cent increase in gas taxes to be established over a five year period in order to forward projects and programs to help alleviate traffic congestion. AS part of the voter approved Proposition 111, each County must prepare a Congestion Management Program (CMP) that coordinates transportation improvements and traffic management provisions on a County wide basis. The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) has authorized to prepare the CMP for this County. The LACTC has since merged with the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) creating a single transportation agency for Los Angeles County called the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). Preparation of the County CMP and its Environmental Impact Report has taken two years with considerable input from the cities. The County CMP was adopted in November 1992 and will be updated approximately every two years. By law the CMP must contain five components: 1. HIGHWAY COMPONENT: This section identifies the County wide network of freeways, highways and major arterials. Cities must annually report traffic counts at selected intersections along their portion of this network. At present Grand Avenue is part of the CMP network and City Council Report TDM Ordinance Page Two the City must submit counts for the Grand Avenue/Diamond Bar Blvd. intersection. 2. TRANSIT COMPONENT: This section describes standards for frequency and routing of transit service and encourages methods for coordination between transit operators. 3. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) COMPONENT: Zoning code Amendment No. 93-1 addresses the City's responsibilities for this component, specifically incorporating alternative means of transportation. The CMP requires all cities to adopt a TDM Ordinance by April 1, 1993. 4. LAND USE ANALYSIS: Statute requires that the CMP require local cities to adopt a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions on the regional transportation system, including an estimate of the cost of mitigating the impacts. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 93-1 addresses the City's responsibilities. 5. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: State Statute requires the CMP to include a seven year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to maintain or improve the level of service on the CMP highway system (Grand Avenue). ANALYSIS The proposed Ordinance would establish Transportation Demand Management measures for new non-residential development of 25,000 sq. ft. and above and, additionally, provide for transit review requirements for certain projects requiring an environmental impact report. The provisions outlined within the Ordinance have been developed based upon the Model TDM Ordinance prepared by the LACTC. Each local city that adopts the Ordinance may include or exceed the requirements in the Model Ordinance provided. The proposed ordinance was reviewed by the Traffic and Transportation Commission and Resolution 93-1 was adopted by the Planning Commission on February 22, 1993 approving the proposed ordinance. REVIEW OF TRANSIT IMPACTS/LAND USE ANALYSIS: Prior to the approval of any development project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared, all regional and municipal fixed route transit operators providing service to the project will be identified and consulted with through the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Draft Environmental Impact Report which are circulated pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Projects for which an NOP or a Draft EIR have been circulated prior to the date of this Ordinance are exempt from its provisions. Development impacts and recommended mitigation measures 2 City Council Report TDM Ordinance Page Three identified by the transit operator will be evaluated, implemented and monitored as appropriate. The CMP includes a -Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) which must be prepared for each project of > 25,000 square feet that estimates the effect on the regional system of traffic generated by the project and the means and cost of mitigation. The purpose of the CMP Land Use Analysis Program is to ensure that local jurisdictions consider the regional transportation impact of new development through the land use approval process. While local jurisdictions routinely examine and mitigate transportation impacts on the local street network, this does not always extend to the regional transportation system. It should be stressed that the authority for local land use decisions remains the responsibility of local jurisdictions. However, CMP statute highlights the responsibility of local jurisdictions to consider the impact of new development on the regional system as part of the local land use decision- making process and is included in the ordinance. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND AND TRIP REDUCTION MEASURES: The Ordinance requires that all non-residential developments of 25,000 sq. ft. or larger provide elements that support or encourage alternative means of transportation other than single occupant vehicles. Projects must provide bulletin boards or display cases that public transportation must be provided. Additionally, telephone numbers regarding regional ride sharing agencies and promotional material for commuter oriented organizations should be provided. A listing of facilities available at the project site for car pools, van pools, etc. should be identified. Non-residential developments of 50,000 sq. ft. or above must comply with all of the previous statements and include not less than 10% of the employee parking areas to be located near employee entrances and reserved for use by car pool/van pool vehicles. The project must also provide bicycle racks to support the use of bicycle parking. Projects in excess of 100,000 sq. ft. shall comply with all the previous statements and include specific programs to identify and maintain safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, car pool/van pool and local bus service facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The zoning code amendment has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and its guidelines. The City has determined that the project's potential impacts would be less than significant and have prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Planning Commission consideration. CONCLUSION: State Statute requires that each local jurisdiction adopt and implement a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, consistent with the County CMP, which encourages car pooling, van pooling, transit ridership and non -City 3 t;vuizcil R�p�� b TDM Ordinance Page Four motorized transportation. The proposed ordinance is consistent with the guidelines provided by LACTC. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Ordinance 2. Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 93-06 3. Environmental Check List/Initial Study Prepared By: George A. Wentz 4 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 22.78 TO TITLE 22 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED BY REFERENCE PERTAINING TO TRIP REDUCTION AND TRAVEL DEMAND MEASURES A. Recitals. (i) The Legislature of the State of California has found that the lack of an integrated transportation system and increases in the number of vehicles are causing traffic congestion that each day results in hundreds of thousands of hours lost in traffic, tons of pollutants released into the air and millions of dollars of added costs to the motoring public. (ii) The Legislature has adopted legislation requiring the preparation and implementation of a Congestion Management Program ("CMP") by county transportation commissions or other public agencies of every county that includes an urbanized area. (iii) The Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("MTA") is responsible for the preparation of the CMP for Los Angeles County ("County"). (iv) The CMP must contain a trip reduction and travel demand management element that promotes alternative transportation methods, such as carpools, vanpools, transit, bicycles, walking and park-and-ride lots, improvements in the balance between jobs and housing, and other strategies, including flexible work hours, telecommunting and parking management programs. 1 (v) The County and every city within the County is required by law to adopt and implement a Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") ordinance as an important element of the Congestion Management Program to relieve congestion and improve air quality. (vi) MTA must determine annually whether the County and cities within the County are conforming to the CMP, including the requirement to adopt and implement a TDM ordinance. (vii) Because the CMP is an evolving program which will be developed incrementally, as experience is gained through its implementation, this TDM Ordinance may be amended or superseded from time to time, as necessary to meet congestion and air quality goals. (viii) The State Clean Air Act requires regions to attain a 1.5 person per vehicle occupancy rate during the commute period by the year 1999. (ix) This Ordinance is intended to comply with the CMP's requirements for a TDM ordinance. The requirements of South Coast Air Quality Management District ("District") Regulation XV are separate from this Ordinance, and administrated by the District. Nothing herein is intended, nor shall it be construed, to limit or otherwise preclude employers from offering or providing additional inducements to use alternatives to single -occupant vehicles to their employees necessary to meet Regulation XV requirements. 2 (x) In order to use the existing and planned transportation infrastructure more efficiently, maintain or improve traffic levels of service, and lower motor vehicle emissions, it is the policy of the City of Diamond Bar to minimize the number of peak period vehicle trips generated by additional development, promote the use of alternative transportation, improve air quality and participate in regional and countywide efforts to improve transportation demand and management. (xi) The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the within Ordinance on February 22 , 1993 and recommended, by its Resolution No. 93-06, that this City Council adopt the within Ordinance. (xii) This City Council, on March 2 , 1993, conducted a duly noticed public hearing as required by law on the within Ordinance and concluded said hearing prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. (xiii) All legal prerequisites to this adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does ordain as follows: Section 1: In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance. 3 Section 2: The City Council hereby finds that Negative Declaration No. 93-06 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study therefor reflect the independent judgment of the City of Diamond Bar, and further, this City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration No. 93-06 with respect to the Ordinance set forth herein. Section 3: The City Council hereby specifically finds and determines that, based upon the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. Section 4: The City Council finds that facts supporting the above-specified findings are contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff report and exhibits, and the information provided to this City Council during the public hearing conducted with respect to the Ordinance and the Negative Declaration. Section 5: Pursuant to the provisions of § 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the City Council finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration No. 93-06 , there is no evidence before this City Council that the proposed Ordinance will have potential for an adverse impact on wildlife m resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff report and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council during the public hearing, this City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in § 753.5(c -1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Section 6: A new Chapter 22.78 hereby is added to Title 22 of the Los Angeles County Code as heretofore adopted by reference to read, in words and figures, as follows: "CHAPTER 22.78 "TRIP REDUCTION AND TRAVEL DEMAND MEASURES "Sections: "22.78.010 Definitions "22.78.020 Review of Transit Impacts 1122.78.030 Transportation Demand and Trip Reduction Measures "22.78.040 Monitoring 1122.78.050 Penalties for Violation of Chapter 1122.78.060 Civil Remedies Available 1122.78.070 Severability "Section 22.78.010. DEFINITIONS "The following words or phrases shall have the following meanings when used in this Chapter: "A. `Alternative Transportation' means the use of modes of transportation other than the single 5 passenger motor vehicle, including, but not limited to, carpools, vanpools, buspools, public transit, walking and bicycling. "B. `Applicable Development' means any development project that is determined to meet or exceed the project size threshold criteria contained in Section 22.78.030. "C. `Buspool' means a vehicle carrying sixteen (16) or more passengers commuting on a regular basis to and from work with a fixed route, according to a fixed schedule. "D. `Carpool' means a vehicle carrying two (2) to six (6) persons commuting together to and from work on a regular basis. "E. `The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)' means the provisions of California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder (Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations). "F. `Developer' shall mean the builder who is responsible for the planning, design and construction of an applicable development project. A developer may be responsible for implementing the provisions of this Chapter as determined by the property owner. N "G. `Development' means the construction or addition of new building square footage. Additions to buildings which existed prior to the adoption of this Chapter and which exceed the thresholds defined in Section 22.78.030 shall comply with the applicable requirements but shall not be added cumulatively with existing square footage; existing square footage shall be exempt from these requirements. All calculations shall be based on gross square footage. "H. `Employee Parking Area' means the portion of total required parking at a development used by onsite employees. Unless otherwise specified in the Zoning Code, employee parking shall be calculated as follows: Percent of Total Required "Type of Use Parking Devoted to Employees "Commercial 30% "Office/Professional 85% "Industrial/Manufacturing 90% "I. `Preferential Parking' means parking spaces designated or assigned, through use of a sign or painted space markings for carpool and vanpool vehicles carrying commute passengers on a regular basis that are provided in a location more 7 convenient to a place of employment than parking spaces provided for single occupant vehicles. "J. `Property Owner' means the legal owner of a development who serves as the lessor to a tenant. The property owner shall be responsible for complying with the provisions of the ordinance either directly or by delegating such responsibility as appropriate to a tenant and/or agent. "K. `South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)' is the regional authority appointed by the California State Legislature to meet federal standards and otherwise improve air quality in the South Coast Air Basin (the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.) "L. `Tenant' means the lessee of facility space at an applicable development project. "M. `Transportation Demand Management (TDM)' means the alteration of travel behavior -- usually on the part of commuters -- through programs of incentives, services, and policies. TDM addresses alternatives to single occupant vehicles such as carpooling and vanpooling, and changes in work schedules that move trips out of the peak period 8 or eliminate them altogether (as is the case in telecommunting or compressed work weeks). 'N. `Trip Reduction' means reduction in the number of work-related trips made by single occupant vehicles. "O. `Vanpool' means a vehicle carrying seven or more persons commuting together to and from work on a regular basis, usually in a vehicle with a seating arrangement designed to carry seven (7) to fifteen (15) adult passengers, and on a prepaid subscription basis. "P. `Vehicle' means any motorized form of transportation, including but not limited to automobiles, vans, buses and motorcycles. "Section 22.78.020. REVIEW OF TRANSIT IMPACTS "Prior to approval of any development project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared pursuant to or based on a local determination, regional and municipal fixed -route transit operators providing service to the project shall be identified and consulted with. Projects for which a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Draft EIR has been circulated pursuant to the provisions of CEQA prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be exempted from its provisions. The `Transit Impact Review Worksheet', contained in the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program Manual, or similar worksheets, shall be 9 used in assessing impacts. Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, transit operators shall be sent an NOP for all y contemplated EIR's and shall, as part of the NOP process, be given opportunity to comment on the impacts of the project, to identify recommended transit service or capital improvements which may be required as a result of the project, and to recommend mitigation measures which minimize automobile trips on the CMP network. Impacts and recommended mitigation measures identified by the transit operator shall be evaluated in the Draft Environmental Report prepared for the project. Related mitigation measures adopted shall be monitored through the mitigation monitoring requirements of CEQA. "Phased development projects, development projects subject to a development agreement, or development projects requiring subsequent approvals, need not repeat this process as long as no significant changes are made in the project. It shall remain the discretion of the lead agency to determine when a project is substantially the same and therefore covered by a previously certified EIR. "Section 22.78.030. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND AND TRIP REDUCTION MEASURES "A. Applicability of Requirements "Prior to approval of any development project, the applicant shall make provision for, at a minimum, all of the 10 following applicable transportation demand management and trip reduction measures. "This Chapter shall not apply to projects for which a development application has been deemed "complete" by the City pursuant to California Government Code § 65943, or for which a Notice of Preparation for a DEIR has been circulated or for which an application for a building permit has been received, prior to the effective date of this Chapter. "All facilities and improvements constructed or otherwise required shall be maintained in a state of good repair. "B. Development Standards "1. Non -Residential development of 25,000 square feet or more shall provide the following to the statisfaction of the City: "(a) A bulletin board, display case, or kiosk displaying transportation information located where the greatest number of employees are likely to see it. Information in the area shall include, but is not limited to, the following: "(1) Current maps, routes and schedules for public transit routes serving the site; 11(2) Telephone numbers for referrals on transportation information including numbers for the regional ridesharing agency and local transit operators; 11 "(3) Ridesharing promotional material supplied by commuter -oriented organizations; "(4) Bicycle route and facility information, including regional/local bicycle maps and bicycle safety information; "(5) A listing of facilities available at the site for carpoolers, vanpoolers, bicyclists, transit riders and pedestrians. 112. Non -Residential development of 50,000 square feet or more shall comply with Section 22.78.030 B.1, above, and shall provide all of the following measures to the satisfaction of the City: "(a) Not less than 10% of employee parking area(s), shall be located as close as is practical to the employee entrance(s), and shall be reserved for use by potential carpool/vanpool vehicles, without displacing handicapped and customer parking needs. This preferential carpool/vanpool parking area shall be identified on the site plan upon application for building permit, to the satisfaction of City. A statement that preferential carpool/vanpool spaces for employees are available and a description of the method for obtaining access to such spaces must be included on the required transportation information board. Spaces will be signed/striped as demand warrants; provided that at all times at least one space for projects of 50,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet and 12 two spaces for projects over 100,000 square feet will be signed/striped for carpool/vanpool vehicles. "(b) Preferential parking spaces reserved for vanpools must be accessible to vanpool vehicles. When located within a parking structure, a minimum vertical interior clearance of 712" shall be provided for such spaces and accessways to be used by such vehicles. Adequate turning radii and parking space dimensions shall also be included in vanpool parking areas. "(c) Bicycle racks or other secure bicycle parking shall be provided to accommodate 4 bicycles per the first 50,000 square feet of non-residential development and 1 bicycle per each additional 50,000 square feet of non- residential development. Calculations which result in a fraction of 0.5 or higher shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. A bicycle parking facility may also be a fully enclosed space or locker accessible only to the owner or user of the bicycle, which protects the bicycle from inclement weather. Specific facilities and location (e.g., provision of racks, lockers, or locked room) shall be to the satisfaction of the City. 113. Non-Residential development of 100,000 square feet or more shall comply with Sections 22.78.030 B.1 and B.2 above, and shall provide all of the following measures to the satisfaction of the City: 13 "(a) A safe and convenient zone in which vanpool and carpool vehicles may deliver or board their passengers. "(b) Sidewalks or other designated pathways following direct and safe routes from the external pedestrian circulation system to each building in the development. "(c) If determined necessary by the City to mitigate the project impact, bus stop improvements must be provided. The City will consult with the local bus service providers in determining appropriate improvements. When locating bus stops and/or planning building entrances, entrances must be designed to provide safe and efficient access to nearby transit stations/stops. "(d) Safe and convenient access from the external circulation system to bicycle parking facilities onsite. "Section 22.78.040. MONITORING "The City shall ensure compliance with the measures required by this Chapter during project implementation. The project applicant shall demonstrate compliance with each measure in a written report submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permit and show compliance prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. As applicable, applicants may be required to provide periodic reports regarding compliance with such measures. 14 "Section 22.78.050. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF CHAPTER "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter. Any person, firm, partnership or corporation violating any provisions of this Chapter or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each and every person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefor as provided in this Chapter. "Section 22.78.060. CIVIL REMEDIES AVAILABLE "The violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City through civil process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisances. "Section 22.78.070. SEVERARTT.Tmv "The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragaraph, sentence or word of this Chapter be 15 rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Chapter shall remain in full force and effect." Section 7: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in three (3) public places within the City of Diamond Bar pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. 89-6B. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of Mayor I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of 1993, and was finally adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of 1993, by the following vote: , AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar Cti 0WGRDADD22.78\DB 6.6.1 16 RESOLUTION NO. 93-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPT AN ORDINANCE WHICH ESTABLISHES TRIP REDUCTION AND TRAVEL DEMAND MEASURES (CASE NO. 93-06) A. Recitals 1. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Trip Reduction and Travel Demand Measure Ordinance to determine compliance thereof with the City's General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar. 2. The City is proposing to add a new chapter 22.78 to Title 22 of the Los Angeles County Code pertaining to trip reduction and travel demand measures. 3. This Commission has conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the City of Diamond Bar's proposed ordinance and the Initial Study of Environmental Impacts and Negative Declaration. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: 1. In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution. 2. Based upon the facts and evidence presented during the public hearing conducted by this Commission regarding the City's Trip Reduction and Travel Demand Measures, including oral and documentary evidence provided by City 1 staff, this Commission, in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code, hereby finds as follows: (a) The Ordinance as identified is consistent with the City's General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar. (b) There is little or no probability that the measures identified in the Ordinance will be of substantial deteriment to, or interfere with, the general plan; and (c) The proposed ordinance complies with all other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, regulations and standards. 3. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the initial study prepared and reviewed by the City of Diamond Bar and the Negative Declaration thereon have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and. the Guidelines promulgated thereunder and, further, that said Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar and recommends that the City Council so find. 4. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole, including the findings set forth below, there is no evidence before this Commission that the ordinance will have the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence 2 presented in the record before the Commission, the Commission of adverse effect contained in hereby rebuts the presumption Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations and recommends that the City Council so find. 5. The Secretary to the Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy hereof to the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1993, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. i BY: Bruce Flamenbaum, Chairman 0 I, James Destefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:] NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSTAIN: [COMMISSIONERS:] ATTEST: James DeStefano, Secretary 4 presented in the record before the Commission, the Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations and recommends that the City Council so find. 5. The Secretary to the Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy hereof to the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1993, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: Bruce Flamenbaum, Chairman I, James Destefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: [COMMISSIONERS: ] Flamenbaum, Meyer, Grothe, Plunk NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:] Li ABSTAIN: [COMMISSIONERS:] ATTEST: Secretary ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM/INITIAL STUDY I. Background 1. Name of Applicant: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 21660E COPLEY DRIVE DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 (909) 396-5676 Name, Address and Phone of Project Contact: GEORGE WENTZ INTERIM CITY ENGINEER 21660 E. COPLEY DRIVE DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 (909) 396-5671 4. Date of Environmental Information Submittal: JANUARY 27 1993 5. Date of Environmental Checklist Submittal: JANUARY 26, 1993 6. Lead Agency (Agency Required Checklist): CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 7. Name of Proposal if applicable (Tract No. if Subdivision): CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE (ZCA NO. 93-1) 8. Related Applications (under the authority of this environmental determination): NONE YES NO Variance: Conditional Use Permit: Zone Change: General Plan Amendment: (Attach Completed Environmental Information Form) H. Environmental Impacts: (Explanations and additional information to supplement all "yes" and "possibly" answers are required to be submitted on attached sheets) YES NO POSSIBLY X 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: X a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition, erosion of stream banks or land adjacent to standing water, changes in siltation, deposition or other processes which may modify the channel of constant or intermittently flowing water as well as the areas surrounding permanent or intermittent standing water? X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: X a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any changes in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: X a. Changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface run-off? X C. Alterations of the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any body of water? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to dissolved oxygen and turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? YES NO POSSIBLY X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Ely 5. 6. 7 8. g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare of endangered species of plants? C. Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat areas or plant communities which are recognized as sensitive? d. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? e. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish, and shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)? b. Reduction in the numbers of nay unique rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to the normal migration or movement of resident species? d. Reduction in size or deterioration in quality of existing fish or wildlife habitat? Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Significant increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal result in: a. Significant new light and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of light and glare? Land use. Will the proposal result in: a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use in an area? YES NO POSSIBLY 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: X a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: X a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? X b. Probable interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 4. Parks or other recreational facilities? 11. Population. Will the proposal: X a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect: X a. Existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: X a. Generation of Substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new ,parking? X C. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods. X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal: a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: X 1. Fire Protection? X 2. Police Protection? X 3. Schools? X 4. Parks or other recreational facilities? YES NO POSSIBLY X X 15. x X 16. X X X X X X X X X 5. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 6. Other governmental services? Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing energy sources or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in: a. A need for new systems, or Substantial alterations to public utilities? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in: a. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? C. A physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Restrictions on existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance? X a. Does the proposed project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate or significantly reduce a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? YES NO POSSIBLY X b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X C. Does the proposed project pose impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? X d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: 3b. There may be some increase in impervious surfaces to assure that the goals of the TDM are adequately addressed by the applicants. However, there will be no alteration in runoff volumes or drainage areas. All activities will be coordinated through Building and Safety permit requirements and the Engineering Department and will not have any significant effect. 13c. Demand for transportation services such as bus, rail, and carpooling will likely increase. For projects where an environmental report is needed, a Notice of Preparation will be circulated to the appropriate agencies for review and comment. Should any mitigation measures be identified, they will be included as conditions of approval for projects to ensure appropriate transit capacities and facilities. It is not anticipated that there will be significant changes required to accommodate any applications that would be subject to the TDM> 13d. The TDM ordinance may alter the ways in which people travel to and from work. Patterns may change but should result in greater mobility and reduced travel times and trips for everyone. 14a.6. The ordinance will increase the responsibilities of City personnel for reviewing plans and proposals for new development. They will need to check for compliance with TDM standards and adherence to other TDM requirements. It may increase the review time of applications for new projects to assure that all requirements are properly addressed. The overall increase is expected to be relatively small and not significant. IV. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and. a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached. sheet have been incorporated into the proposed project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: January 28, 1993 Signature: Title: Com nity Develment Director For the City of Diamondtar, California CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Terrence Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: February 26, 1993 REPORT DATE: March 2, 1993 FROM: Bob Rose, Director of Community Services TITLE: RFP for a Landscape Architect for the Development of Pantera Park SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar has been awarded a $1.47 million grant to develop Pantera Park. The grant is funded by Proposition A, which was approved by Los Angeles County voters on November 3, 1992. A Landscape Architect is required to complete the plans and specifications for the development of Pantera Park. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the attached RFP at its regular meeting on February 25, 1993. RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 93 -XX to accept proposals from qualified Landscape Architects for the preparation of plans and specifications for the development of Pantera Park. 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 RFP 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? X Yes _ No Which Commission? Parks and Recreation Commission 5. Are other departments affected by the report? _Yes X No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: �l Terrence L. Belanger Bob Rose City Manager Director of Community Services CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: February 26, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: RFP for Landscape Architect for the Development of Pantera Park ISSUE STATEMENT: The City of Diamond Bar has been awarded a $1.47 million grant to develop Pantera Park. The grant is funded by Proposition A, which was approved by Los Angeles County voters on November 3, 1992. A Landscape Architect is required to complete the plans and specifications for the development of Pantera Park. RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 93 -XX to accept proposals from qualified Landscape Architects for the preparation of plans and specifications for the development of Pantera Park. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: The $1.47 million grant for the development of Pantera Park is funded by Proposition A, which was approved by Los Angeles County voters on November 3, 1992. The cost of the Landscape Architect willbe paid from grant funds. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City of Diamond Bar owns a 23 acre undeveloped rough graded park site in the eastern portion of Diamond Bar. The Pantera Park site has 15.5 developable acres and 7.5 hillside acres that will remain in their natural state. The phased development of Pantera Park is conceptually planned to include a turfed park site with two adult -sized lighted ball diamonds, and two lighted regulation soccer fields, restrooms, parking lot and tot lot, as well as 3 lighted tennis courts and a lighted basketball court. The City has $1.47 million in Los Angeles County Proposition A funds available for the first phase. A Landscape Architect is required to prepare the plans and specifications for the development of Pantera Park. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the attached RFP at its regular meeting on February 25, 1993. PREPARED BY: Bob Rose, Director of Community Services RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE RFP FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PANTERA PARR WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to construct certain improvements in the City of Diamond Bar. WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar has been awarded a $1.47 million grant in Los Angeles County Proposition A Funds for the development of Pantera Park. WHEREAS, such improvements will benefit the Diamond Bar community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Diamond Bar shall release the Request For Proposals seeking the services of a Landscape Architect for the development of Pantera Park. Proposals are to be delivered by 11:00 a.m., April 1, 1993, to the Parks and Recreation Department, City of Diamond Bar, 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. By order of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California. Dated this day of , 1993. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar this day of , 1993. MAYOR 1 ATTEST: CITY CLERK I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, California do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, at its regular meeting held on the day of wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: 1993, by the following vote, to 2 City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar California REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PANTERA PARK CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 21660 E. COPLEY DRIVE, #100 DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 (909)396-5694 The Park and Recreation Department of the City of Diamond Bar is solicitingpranqualified Landscape e Architectural of to complete plans and specifications forthe phased Pantera Park. BACKGROUND The City of Diamond Bar owns a 23 acre undeveloped rough graded park site in the Northeastern portion of Diamond Bar. The Pantera Park site has 15.5 developable acres and 7.5 hillside acres that would remain in their natural state. The phased development of Pantera Park would include a turfed park site with two adult -sized lighted ball diamonds and two lighted regulation soccer fields, restrooms, parking lot and tot lot, as well as 3 lighted tennis courts and a lighted basketball court. The City has 1.47 millon dollars in Los Angeles County Proposition "A" funds available for the first phase. SCOPE OF WORK Services to be performed by the architect will include the following: PHASE ONE 1. Design and preparation of preliminary landscape plan necessary for presentation to and review by staff. 2. Review project scope, existing plans, and program with city staff as directed. 3. Prepare necessary preliminary concept plan to depict solution to program requirements. 4. Prepare a preliminary statement of probable cost based on the conceptual plan. 5. Review conceptual plan and probable cost based on the conceptual plan with staff, commissions, council and community groups. 6. Prepare final concept plan which incorporated changes and/or recommendations from staff, commissions, council and community groups. 7. Prepare revised statement of probable cost based on final plan. PHASE TWO 1. The completion of a construction layout plan and the preparation of contract documents which include construction and dimension plan, grading plan, irrigation plan, planting plan, and construction detail. 2. The preparation of all construction documents and bid forms and administration of the construction bidding process. 3. Prepare and update the project budget. 4. Prepare and update the project construction schedule. 5. Develop and maintain a complete project record system, which is in compliance with Proposition A funding requirements. 6. Conduct regularly scheduled design and construction meetings which will include members representing the City, architect, contractor and any other persons who may contribute information regarding the topics of the meeting. 7. Perform any other duties or services normally associated with architectural services as indicated in any contractual agreement between the City of Diamond Bar and selected firm. PROPOSAL DUE DATE Architect shall submit five copies of proposal by 11:00 A.M., April 1, 1993, addressed or delivered to the Parks and Recreation Department, City of Diamond Bar, 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100, Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765. FORM OF PROPOSAL Submitter's proposal shall include the following: 1. A statement that this Request for Proposal(RFP) shall be incorporated in it's entirety as part of the proposal. 2. A description of the anticipated work. 3. A recapitulation of the firm's previous experience performing this type of work. 4. A statement of qualifications applicable to this project including names, qualifications and proposed duties of Consultant's staff to be assigned to this project. Also included shall be names and telephone numbers of responsible sub -consultant's proposed to be a part of the project. Parks and Recreation Department approval of any proposed subconsultants will be required prior to their use on the project. Any change in subconsultants after award of contract will require approval by the Parks and Recreation Department. 5. Hourly wages of all pertinent staff assigned to the project. 6. Firms shall submit their proposals in two parts: The first envelope will contain the technical proposal of the project. The second envelope will contain the cost proposal. 7. A statement that the Parks and Recreation Department is not obligated in any way to pay any costs attained by Submitter in the preparation and submittal of Submitter's response to the RFP. 8. The architect shall submit the estimated design completion with an established time frame which adequately and accurately addresses the project scope of services. SELECTION CRITERIA The City Diamond Bar select the architect thispoojectbedona combination of factors. The factors are what follows: 1. Such as professional qualifications of the firm and personnel, per scope of work submitted by consultant. 2. Adequate professional staff with verifiable experience in like projects. 3. Demonstrated ability to efficiently perform and meet schedules and budgets originally proposed. 4. Proven recent experience of the firm to successfully complete projects of a similar nature with other cities within the area. Any questions are to be in writing to Director of Parks and Recreation, 21660 East Copley Suite 100, Diamond Bar, CA. 91765. Respowill be sent to kennout anall RFP.e in writi4u stions must be received by Marchne w ho has 18, to1993. t The Proposal shall also conform to the following: 1. Insurance The City of Diamond Bar requires that the architect have at least One Million Dollars worth of professional errors and omissions insurance prior to entering into an agreement with the City. This insurance requirement is not negotiable. 2. Acceptance of Terms Submission of a proposal pursuant to the RFP shall constitute acknowledgement and acceptance of all terms and conditions hereinafter set forth in the RFP unless otherwise expressly stated in the proposal. 3. Rictht of Rejection by the City Not withstanding any other provisions of this RFP, the City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive any informality in a proposal when to do so would be in the best interest of the City and its taxpayers. 4. Financial Responsibility The proposer understands and agrees that the City shall have no financial responsibility for any costs incurred by the proposer in responding to this RFP. 5. Awards of Contract The proposer to whom the contract is awarded shall be required to enter into a written contract with the City of Diamond Bar in a form approved by the City Attobre eincorporated cor is RFP and the into and proposal, or any part thereof, may P made a part of the final contract; however, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the terms and conditions of the contract with the selected proposer. 6. Conferences During the Proposal Preparation Period As of the issuance date of the RFP and continuing until the time for submitting proposals has expired, the City will provide relevant information and access to City facilities and documents as necessary for all proposers to familiarize themselves with the requirements set forth in the RFP. Access to City facilities shall be during normal business hours and will require at least twenty-four hours advance notice. Proposals must be received by the Parks and Re creation 1at o phoner meat, 21660 East Copley suite 100, Diamond Bar, (909)396-5694, no later than 11:00 a.m., April 1, 1993. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. &Z TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: March 2, 1993 REPORT DATE: February 16, 1993 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629 SUMMARY: Cornerstone Partners Walnut, Ltd. is requesting approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629 for the subdivision of one parcel into ten parcels for the purpose of commercial condominiums. The project site is located at 20418 Walnut Drive within the Walnut Business Center.Four of the ten parcels will be divided into units A and B. Lot A will be created for the private street (Yellowbrick Road). A common area will consist of parking and landscape space. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Tentative Parcel Map and recommended approval to the City Council on January 25, 1993. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification X Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) _ Ordinances(s) _ Agreement(s) X Other EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: N/A SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes No by the City Attorney? _ 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? X Yes No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes -No Which Commission? Planning Commission 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes No Report discussed with the following affected departments: _ Public Works REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. Belanger City Manager Ies M& � DeStefano Director of Commun ty Development CITY COUNCIL KL+'YUK l' AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: March 2, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger,City Manager SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629 ISSUE STATEMENT: Cornerstone Partners Walnut, Ltd. is requesting approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629 for the subdivision of one parcel into ten parcels for the purpose of commercial condominiums with four of the ten parcels divided into units A and B. Lot A will be created for the private street (Yellowbrick Road). The common area will consist of parking and landscape space. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: N/A M.1aL6i &0 *10'k,i BIR The proposed project site is identified as the Walnut Business Center and is located at 20418 Walnut Drive. The site is approximately 8.66 acres. Construction of the business center occurred in 1976. The applicant, James Camp of Cornerstone Partners Walnut, Ltd., is requesting approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629 which would cause the subdivision of one parcel into ten parcels for the purpose of commercial condominiums. Four of the ten parcels are to be divided into units A and B. Lot A will be created for the private street (Yellowbrick Road). The common area will consist of parking and landscape space. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, the proposed subdivision is processed as a "parcel map" due to the fact that the subject site consists of a parcel of land having approved access to a public street which comprises part of a tract of land zoned for industrial or commercial development, and which has the approval of the governing body as to the street widths and alignments (Chapter 2. Section 66426 of the Subdivision Map Act). The current zoning for the site is Restricted Heavy Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion (M -1.5 -BE). According to the General Plan, the subject site has a land use designation of Light Industrial (I). Generally, the following land uses surround the subject site: to the north and west is Industrial; to the south is the Pomona (60) Freeway; to the east is Industrial. The uses within the site consist of sales, warehousing, light manufacturing, laboratories, and a church. No change in uses are anticipated with this application. 1 The project site is served by Walnut Drive and Lemon Avenue. The interior of the site is served by a private street identified as Yellowbrick Road. DISCUSSION: Each parcel is presently developed with one single story building. Lot A identifies the private street - Yellowbrick Road with parking spaces. Parcels 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 10 consist of one unit within a single story structure. Parcels 4, 5, 7, and 8 will each consist of one single story structure divided into two units - A and B. No changes in the physical appearance of the site are anticipated. The applicant is planning to sell all parcels except 1, 2, and 3. The applicant will retain ownership of these parcels. The proposed subdivision and the existing uses within the business center require 292 parking spaces. At this time, there are 258 parking spaces provided on the site. An additional 56 parking spaces provided on Yellowbrick Road were credited as part of the original approval to construct the business center. Therefore, the total parking provided is 314 spaces. A master reciprocal parking agreement by and for all lots will be necessary to insure that proper parking is provided for the business center. The proposed subdivision meets all the required development standard of the Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code for an M-1.5 zone. Since the business center was constructed in 1976, individual buildings do not meet all the current State handicapped requirements. Therefore, the City's Building and Safety Division is requiring that the applicant meet State handicapped requirements. According to the Building Official, if and when building permits are issued for tenant improvements, reconstruction or additions, this will necessitate the meeting of all State Handicapped requirements. The City Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed parcel map. A traffic study for the proposed subdivision was prepared for the applicant by Katz, Okitsu, and Associates. The traffic study states that since the land uses for this parcel map will not change as a result of the subdivision, there will be no impact on local traffic circulation. The study also maintains that the parking provided is adequate to service existing and future parking demands. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION/REVIEW: The proposed project was presented to the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing on December 14, 1992. The project was continued until January 11, 1993. On January 11, 1993, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval and on January 25, 1993, the Commission adopted Resolution No.93-1 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629. The Planning Commission discussed the graffiti which occurs on the buildings which are located along the property line adjacent to the Pomona Freeway. The Commission was seeking ways to combat the graffiti. Several Commissioners and the Deputy City Attorney felt it was not appropriate to require a property owner, in a request for a subdivision, to combat graffiti. It was decided that the applicant, as a condition of approval, would be 2 required to install additional lighting and lanasoapiny aluny the property line adjacent to the freeway and secure each roof access ladder in such a way as to prevent unauthorized access. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Mitigate Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION: The public hearing for the proposed project was advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on February 4, 1993. Notification of the public hearing was mailed to 211 property owners within a 500 foot radius of the site on February 4, 1993. PREPARED BY: J. P nning Technician Attachments: Application Exhibit "A" Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629 dated January 11, 1993 Exhibit "B" Site Plan date January 11, 1993 Condominium Plan for Parcels 4, 5, 7, 8 Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration No.92-8 Traffic Study dated September 11, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes of December 14, 1992, January 11, 1993, and January 25, 1993 Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-1 City Council Draft Resolution 3 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-7427 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION Record Owner(s) Applicant Case# tF M a 3 �, ;-,_t Filed J 202a Fee$1---- , vo . oo �t Receipt By Applicant's Agent Nmmb Cornerstone Partners Walnut, Ltd. James Camp C.P. Lane Engineers (Lest name first) Address 42 Corporate Park #210 42 Corporate Park #210 10790 Civic Center Dr. #200 City- Irvine Irvine Rancho Cucamonga Zip 92714 92714 91730 Phone(714) 484_7710 (714 474-7710 (714 466-8199 (Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) CONSENT: I consent to the submission of the application accompanying this request. Signed x Date /) 9 (A(l recon&d owners) 1 J 7' CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Printed C"VeAW5 Location Tentative Parcel Map 23629 Lots 1-10 Date , (Street address or tracts lot nurber) between Lemon Avenue and Tucker Lane (Street) (Street) Lot 1 address: zoning . See H.N.M. HNH 20418 Walnut Drive Previous Cases PresentUseof site Commercial Use applied for Commercial Condominium Domestic Water Source Walnut Valley Water Co Company/District Method of Sewage Disposal Sewer lines Sanitation District L.A. County Sewer Planning Note: Use Applied For This is an existing commercial/ industrial site that has been in existence for some time. It is nearly full, with tenants doing business here for some time. No changes in the physical structures or use of the site is anticipated with this project. This application proposes simply to divide this site into 10 separate lots to make it possible for tenants, or others, to purchase these buildings. G Grading of Lots by Applicant? YES NO X Amount 0 (Show necessary grading design on site plan or tent. map) LEGAL DESCRIPTION (All ownership comprising the proposed lots/project) If petitioning for zone change, attach legal description of exterior boundaries of area subject to the change.) See attached Project Site: 8.66 Tentative Hap Number Gross Area Lots: Existing 1 Proposed 10 Area devoted to : Structures 3.12 AC. Open Space Residential project N/A and N/A Gross Area No. of floors Proposed Density N/A Units/Acre Number and types of units 10 commercial buildings Residential Parking:Type Required Total 272 spaces Provided Tent. P.M. 23629 288 + 56 on private street = 344 LEGAL FOR TENT. PM 23629 DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE RANCHO LA PUENTE, IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF TRACT NO. 25391, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 731 PAGES 93 TO 96 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 25391, NORTH 43 DEGREES 43 MINUTES 58 SECONDS WEST 209.46 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF WALNUT DRIVE, 40 FEET WIDE, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID TRACT NO, 25391; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER LINE NORTH 6 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST 24.29 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTER LINE, NORTH 32 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 47 SECONDS EAST 484.80 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTER LINE, NORTH 47 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 57 SECONDS EAST 626.52 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THAT TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO WILLIAM 0. MC CLINTOCK, BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 1004 PAGE 78 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 38 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST 986.72 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 25391; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE SOUTH 78 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 28 SECONDS WEST 1228.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED ON JUNE 21, 1965 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 965 IN BOOK D-2947 PAGE 254, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID LAND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: $EGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 6 OF TRACT NO. 5579, AS SfiOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 88 PAGES 52 AND 53 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF WALNUT DRIVE, NORTH 6 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST 35.47 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE NORTH 32 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 57 SECONDS EAST 29.24 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 38 SECONDS EAST 1198.46 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THAT TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO WILLIAM 0. MC CLINTOCK, BY DEED RECORDED IN HOOK 1004 PAGE 78 OF DEEDS, IN SAID OFFICE; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 39 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 28 SECONDS EAST 237.00 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 25391, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 731 PAGES 93 TO 96, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN SAID OFFICE, OR THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID NORTHERLY LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY PROLONGATION AND/OR SAID NORTHERLY LINE SOUTH 78 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 38 SECONDS WEST 1239.95 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED LINE NORTH 44 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 05 SECONDS WEST 184.42 PRET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND INCLUDED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF WALNUT DRIVE, 40 PRET WIDE, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID TRACT NO. 25391. ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WITii THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID WALNUT DRIVE, 40.00 FEET WIDE; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 32 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 57 SECONDS EAST 5.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH 77 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 43 SECONDS EAST 589.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 74 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 10 SECONDS EAST 564.33 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 12 OF INITIAL C.N. EARL'S SUBDIVISION OF A PART OF TETE RANCHO LA PUENTE, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 42 PAGE 31 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, IN SAID OFFICE; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTiiWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 39 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 55 SECONDS EAST 64.24 FEET TO SAID NORTHERLY LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE SOUTH 78 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 38 SECONDS WEST 1185.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Staff Use Project No. ------------------ ------------------ INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE A. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Applicant (Owner): Project Representative: Cornerstone Partners Walnut Ltd _ C.P. Lange Engineers NAME NAME 42 Corporate Park Suite 210 10790 Civic Center Drive Suite 200 ADDRESS ADDRESS Irvine. CA 92714 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (714)474-7710 _ (714)466-8199 PHONE #` PHONE # 1. Action requested and project description: Applying to convert existing commercial buildings to commercial condominiums. 2. Street location of project:- On Walnut Avenue between 'bicker Land and Lemon Avenue 3a. Present use of site: Commercial 3b. Previous use of site or structures: Structures served commercial use 4. Please list all previous cases (if any) related to this project: None 5. Other related permit/approvals required. Specify type and granting agency. I'Ontstive parcel map - Condominium map 6. Are you planning future phases of this project? Y DN If yes, explain: Initial Study Questionnaire Note: This is an existing commercial/ industrial site that has been in existence for some time. It is nearly full, with tenants doing business here for some time. No changes in the physical structures or use of the site is anticipated with this project. This application proposes simply to divide this site into 10 separate lots to make it possible for tenants, or others, to purchase these buildings. Therefore, there will be no environmental effect from the approval of this project. 7. Project Area: " Covered by structures, paving: Landscaping: Open space: Total Area: 8.66 AC 8. Number of floors: 1 floor 9. Present zoning: 10. Water and sewer service: Public Domestic Water Sewers Does service exist at site?CY) N%yN L1 If yes, do purveyors have capacity to meet demand of project and all other approved projects? � N N 0 If domestic water or public sewers are not available, how will these services be provided? N/A Residential Projects: 11. Number and type of units: 12. Schools: What school district(s) serves the property? N/A Are existing school facilities adequate to meet project needs? YES NO N/A If not, what provisions will be made for additional classrooms? Non -Residential projects: 13. Distance to nearest residential use or sensitive use (school, hospital, etc.) 0.5 miles to school -Walnut Elementary School 14. Number and floor area of buildings: 15. Number of employees and shifts: Unknown 16. Maximum employees per shift: Unknown 17. Operating hours: Normal 18. Identify any: End products Unknown Waste products Unknown Means of disposal Unknown 19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides, chemicals, paints, or radioactive materials? YES If yes, explain 20. Do your operations require any pressurized tanks? YES NO If yes, explain 21. Identify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on -s e. 22. Will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest highway? YES NO If yes, explain B. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION Environmental Setting --Project Site a. Existing use/structures b. Topography/slopes *c. Vegetation N/A *d. Animals N/A *e. Watercourses N/A f. Cultural/historical resources Other A&I-V 2. Environmental Setting -- Surrounding Area a. Existing uses structures (types, densities): f - �, b. Topography/slopes *c. Vegetation N/A *d. Animals N/A *e. Watercourses N/A f. Cultural/historical resources 9- Other • Amwm ue " required if dw .red doe. no as *&6 wbmsl. xmdevelopoa Ina. 3. Are there any major trees on the site, including oak trees? YES NO If yes, type and number: Small trees throughout site 4. Will any natural watercourses, surface flow patterns, etc., be changed through project development?: YES NO If yes, explain: 5. Grading: Will the project require grading? YES If yes, how many cubic yards? Will it be balanced on site? YES NO N/A If not balanced, where will dirt be obtained or deposited? 6. Are there any identifiable landslides or other major geologic hazards on the property (including uncompacted fill)? YES O If yes, explain: 7. Is the property located within a high fire hazard area (hillsides with moderately dense vegetation)? YES NO Distance to nearest fire station: e. Noise: Existing noise sources at site: Traffic Noise to be generated by project: lion Fumes: Odors generated by project: Could toxic fumes be generated? 9. What energy -conserving designs or material will be used? CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facttemente, and information presented are trus and orrect to the best of my knowledge and . signature SHEET I OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 PARCEL NO 4 Q A As per map filed in Book , pages through of Maps, Records of Los Angeles County, California, in the City of Diamond Bar, State of California, diagrammatic floor plans of the Buildings built on said lot and certificate as required under California Civil Code Section 1351. f Engineer: Laud Design Services, Iuc. Cry X.ENC+�+EE1+1fq • FUN1nN6 • SUM[VIMO 110-6 W. 914 SL UpWk CA 9066 17141962.0269 FAX 1716062-0620 Owner's Statement: The undersigned, being the record owner of the land included within this project hereby consents to the recordation of this plan, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 1, Title 6, Part 4, Division Second of the California Civil Code, Section 1351. CORNERSTONE PARTNERS WALNUT, LTD., a California Limited Partnership 42 Corporate Park, Suite 210 Irvine, CA 92714 BY CORNERSTONE PARTNERS.INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. ITS GENERAL PARTNER By.: Vice President (sig.) Name written Assistant Secretary (sig.) Name written Engineer's Certificate: I hereby certify that I am a Registered Civil Engineer, of the State of California, that this map consisting of 9 sheets is the Condominium Plan for Parcel No. (4) of Parcel Map No. 23629 as per map filed in Book , pages through of Maps, Records of Los Angeles County, State of California, and that this map was prepared under my supervision. C. Phillip Lange, RCE 28022 Benchmark and Basis of Bearings: See notes and definitions. SHEET 2 OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP N0. 23629 OWNERS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PARCEL NO. 4 state of California County of On before me, personally appeared personally known tome (or proved to me on the basis or satisfactory evidence) to be the persons) whose name(s) Is/are subscribed to Elie within insLrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same I, his/her/Lhelr authorized capaclty(les), and Lhat by his/her/their slgnaLure(s) on Elie Instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the Instrument. WITNESS MY HAND: __ _(sigllaturei ___ Notary Public in and for said State (Mame) fly Principal Place of Business is I: County. My Commission expires State of California County of On before me, personally appeared personally known tome (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to Lite within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and Lhat by his/her/their signaL-ure(s) on the Instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which Lite person(s) acted, executed Lite Instrument. WITNESS MY HAND: _ __ (5_lgilat�rel Notary Public It, and for said state (Mame) My Principal Place of Business is In county. My Commission expires SHEET 3 OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PIAN PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 BENEFICIARY CERIIFICAIE ADAMOWLITOWN S: PARCEL NO. 4 METROBANK A CALIFORNIA BANKING GQHP __ CUNSEIIIS 11) 111E RECORUAIIUN OF 111E AIiAC11ED EONDUHINIUH PIAN. CONDOMINIUM PLAN FOR PARCEL NIA13 Nn_ 23(29 BY: BY: — Yire President state or California ) county of ) On before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person (e) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that lie/she/they executed the same Ili his/her/their authorized capacity (lea), and that by his/her/their erso 1,ellalfof u(wltich Lite persan(s)s) all tile Inactled,pexecuted the instrumett.upon WITIIESS HY HAIM: ( S Aliaturei_ Notary public in and for Bald State (Name) Hy Principal Place of Business 19 III County. Hy commission expires state of California ) county of 1 Oil before me, personally appeared personally ),,sown to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to he the peaon(s) whose names) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capaclty(ies), and that by ills/her/their Signature n s) othe Instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITIIESS HY HAIM! fSignatutel _ Notary Public !n and for said State (flame) My Principal Place of Business 19 In County. Hy Commission expires M SHEET 4 OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 PARCEL NO 4 NOTES AND DEFINITIONS 1. This°project" is composed of a Common Area and two (2) Units which are shown and identified herein. The "Common Area" of this project is the land and real property included within the boundary lines of Parcel No. 4 of Parcel Map No. 23629 as per map filed in Book , pages through of Maps, Records of Los Angeles County, California, in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California, except those portions shown and defined herein as Units A and B; and including all structural projections within a Unit which are required for the support of the condominium building, the condominium building, gas, water, waste pipes, sewers, ducts, chutes, conduits, wires and other utility installations of the structures wherever located (except outlets and wall switches thereof when located within the Units), the land upon which the structures are located, landscaping, parking areas, the air space above the structures, common stairways, window glass and the like. 2. This Project includes 2 Units as'described in these notes. The Units of this Project are designated A and B. The term "Unit" shall mean that portion of the condominium not owned in common with the owner of the other Unit . in this Project. The boundaries of each Unit are the interior unfinished surfaces of the perimeter walls, floors, ceilings, exposed beams abutting thereto, windows and doors thereof, the portions of the building and improvements lying with such boundaries, and the air spaces so encompassed; provided that each Unit also includes those portions of utility services, trash areas and truck wells referred'to herein and identified in this plan. These Units include those portions of utility services not within the Common Area, from the end of Common Area utilities to the end of the system within the Unit including all pipes, conduits, wires, supports, outlets, and other parts of the system supplying an individual Unit. All trash areas and truck wells serving only one Unit, as delineated on the plan, are a part of the Unit. Tenant improvements under the roof such as interior tenant improvement walls, windows, doors, drop ceilings, ceiling support members, ceiling tiles, lights, light fixtures,air conditioners serving single Units (whether above or below the roof), ducting, pipes, flues, wires, etc. , are a part of the Unit. This is true whether such tenant improvements were built as a part of the original project or added later. This is true whether such tenant improvements were built under permit and approved by the appropriate building official, or built without a permit, even if such unpermitted tenant improvements are not to code. It is the responsibility of the owner of a Unit to bring any tenant improvements which were not built with a permit up to code, or to remove them. For purposes of this Condominium Plan, 'heal property" mentioned in item 1 includes: all utilities inside or outside the building; all improvements within the parcel; bearing walls, columns, floors, the roof, the slab, and foundations; which are hereby defined as a part of the Common Area except as excluded as a part of a Unit. Common Area utilities are those that serve more than one Unit, utilities serving only one unit are a part of the Unit. SHEET 5 OF g SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 PARCEL NO _4 NOTES AND DEFINITIONS (CONT) 4. The vertical elevations of the unfinished floors for all Units are shown on the tabulation of floor elevations, sheet 7 of 9. uNP_RE V 5. The dimensions of all Units, as shown herein, are to the interior surfaces of the occupied spaces, or to arbitrary boundaries with respect to truck wells and trash areas. 6. All. Unit boundaries intersect at right angles unless otherwise shown. 7. All building positioning dimensions, as shown herein, are measured from the exterior surfaces of the respective building to the Project boundary, unless otherwise indicated. All ties are at right angles unless otherwise shown. All ties from private drive centerlines are at right angles to the exterior building lines as shown on the element location plan except where dimensioned otherwise. 8. Wherever reference is made to the designation of a Unit as set forth in Item 1 above, 'it shall be assumed that such reference is made to the Unit as a whole. 9. The boundaries of the Unit are defined by: the dimensions shown on the "Detail of the Elements", sheet 8 of 9; the "Element Location Plan", sheet 9 of 9; the "Tabulation of Elevations -Floors, Unfinished", page. 7 of 9; and items 2,4,5,6,7, and 12 of lie "Notes and Definitions". ID. 1D. The bench mark for this Project is as follows: 11. The bearing was taken as the basis of bearings for this plan. 12. In interpreting deeds, declarations and plans, the existing physical boundaries of the Unit or a Unit constructed or reconstructed in substantial accordance with the plan and the original plans thereof, if such plans are available, shall be conclusively presumed to be its boundaries, rather than the description expressed in the deed, Condominium Plan or declaration, regardless of settling or lateral movement of,the condominium building housing the Unit and regardless of m:rnor variances between the boundaries, as shown on the Condominium Plan or defined in the deed and declaration, and the boundaries of a condominium building as constructed or reconstructed. SHUT g OF g SHMS CONDOMINIUM PLAN - PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 PARCEL NO 4 NOTES AND•.DEFINITIONS (CONT) 13. Condominium means an undivided 50% tenancy in common ownership interest in the Common Area together with a separate ownership interest in fee in a Unit. 14. All Units are single story, thus no tabulation of elevations for second story is required. r a3wta-mn ' syoo u - SNotivA3l3 .40 NOuv�nevl V .'ON MOM 6Z9EZ 'ON dVW 1338W NVld wnitawOaN00 l SL:mm 6-40 L imm v j - .Ob'9£5 d NOIIVAA-13 NOIldNOIS3a llNn �4 a3wta-mn ' syoo u - SNotivA3l3 .40 NOuv�nevl V .'ON MOM 6Z9EZ 'ON dVW 1338W NVld wnitawOaN00 l SL:mm 6-40 L imm .o�•9£s e .Ob'9£5 d NOIIVAA-13 NOIldNOIS3a llNn a3wta-mn ' syoo u - SNotivA3l3 .40 NOuv�nevl V .'ON MOM 6Z9EZ 'ON dVW 1338W NVld wnitawOaN00 l SL:mm 6-40 L imm sl i 6 LM .40 1NVd V3W HSVVi 31/VAIad N e 11/1 �! 11l1ld 1170U W3f1Ul .99'01 m w m 0 N 8 IiNn .99'9 0 m ,99901 m o .99901 m N (p J .99'9 N V IiNn N �\ .99'011 + Im d0 li1Vd V3HV HSVHL 91VAR1d V I J.m ll d0 L!!Vd mo X3nul ��bJS qY V 130dVd MUM S1NM313 3Hl JO lIV13a 6Z9EZ 'ON ddW 1338W NVId WniNIWOONOD S133HS 6 ..40 a 133HS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. Id PARCEL NO 4 18 19 7o 2! 12 LS I 's- I q or ---9, Z7 SHEET I OF 9 SHEETS Q CONDOMINIUM PLAN A . PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 PARCEL NO 5. As per map filed in Book , pages _ through of Maps, Records of Los Angeles County, California, in the City of Diamond Bar,. f: State of California, diagrammatic floor plans of the Buildings built on said lot and certificate as required under California Civil Code Section 1351. Engineer: Laud Design Services, Inc. CNIL ENO�NE[NHO • �UNNIlN) • SVM[VNJO SCOL N. 9N SL W" CA SUIS UN1982-0289 FAX I? 14)912-N20 owner's Statement: The undersigned, being the record owner of the land included within this project hereby consents to the recordation of this plan, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 1, Title 6, Part 4, Division Second of the California Civil Code, Section 1351. CORNERSTONE PARTNERS WALNUT, LTD., a California Limited Partnership 42 Corporate Park, Suite 210 Irvine, CA 92714 BY CORNERSTONE PARTNERS,INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. ITS GENERAL PARTNER By: Vice President (sig.) Name written Assistant Secretary (sig.) Name written Engineer's Certificate: I hereby certify that I am a Registered Civil Engineer, of the State of California, that this map consisting of 9 sheets is the Condominium Plan for Parcel No. (5) of Parcel Map No. 23629 as per map filed in Book , pages through of Maps, Records of Los Angeles County, State of California, and that this map was prepared under my supervision. C. Phillip Lange, RCE 28022 Benchmark and Basis of Bearings: See notes and definitions. SHEET 2 OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP N0. 23629 PARCEL NO. 5 OWNERS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS State of California ) County of ) On before me, personally appeared personally known tome (or provedto me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons) whose the is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in Isis/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) oil the Instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which Lite person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS MY HAND: (Slgpature)__ Notary Public in and for said State (tlame)- My Principal Place of Business is It) County. My commission expires State of California County of On before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the hasis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS MY MANS: IgIgnature) notary Public In and for said State (flame) My Principal Place of Business is In county. My Commission expires SHEET 4 OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO, 23629 PARCEL NO 5 NOTES AND DEFINITIONS 1. This"projeceis composed of a Common Area and two (2) Units which are shown and identified herein. The "Common Area" of this project is the land and real property included within the boundary lines of Parcel No._5_ of Parcel Map No. 23629 as per map filed in Book , pages through of Maps, Records of Los Angeles County, California, in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California, except those portions shown and defined herein as Units A and B; and including all structural projections within a Unit which are required for the support of the condominium building, the condominium building, gas, water, waste pipes, sewers, ducts, chutes, conduits, wires and other utility installations of the structures wherever located (except outlets and wall switches thereof when located within the Units), the land upon which the structures are located, landscaping, parking areas, the air space above the structures, common stairways, window glass and the like. 2. This Project includes 2 Units as'described in these notes. The Units of this Project are designated A and B. The term "Unit" shall mean that portion of the condominium not owned in common with the owner of the other Unit . in this Project. The boundaries of each Unit are the interior unfinished surfaces of the perimeter walls, floors, ceilings, exposed beams abutting thereto, windows and doors thereof, the portions of the building and improvements lying with such boundaries, and the air spaces so encompassed; provided that each Unit also includes those portions of utility services, trash areas and truck wells referred'to herein and identified in this plan. These Units include those portions of utility services not within the Common Area, from the end of Common Area utilities to the end of the system within the Unit including all pipes, conduits, wires, supports, outlets, and other parts of the system supplying an individual Unit. All trash areas and truck wells serving only one Unit, as delineated on the plan, are a part of the Unit. Tenant improvements under the roof such as interior tenant improvement walls, windows, doors, drop ceilings, ceiling support members, ceiling tiles, lights, light fixtures,air conditioners serving single Units (whether above or below the roof), ducting, pipes, flues, wires, etc. , are a part of the Unit. This is true whether such tenant improvements were built as a part of the original project or added later. This is true whether such tenant improvements were built under permit and approved by the appropriate building official, or built without a permit, even if such unpermitted tenant improvements are not to code. It is the responsibility of the owner of a Unit to bring any tenant improvements which were not built with a permit up to code, or to remove them. 3. For purposes of this Condominium Plan, "real property" mentioned in item 1 includes: all utilities inside or outside the building; all improvements within the parcel; bearing walls, columns, floors, the roof, the slab, and foundations; which are hereby defined as a part of the Common Area except as excluded as a part of a Unit. Common Area utilities are those that serve more than one Unit, utilities serving only one unit are a part of the Unit. SHEET 5 OF g SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 PARCEL NO 5 NOTES AND DEFINITIONS (CONT) 4. )The vertical elevations of the unfinished floors for all Units sheet 7 of 9. are shown on the tabulation of floor elevations, WvW 5. The dimensions of all Units, as shown herein, are to the interior surfaces of the occupied spaces, or to arbitrary boundaries with respect to truck wells and trash areas. 6. All Unit boundaries intersect at right angles unless otherwise shown. 7. All building positioning dimensions, as shown herein, are measured from the exterior surfaces of the respective building to the Project boundary, unless otherwise indicated. All ties are at right angles unless otherwise shown. All ties from private drive centerlines are at right angles to the exterior building lines as shown on the element location plan except where dimensioned otherwise. 8. Wherever reference is made to the designation of a Unit as set forth in Item 1 above, 'it shall be assumed that such reference is made to the Unit as a whole. 9. The boundaries of the Unit are defined by: the dimensions shown on the "Detail of the Elements", sheet 8 of 9; the "Element Location Plan", sheet 9 of 9; the "Tabulation of Elevations -Floors, Unfinished", page 7 of 9; and items 2,4,5,6,7, and 12 of he "Notes and Definitions". 10. The bench mark for this Project is as follows: 11. The bearing was taken as the basis of bearings for this plan. 12. In interpreting deeds, declarations and plans, the existing physical boundaries of the Unit or a Unit constructed or reconstructed in substantial accordance with the plan and the original plans thereof, if such plans are available, shall be conclusively presumed to be its boundaries, rather than the description expressed in the deed, Condominium Plan or declaration, regardless of settling or lateral movement of,the condominium building housing the Unit and regardless of minor variances between the boundaries, as shown on the Condominium Plan or defined in the deed and declaration, and the boundaries of a condominium building as constructed or reconstructed. SHEET 6 OF g SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 PARCEL NO 5 NOTES AND•.DEFINITIONS (CONT) 13. Condominium means an undivided 50% tenancy in common ownership interest in the Common Area together with a separate ownership interest in fee in a Unit. 14. All Units are single story, thus no tabulation of elevations for second story is required. SHEET 7 OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP N4. 23629 PARCEL NO. 5_ TABULATION OF ELEVATIONS - FLOORS. UNFINISHED UNIT DESIGNATION ELEVATION A 540.35' B 540.35' SHEEP 8 OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMMUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 DETAIL OF THE ELEMENTS WITHIN PARCEL 5 4bsc 4zF 14' TRUCK DOCK PRT OF PRIVATE TRASH AREA UWT A PART OF UIMT A 'a N 98,66' UNIT A to 5.66' in r 94.66' 0 CD 94.66' m 0 5.66' UNIT —B- in Iq to iD 0 98.66' TRUCK DOCK PART OF UNIT B PRIVATE a PRT OF LUT SFI AREA B CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. It PARCEL NO 5 q o�9, >ar y� sb z� \ 3 s -7L 3, / ) 6 SHEET I OF 9 SHEETS Q -> +�CIO CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 PARCEL NO 7 As per map filed in Book , pages _ through of Maps, Records of Los Angeles County, California, in the City of Diamond Bar, State of California, diagrammatic floor plans of the Buildings built on said lot and certificate as required under California Civil Code Section 1351. Engineer: Land Design Services, Iuc. CNII [NO�NFFRNQ • I --a • SUP Eym 6N0 -G W. 90i 9L UO4 CA 91796 0141962.0299 FAX 12 1419 62-06 20 Owner's Statement: The undersigned, being the record owner of the land included within this project hereby consents to the recordation of this plan, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 1, Title 6, Part 4, Division Second of the California Civil Code, Section 1351. CORNERSTONE PARTNERS WALNUT, LTD., a California Limited Partnership 42 Corporate Park, Suite 210 Irvine, CA 92714 BY CORNERSTONE PARTNERS.INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. ITS GENERAL PARTNER By: vice President (sig.) Name written Assistant Secretary (sig.) Name written Engineer's Certificate: I hereby certify that I am a Registered Civil Engineer, of the State of California, that this map consisting of 9 sheets is the Condominium Plan for Parcel No. (7) of Parcel Map No. 23629 as per map filed in Book , pages through of Maps, Records of Los Angeles County, State of California, and that this map was prepared under my supervision. C. Phillip Lange, RCE 28022 Benchmark and Basis of Bearings: See notes and definitions. SHEET 2 OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 PARCEL NO. 7 OWNERS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS State of California ) County of ) On before me, personally appeared personal ly known to me (or proved to me onthe basis of satlsfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose names) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(g) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS MY HAND: (Ssd 11atur0 Notary Public in and for said State (Name) My Principal Place of Business is itl County. My Commission expires State of California County of On before me, personally appeared personally known tome (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed tits instrument. WITNESS MY HAND: (Signature) Notary Public in and for said state (Name) Hy Principal Place of Business is In County. 11y Commission expires SHEET 3 OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 BENEFICIARY CERTIFICAIE AND ACKHOWL800 : PARCEL NO. 7 _METROBANK , A CALIFORNIA IIANKIN(` (_(IRP C011SENTS TO TIIE RECORDATION OF TIRE ATTACHED CONDOMINIUM FLAN. CONDOMINIUM PLAN FOR PAR(`RI MAP N(] 23629 BY: BY: _ Vice President state of California county of On before me, personally appeared personally known tome (or proved to me o» Lite basis of satisfactory evidence) to be tits perso»(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument Packnowledged to me that he/she/they executed tits same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les)t and that by his/her/their eignature(s) on Lite Instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which Lite person(s) acted, executed tits instrument. WITMESS MY IIAIID: (5g tnaturel (rotary Public it) and for said State (flame) Hy Principal Place of Business is in County. My Commission expires State of California County of on before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that be/she/they executed the same in hill/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signatures) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(,) actedt executed the instrument. WITNESS MY 11AND: (Sjgnature) Notary Public in and for said state (Name) My Principal Place of Business is III county. My Commission expires r SHEET 4 OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN - PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 PARCEL NO 7 NOTES AND DEFINITIONS 1. This"project" is composed of a Common Area and two (2) Units which are shown and identified herein. The "Common Area" of this project is the land and real property included within the boundary lines of Parcel No._7 of Parcel Map No. 23629 as per map filed in Book , pages through of Maps, Records of Los Angeles County, California, in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California, except those portions shown and defined herein as Units A and B; and including all structural projections within a Unit which are required for the support of the condominium building, the condominium building, gas, water, waste pipes, sewers, ducts, chutes, conduits, wires and other utility installations of the structures wherever located (except outlets and wall switches thereof when located within the Units), the land upon which the structures are located, landscaping, parking areas, the air space above the structures, common stairways, window glass and the like. 2. This Project includes 2 Units as*described in these notes. The Units of this Project are designated A and B. The term "Unit" shall mean that portion of the condominium not owned in common with the owner of the other Unit . in this Project. The boundaries of each Unit are the interior unfinished surfaces of the perimeter walls, floors, ceilings, exposed beams abutting thereto, windows and doors thereof, the portions of the building and improvements lying with such boundaries, and the air spaces so encompassed; provided that each Unit also includes those portions of utility services, trash areas and truck wells referred'to herein and identified in this plan. These Units include those portions of utility services not within the Common Area, from the end of Common Area utilities to the end of the system within the Unit including all pipes, conduits, wires, supports, outlets, and other parts of the system supplying an individual Unit. All trash areas and truck wells serving only one Unit, as delineated on the plan, are a part of the Unit. Tenant improvements under the roof such as interior tenant improvement walls, windows, doors, drop ceilings, ceiling support members, ceiling tiles, lights, light fixtures,air conditioners serving single Units (whether above or below the roof), ducting, pipes, flues, wires, etc. , are a part of the Unit. This is true whether such tenant improvements were built as a part of the original project or added later. This is true whether such tenant improvements were built under permit and approved by the appropriate building official, or built without a permit, even if such unpermitte'd tenant improvements are not to code. It is the responsibility of the owner of a Unit to bring any tenant improvements which were not built with a permit up to code, or to remove them. 3. For purposes of this Condominium Plan, "real property" mentioned in item 1 includes: all utilities inside or outside the building; all improvements within the parcel; bearing walls, columns, floors, the roof, the slab, and foundations; which are hereby defined as a part of the Common Area except as excluded as a part of a Unit. Common Area utilities are those that serve more than one Unit, utilities serving only one unit are a part of the Unit. SHEET g OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP N0. 23629 PARCEL NO 7 :TOTES AND DEFINITIONS (CONT) 4. JThe vertical elevations of the unfinished floors for all Units 410!&. are shown on the tabulation of floor elevations, sheet 7 of 9- 5. The dimensions of all Units, as shown herein, are to the interior surfaces of the occupied spaces, or to arbitrary boundaries with respect to truck wells and trash areas. 6. All Unit boundaries intersect at right angles unless otherwise shown. 7. All building positioning dimensions, as shown herein, are measured from the exterior surfaces of the respective building to the Project boundary, unless otherwise indicated. All ties are at right angles unless otherwise shown. All ties from private drive centerlines are at right angles to the exterior building lines as shown on the element location plan except where dimensioned otherwise. B. Wherever reference is made to the designation of a Unit as set forth in Item 1 above, .it shall be assumed that such reference is made to the Unit as a whole. 9. The boundaries of the Unit are defined by: the dimensions shown on the "Detail of the Elements", sheet 8 of 9; the "Element Location Plan", sheet 9 of 9; the "Tabulation of Elevations -Floors, Unfinished", page. 7 of 9; and items 2,4,5,6,7, and 12 of he "Notes and Definitions". 10. The bench mark for this Project is as follows: 11. The bearing was taken as the basis of bearings for this plan. 12. In interpreting deeds, declarations and plans, the existing physical boundaries of the Unit or a Unit constructed or reconstructed in substantial accordance with the plan and the original plans thereof, if such plans are available, shall be conclusively presumed to be its boundaries, rather than the description expressed in the deed, Condominium Plan or declaration, regardless of settling or lateral movement of.the condominium building housing the Unit and regardless of minor variances between the boundaries, as shown on the Condominium Plan or defined in the deed and declaration, and the boundaries of a condominium building as constructed or reconstructed. SHEET g OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN - PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 PARCEL NO 7 NOTES AND•.DEFINITIONS (CONT) 13. Condominium means an undivided 503 tenancy in common ownership interest in the Common Area together with a separate ownership interest in fee in a Unit. 14. All Units are single story, thus no tabulation of elevations for second story is required. r SHEET 7 OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 PARCEL NO.: 7_ TABULATION OF ELEVATIONS - FLOORS. UNFINISHED UNIT DESIGNATION ELEVATION A 540.70' B 540.70' SHEET a OF g SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PIAN PARCEL MAP N4. 23629 DETAIL OF THE ELEMENTS wrrHM PARCEL 7 a1T a Ya and a rc� J h ~ IV 103.66' [Ln UNIT A 0 m 5.66' L 99.66' 109.66' 5.66' UNIT B 0 m 113.66' ri a %U CL m W o o� gr n. IS' CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. &nV r G PARCEL NO A 7 r Za-T- se©©©vovs q or --9, SHEET I OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN a PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 A PARCEL NO_ !- As per map filed in Book pages _ c: through of Maps, Records of Los Angeles County, California, in the City of Diamond Bar, State of California, diagrammatic floor plans of rL_ the Buildings built on said lot and certificate as required under California Civil Code Section 1351. L= Engineer: Land Design Services, Iuc. W. ENOMEMNO • PtAPMM2 • SUS IYPIO NO.G W. 981 SE LVWA CA 9986 (714)982-0289 FAX 171/282-0620 owner's Statement: The undersigned, being the record owner of the land included within this project hereby consents to the recordation of this plan, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 1, Title 6, Part 4, Division Second of the California Civil Code, Section 1351. CORNERSTONE PARTNERS WALNUT, LTD., a California Limited Partnership 42 Corporate Park, Suite 210 Irvine, CA 92714 BY CORNERSTONE PARTNERS,INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. ITS GENERAL PARTNER By: Vice President (sig.) Name written Assistant Secretary (sig.) Name written Engineer's Certificate: I hereby certify that I am a Registered Civil Engineer, of the State of California, that this map consisting of 9 sheets is the Condominium Plan for Parcel No. (a) of Parcel Map No. 23629 as per map filed in Book , pages through of Maps, Records of Los Angeles County, State of California, and that this map was prepared under my supervision. C. Phillip Lange, RCE 28022 Benchmark and Basis of Bearings: See notes and definitions. SHEET 2 OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 PARCEL NO. 8 OWNERS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS State of California ) county or ) On before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) Lo be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capaclty(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITIIESS MY IIAND: IS1gllaturel Notary Public in and for said State (name) My Principal Place of Business is III County. My commission expires State of California county of On _ before me, personally appeared personally known tome (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their slgnature(s) on Life instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS MY HAND: _ (signature► notary Pub11c In and for said State (name) My Principal Place of Business is In county. My commission expires SHEET 3 OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 DENEFICIARF CERf1FICATE )Op IgW1FD(;vms. PARCEL NO. ___$— METROBANIt ,ACALIFORNAANKLNCrCONSEIIIS To 111E RECORDATION OF 11IE ATTACIIED CONDOMINIUM PLAN. CONDOMINIUM PLAN FOR ^"^^"r ■.�n ran 23629 BY: BT: Vice President state of California county of before me, personally appeared On personally known tome (or proved to me ort rile bas le of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that byIlls/her/their signature (s) on the Instrument,actlle ad,ptity upon executed the instrument. behalf of which the person(A) WITIIESS My IIAIID: (Sig ti atg-Kelfor said State -- Notary Public in and (llama) Hy Principal Place of Business 11county. in My Commission expires -- state of California ) County of ) on before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the P whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that Ire/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and titaotbtil1Ilis/lier Lhelr upon slgnature(s) on the Instrument the person(s) r behalf of wlrlclr the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS MY IIAIID: -- Notary Public in and for said State (llama) My Principal Place of Buslness is in County. My Commission expires rr SHEET 4 OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 PARCEL NO 8 NOTES AND DEFINITIONS 1. This"project" is composed of a Common Area and two (2) Units which are shown and identified herein. The "Common Area" of this project is the land and real property included within the boundary lines of Parcel No. B of Parcel Map No. 23629 as per map filed in Book , pages through of Maps, Records of Los Angeles County, California, .in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California, except those portions shown and defined herein as Units A and B; and including all structural projections within a Unit which are required for the support of the condominium building, the condominium building, gas, water, waste pipes, sewers, ducts, chutes, conduits, wires and other utility installations of the structures wherever located (except outlets and wall switches thereof when located within the Units), the land upon which the structures are located, landscaping, parking areas, the air space above the structures, common stairways, window glass and the like. 2. This Project includes 2 Units as'described in these notes. The Units of this Project are designated A and B. The term "Unit" shall mean that portion of the condominium not owned in common with the owner of the other Unit . in this Project. The boundaries of each Unit are the interior unfinished surfaces of the perimeter walls, floors, ceilings, exposed beams abutting thereto, windows and doors thereof, the portions of the building and improvements lying with such boundaries, and the air spaces so encompassed; provided that each Unit also includes those portions of utility services, trash areas and truck wells referred'to herein and identified in this plan. These Units include those portions of utility services not within the Common Area, from the end of Common Area utilities to the end of the system within the Unit including all pipes, conduits, wires, supports, outlets, and other parts of the system supplying an individual Unit. All trash areas and truck wells serving only one Unit, as delineated on the plan, are a part of the Unit. Tenant improvements under the roof such as interior tenant improvement walls, windows, doors, drop ceilings, ceiling support members, ceiling tiles, lights, light fixtures,air conditioners serving single Units (whether above or below the roof), ducting, pipes, flues, wires, etc. , are a part of the Unit. This is true whether such tenant improvements were built as a part of the original project or added later. This is true whether such tenant improvements were built under permit and approved by the appropriate building official, or built without a permit, even if such unpermitted tenant improvements are not to code. It is the responsibility of the owner of a Unit to bring any tenant improvements which were not built with a permit up to code, or to remove them. 3. For purposes of this Condominium Plan, "real property" mentioned in item 1 includes: all utilities inside or outside the building; all improvements within the parcel; bearing walls, columns, floors, the roof, the slab, and foundations; which are hereby defined as a part of the Common Area except as excluded as a part of a Unit. Common Area utilities are those that serve more than one Unit, utilities serving only one unit are a part of the Unit. SHEET 5 OF g SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 PARCEL NO 8 NOTES AND DEFINITIONS (CONT) `4_._ The vertical elevations of the unfinished floors for all Units w�1ff� •are shown on the tabulation of floor elevations, sheet 7 of 9. 5. The dimensions of all Units, as shown herein, are to the interior surfaces of the occupied spaces, or to arbitrary boundaries with respect to truck wells and trash areas. 6. All Unit boundaries intersect at right angles unless otherwise shown. 7. All building positioning dimensions, as shown herein, are measured from the exterior surfaces of the respective building to the Project boundary, unless otherwise indicated. All ties are at right angles unless otherwise shown. All ties from private drive centerlines are at right angles to the exterior building lines as shown on the element location plan except where dimensioned otherwise. 8. Wherever reference is made to the designation of a Unit as set forth in Item 1 above, 'it shall be assumed that such reference is made to the Unit as a whole. 9. The boundaries of the Unit are defined by: the dimensions shown on the "Detail of the Elements", sheet 8 of 9; the "Element Location Plan", sheet 9 of 9; the "Tabulation of Elevations -Floors, Unfinished", page. 7 of 9; and items 2,4,5,6,7, and 12 of he "Notes and Definitions". 10. The bench mark for this Project is as follows: 11. The bearing was taken as the basis of bearings for this plan. 12. In interpreting deeds, declarations and plans, the existing physical boundaries of the Unit or a Unit constructed or reconstructed in substantial accordance with the plan and the original plans thereof, if such plans are available, shall be conclusively presumed to be its boundaries, rather than the description expressed in the deed, Condominium Plan or declaration, regardless of settling or lateral movement of,the condominium building housing the Unit and regardless of mrnor variances between the boundaries, as shown on the Condominium Plan or defined in the deed and declaration, and the boundaries of a condominium building as constructed or reconstructed. SWEET 6 OF g SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 PARCEL NO 8 NOTES AND•DEFINITIONS (CONT) 13. Condominium means an undivided 50% tenancy in common ownership interest in the Common Area together with a separate ownership interest in fee in a Unit. 14. All Units are single story, thus no tabulation of elevations for second story is required. SHEET 7 OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN - PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 PARCEL NO. 8_ TABULATION OF ELEVATIONS - FLOORS. UNFINISHED UNIT DESIGNATION ELEVATION A 536.40' B 536.40' SHEET 8 OF 9 SFfETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN PARCEL MAP NO, 23629 DETAIL OF THE ELEMENTS . WnM PARCEL 8 28' a J r0 JJ ug 58.66' n rr a aWin 72.00' UNIT A N r to 5.66' m m _ 2 126.66' r05.66' 126.66' UNIT B N m V � 130.66' am ��o CONDOMINIUM PIAN PARCEL MAP N4. PARCEL NO 8 9 is q o)r--9, ENVIROMAENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Background 1. Name of Applicant : T�FzSTDn�E �ia�Nrr�� �To . Jf,►.►F.s Cs}�-ems 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: L4 Z 1, D� eAux z 2l n 3. Name, Address and Phone of Project Contact: G. P. Lsa.Ate F_ /O`%ZD 6lyi _'.ty,= 7Jr '?oo tPA�u�1td 6M&-, .&4nwt6,A6 L'A CJi736 4. Date of Environmental Information Submittal: 9Z7-�9�- 5. Date of Environmental Checklist Submittal: / �, /9a 6. Lead Agency (Agency Required Checklist): 617Y Oe -D/n.r OJo , �a � 7. Name of Proposal if applicable (Tract No. if Subdivision): T 4 Z9' 8. Related Applications (under the authority of this environmental determination):_ N h)ej YES NO Variance: Conditional Use Permit: Zone Change: General Plan Amendment: 5u15DjV1St6r l -1 kOf lWM I (Attach Completed Environmental Information Form) II. Environmental Impacts: (Explanations and addi tional information to supplement all "yes" and "possibly" answers are required to be submitted on attached sheets) YES NO POSSIBLY / 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: V a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements. compaction or overcovering of the soil? / " C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition, erosion of stream banks or land adjacent to standing water, changes in siltation, deposition or other processes which may modify the channel of constant or intermittently flowing water as well as the areas surrounding permanent or intermittent standing water? " g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture. or temperature, or any changes in climate. either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? YES NO POSSIBLY ✓ b. Changes in absorption rates. drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface run-off? ✓ C. Alterations of the course or flow of flood waters? / d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any body of water? recognized as sensitive? ✓ e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any d. alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to dissolved oxygen and turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ✓ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ✓ i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: ✓ a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? ✓ b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare of endangered species of plants? C. Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat areas or plant communities which are recognized as sensitive? ✓ d. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a, barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? e. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? YES NO POSSIBLY 4. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change inthe P diversityof species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish, and shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)? b. Reduction in the numbers of nay unique rare or endangered species of animals? V C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to the normal migration or movement of resident species? d. Reduction in size or deterioration in quality of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: v a. Significant increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal result in: a. Significant new light and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of light and glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use in an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: V a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? YES NO POSSIBLY b. Probable interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect: a. Existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal: a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: 1. Fire Protection? 2. Police Protection? ✓ 3. Schools? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of Substantial additional vehicular movement? / ✓ gib, Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? / ✓ C. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? ✓ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods. / V e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal: a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: 1. Fire Protection? 2. Police Protection? ✓ 3. Schools? YES NO POSSIBLY 4. Parks or other recreational facilities? 5. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 6. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing energy sources or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in: a. A need for new systems, or Substantial alterations to public utilities? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: L� a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ✓ b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a_ The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in: a. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: (Attach Narrative) IV. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been incorporated into the proposed project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL. BE PREPARED. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: D /fes v Signature:�.�y Title For the Cit of Diamond Bar, California Km NO / POSSIBLY b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure / or object? C. A physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? V/ d. Restrictions on existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. / considerable? ✓/ d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance? a. Does the proposed project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish orwildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate or significantly reduce a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? / V b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? C. Does the proposed project pose impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively / considerable? ✓/ d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION No. 92-8 November 20. 1992 Case Number: Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629 Applicant: James Camp Cornerstone Partners Walnut, Ltd. 42 Corporate Park, Suite 210 Irvine, CA 92660 Proposal: A request to subdivide one parcel into ten parcels for the purpose of commercial condominiums. Four of the ten parcels are to be subdivided into units A and B. Location: 20418 Walnut Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91965 Environmental Findings: The proposed project, as determined in the City of Diamond Bar, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described have been incorporated into the proposed project and a mitigate Negative Declaration has been prepared. II. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation: Negative Declaration Explanation to supplement "Yes" and "Possible" answers given in the Initial Study. Environmental Impacts: 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? Possible. Explanation• Parking requirements for the proposed subdivision and the existing uses within the business center is 292 parking spaces. At this time, 258 parking spaces are provided. Mitigation• Fifty-six (56) parking spaces are provided on the private street within the business center identified as Yellowbrick Road. The Fire Department will continue to permit parking on both sides of Yellowbrick Road. With these spaces and the 258 parking spaces, the total spaces provided are 314 which is more than required. Katz, Okitsu & Associates TRAFFIC STUDY TENTATIVE PARCEL NUMBER 23629 Walnut Business Center City of Diamond Bar Prepared by: George Dunn, P.E. q/ Sr. Transportation Engineer 9110Z PARCEL DESCRIPTION The parcel is known as the Walnut Business Center and is located on the north side of the Pomona Freeway (SR -60) bounded by the freeway to the south, Walnut Avenue to the north and just west of Lemon Avenue. The project site is comprised of 10 developed lots presently occupied by the following businesses: Lot 1 IA Front Line Sales, Inc. 1B Liu's Production, Inc. 1C Joint Watts International Consumer Electronics 1D Orioxi International Corporation IE Marketing Products IF Office Space 1G Office Space IH Singatronic/Calnova 11 Office Space 1J Michi Tech Systems, Inc. 1K Mirage Computer, Inc. Lot 2 2A United Component 2B HLT System 2C Wilcom International Network 2D Bragel, Inc. 2E Office Space 2F Imp, Inc. Radiology Sales, Service and Refurbishing Lot 3 3A Office Space 3B V.I.P. 3C Office Space 3D Certified Crain Services, Inc. Overhead Lifting Equipment Specialists 3E Impressive Detail Products 3F C.A.C.S 3G Arrow O/H Garage Doors 3H Watson Photography East Lot 4 4A Warehouse Lot 5 5A Faith Center Ministries 5B Sunlan Technology Lot 6 6A Pacific Carpet - Interior Lot 7 7A Mattson's Antiques, Inc. 7B Mattson's Antiques, Inc. Lot 8 8A Old Quaker Paint Company 8B Vacant Lot 9 9A A -BEC Environmental Testing Labo- ratories Lot 10 10A Franklin Truck Parts, Inc. Katz, Okitsu & Associates Internal circulation is provided by the private street, Yellowbrick Road, which intersects Walnut Drive at two locations. The parcel is owned by Cornerstone Partners, Inc. and space is leased to the above occupants. The property owner is asking that the parcel be reclassified to allow for the sale of space to either the existing occupants or future buyers. There will be no change in land use associated with this reclassification. TRIP GENERATION Reclassification of this parcel to industrial/commercial condominium (with no change in land use) will not result in increased trip generation and therefore will not impact the level -of -service at adjacent intersections. PARKING GENERATION Using the Institute of TI ansportation Engineers, Parking Generation Handbook and classifying the land use as light industrial requires the following number of spaces: 136,002 112 x 1.55 spaces/1,000 GSF = 211 spaces The parcel currently contains 288 parking lot spaces and 56 marked spaces along Yellowbrick Road. Reclassification of this parcel to industrial/commercial condominium will not result in an increased demand for parking. The parking presently provided is more than adequate to meet existing and forecast traffic demand. INTERNALCIRCULARON Yellowbrick Road is a 48 -foot roadway with on -street painted parking spaces. The roadway provides for one -lane of traffic in each direction which is adequate to serve the parcel. CONCLUSIONS Since the land use for this parcel will not change as a result of the reclassification, there will be no impact on local traffic circulation. The parking provided by this development is adequate to service existing and future parking demand. 009.DIAMBAR.sTY CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PUBLIC HEARINGS: PT/Lungu presented the staff report regarding the request, made by the applicant Corner Stone Tentative Parcel Partners Walnut, Ltd., to subdivide one parcel into Map No. 23629 10 lots for the purpose of commercial condominiums, located at 20418 Walnut Drive within an existing business park identified as the Walnut Business Center. Staff recommended that this project be continued until January 11, 1993 to allow the Engineering Department more time to review the proposed map. C/Meyer, concerned with the time constraint on a parcel map, inquired if the applicant has given his concurrence to the continuance. PT/Lungu stated that the applicant has been informed of the recommendation for continuance, and they have verbally agreed to it. They would prefer that the application come before the Planning Commission as soon as possible. AP/Searcy noted that, with the absence of some of the information that has been submitted, the project had never been deemed complete. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Hearing no testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing continued. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the item to the meeting of January 11, 1993. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING: PT/Lungu showed a silent video of the site while presenting the staff report. The applicant, Corner Tentative Parcel Stone Partners Walnut, LTD., is requesting to Map No. 23629 subdivide one parcel into ten parcels, with four of the ten parcels divided into units A and B, Lot A January 11, 1993 Page 2 for the private street, and a common area consisting of parking and landscape space for the purpose of commercial condominiums, to be located at the Walnut Business Center, 20418 Walnut Drive. The applicant has indicated that trash enclosures, for parcels 3 and 7A, are provided, but was just not clearly delineated on the site plan. The Planned Sign Program was approved by the Planning Commission on November of 1992. The applicant is planning on selling all parcels, except 1, 2, and 3 in which the applicant will retain ownership of these parcels. PT/Lungu, correcting the staff report, stated that there are 258 parking spaces provided, with 56 spaces provided on Yellowbrick Road, totaling 314 parking spaces. With the proposed subdivision and the existing uses within the business center, 292 parking spaces are needed. The Fire Department will agree to parking on both sides of Yellowbrick Road. Staff feels that the street parking should be counted toward the number of parking spaces required for the business center. For the purpose of the proposed parcel map, a reciprocal parking agreement by and for all lots will be necessary to meet the parking requirement. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the Mitigated negative Declaration and Tentative parcel Map No. 23629 with the Findings of Fact and conditions listed. It is staff's recommendation to amend the conditions in the Resolution that the fire lanes not only be delineated on the map, but also be delineated on the site, and that the reciprocal parking agreement be recorded. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. James Camp, an employee of Corner Stone Partners, Inc., stated that the intent of the subdivision is to sell the individual buildings to small business owners in the Diamond Bar area. In response to a series of inquiries made by C/Meyer, James Camp made the following comments: all the buildings are individually metered for all utilities; there is one master meter for all the landscaping, to be maintained by the Maintenance District created in the CC&R's; because the building code requirement, requiring a one hour f ire wall on each side of a property line, was unachievable, Lot A, building 4, 5 and 7, cannot be divide into separate legal parcels, therefore, those buildings will be sold as condominiums; there are two billboards located in the common area space of the site; two individuals have the rights and the easement for those billboards, and at the termination of their January 11, 1993 Page 3 agreement, they are obligated to remove them, or continue to operate them; the applicant would not be amenable to a condition requesting the removal of the billboards at the termination of those agreements because of the costs involved, and because the applicant does not have legal rights to the billboards; though the billboards are on our property, we have no control over them, and we do not participate in the revenue; there is presently on site lighting for the buildings, and light fixtures on Yellowbrick Road; and there are public utilities on site, and easements recorded for all the utilities. C/Li inquired about the present vacancy rate for the Center, and if the applicant is subdividing because of economic factors. James Camp stated that the park is presently 100% occupied. The property was purchased with the intent of dividing it, and eventually selling the building. There are many tenants in the project now that are interested in buying their buildings. James Camp, in response to C/Plunk, stated that they are aware that there is a graffiti problem. To combat the problem, we have planted vines along the Pomona freeway. We are amenable, as a condition, to participate with the City to combat graffiti at that location. C/Plunk inquired if the applicant would be willing to have graffiti resistant paint applied to the project as a condition to the project. She suggested that casings be placed on the roof ladders as another possible deterrent. James Camp indicated that they would first want to investigate the costs and benefit of the graffiti resistant paint, versus simply repainting on a continuous basis, before agreeing to such a condition. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the condition, in the CC&R's, indicating the need to go to court for enforcement of the CC&R's, be deleted and replaced with the condition indicating arbitration pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), or some other neutral body. He also suggested that the CC&R's include a condition that, in case of new ownership, present owners can remain for a yet to be determined number of years before they are evicted. January 11, 1993 Page 4 Martha Brusque, residing at 600 South Great Bend Drive, expressed her concern that allowing street parking, to be used to help meet the parking requirements, may cause crime and other such problems. Chair/Flamenbaum pointed out that Yellowbrick Road is a private road, in which street parking is presently permitted. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. PT/Lungu, in response to C/Meyer, stated the following: the Fire Department has indicated that the 4 existing hydrants meet their requirements; and the AQMD Rule 15 requirement, regarding a Parking Management Plan for areas with over 100 employees, does not apply to this project because the use has not changed. C/Meyer suggested that the City explore the potential of having the Property Owners Association maintain some sort of incentive program for a Parking Management Program. PT/Lungu, in response to C/Plunk, stated that the billboards are owned by Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Boller. A legal non conforming sign, such as the billboards on this project site, can be removed when the City's Sign Code is 15 years old, per the amortization clause. DCA/Fox explained that the Outdoor Advertising Act allows billboard owners vested rights to maintain a billboard for up to 15 years without being compensated by a public entity that wishes to have them removed. In response to C/Meyer, DCA/Fox pointed out that since the owners of the billboards are not present to address their rights, it would not be appropriate to work out an arrangement to address the existing nonconforming condition. In regards to the CC&R's, DCA/Fox suggested that, though there is a condition requiring that the CC&R's be maintained as approved by the City, there should be an additional condition, to condition 5C, that any modifications to the CC&R's be approved by the Commission or the City Council. He also suggested that a condition regarding graffiti abatement may be more properly placed in the CC&R's. C/Grothe expressed his concern that the multi tenant buildings 1, 2, & 3, should remain as one January 11, 1993 Page 5 parcel because there is a potential for disagreement between possible multiple land owners, multiple policies and procedures with tenants, and the Association, in regards to parking, and maintenance of the common area. C/Meyer suggested that a transportation demand management program, under the responsibility of the Property Owners Association, could help mitigate potential parking problems. C/Grothe stated that the configuration of these buildings do not lend themselves well to be subdivided. The property lines jog in front of the next building, the differences in the buildings are not identifiable, and changes in ownerships could mean a change in standards in maintaining the common area, as well as parking. James Camp, in response to C/Plunk, explained that their intent is to keep parcels 1, 2, & 3 as a leased investment. However, we desire the flexibility to sell it to smaller investors because there are very few multi tenant buildings the size of parcels 1, 2, & 3 available in the market place. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum, James Camp stated that there are many light fixtures, approximately one near each building, similar to parking lot light fixtures, illuminating Yellowbrick Road. Motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Li to approve the project subject to the conditions as recommended by staff in the staff report. C/Meyer requested that a condition regarding a Transportation Demand Management program be added to the CC&R's. In regards to the graffiti program, he stated that he does not feel it is appropriate to require the property owners, in a request for a subdivision, to pay additional revenue to combat graffiti, penalizing them because someone, without invitation, is putting graffiti on their building. The citizens have, through taxing methods, hired police to apprehend and prosecute people violating laws. The property owner is being asked to pay more for protection he should already have, which does not seem appropriate as a subdivision requirement. DCA/Fox indicated that the CC&R's could include a condition that the property owner, or the Association, shall maintain all of the property in a graffiti free condition. In this way, they have January 11, 1993 Page 6 the option of eliminating the graffiti themselves, and are not being required to participate in the City's graffiti removal program. C/Grothe, concurring with C/Meyer that a graffiti program is not appropriate, suggested that the Commission recommend that the owners fix a few of the deficiencies so that the property is more graffiti preventive. C/Plunk pointed out that it may not be appropriate to ask the general tax payer to pay extra for someone not maintaining their property, and keeping it graffiti free. C/Meyer pointed out that it is in the City's judgement that, it is in the public interest, to have the City graffiti free. If a graffiti program is required for this project, then perhaps it should also be required as a provision for room additions on single family homes as well. It does not seem appropriate to demand participation of a graffiti program on a request for a subdivision. Since combating the graffiti problem is a cooperative venture, he stated that he concurs with requiring such items as additional lighting and security as a means for graffiti prevention. C/Meyer then suggested that item 2, requiring participation in the City's graffiti removal program, and item 3, requiring the use of anti - graffiti paint, in the supplemental staff report, be deleted. In regards to the anti -graffiti paint, C/Meyer explained that using the paint is extremely expensive and labor intensive. C/Meyer recommended that the applicant be encouraged to explore the possibility of having an arbitration clause included in the CC&R's. He also suggested that a time notice be given regarding the billboard issue. Chair/Flamenbaum recommended that there also be a condition protecting the lessee against eviction, if there is a change of ownership, preserving the tenants rights in the property. DCA/Fox pointed out have in the lease change of ownership. there are appropriate if the Commission so the Resolution if concurred. that a prudent lessee would i provision contemplating a Staff will investigate if safeguard options available, desires, and include them in feasible. The Commission January 11, 1993 page 7 C/Grothe recommended that, as a graffiti preventive measure, there should be a condition indicating that the applicant shall add additional lighting and landscaping along the property adjacent to the freeway, and encourage the applicant to secure the exterior ladders to the roof. PT/Lungu stated that condition 5.V of the Resolution, should be deleted. Chair/Flamenbaum directed staff to draft the Resolution of Approval, determining if the recommendations made should go into the CC&R's or into the Resolution of Approval, to be brought back to the Commission for approval at the next meeting. The Commission then voted upon the Motion made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Li, and amended as follows: to approve staff's recommendation subject to the conditions as recommended by staff in the staff report, deleting condition 5.V of the Resolution, and deleting items 2 & 3 of the supplemental staff report, and adding items 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8, of the supplemental staff report, in which item 6 is the Transportation Demand Management, item 7 is the Arbitration Clause, item 8 is a relocation plan protecting the rights of the tenant, and to also include the recommendation for additional lighting and landscaping, as well as modifying item 4 to secure the exterior ladders to the roof. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Li, Grothe, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. The meeting was reconvened the meeting at 8:47 p.m. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 1993 OLD BUSINESS: PT/Lungu reported that a Resolution of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629 is before the Tentative Parcel Planning Commission for consideration, as .well as a Map No. 23629 memo from the Deputy City Attorney, Craig Fox, addressing -the issues of arbitration and relocation of tenant, and the addition of statements to the CC&R's regarding these issues. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, and seconded by C/Li to approve Resolution 93-1. January 25, 1993 Page a C/Plunk, noting that Mr. Camp, the applicant's representative, had indicated, at the last meeting, his willingness to participate in combating graffiti and partake in a cost benefit analysis of painting with graffiti resistant paint versus continuously repainting, suggested a substitute Motion to approve Resolution 93-1, with the amendment that the applicant be required to participate in the City's graffiti abatement program. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that it was determined, at the last meeting, that it would not be appropriate to penalize this one single applicant by requiring him to participate in the City's graffiti abatement program. The applicant is willing to take measures, such as additional lighting and vegetation, as a means for graffiti prevention. C/Plunk's substitute Motion died for lack of a second. The Planning Commission voted upon the Motion made by VC/Meyer, and seconded by C/Li to approve Resolution 93-1 for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESOLUTION NO. 93-1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-8 AN APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION OF ONE PARCEL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUMS, INTO TEN PARCELS, WITH FOUR OF PARCELS DIVIDED INTO UNITS A AND B, LOT A, AND COMMON AREAS, WITHIN THE WALNUT BUSINESS CENTER, LOCATED AT 20418 WALNUT DRIVE. A. Recitals 1. James Camp of Corner Stone Partners Walnut, Ltd., has filed an application for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629 to subdivide one parcel, for the purpose of commercial condominiums, into ten parcels, with four of the parcels divided into units A and B, Lot A consisting of a private street (Yellowbrick Road), and common areas consisting of parking and landscape space within the Walnut Business Center located at 20418 Walnut Drive, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as describ- ed in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review application is referred to as "Application". 2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal organization of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 1, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject application, as to consistency with the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of Ordinance No.4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar. 1 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on January 11, 1993 conducted a duly noticed continued public meeting on said Application. 5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolu- tion have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby certifies that an Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared and which analyze this application and that said Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration reflect the independent judgment of the City of Diamond Bar. The Planning Commission further certifies that said Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration were completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the guideline promulgated thereunder, and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole, including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Commission that the project as proposed by the Application, and conditioned for approval herein, will have the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence presented in the record before the Commission, the Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, the Applicant shall pay all fees required for the filing of a Notice of Determination and any other fees imposed by the California Department of Fish and Game prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Commission, in conformance with Ordinance 2 No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar hereby finds as follows: (a) The project relates to a site of approximately 8.66 acres developed with a business center identified as the Walnut Business Center within the Restricted Heavy Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion (M -1.5 -BE) zone with General Plan designation of Light Manufacturing (I) and is located at 20418 Walnut Drive, City of Diamond Bar, California. (b) Generally, property to the north and west is the City of Industry; to the south is the Pomona Freeway; to the east is Residential -Agricultural - Minimum Lot Size 8,000 square feet (R -A-8,000) zone. (c) The subject site for the project is adequately served by Walnut Drive, Lemon Avenue, and Tucker Lane. (d) The nature, condition, and size of the site has been considered. The site is adequate in size to accommodate subdivision. (e) Substantial evidence exists, considering the record as a whole, to determine that the proposed parcel map and conditioned herein, will not be detrimental to or interfere with the contemplated General Plan. (f) The project site is physically suitable for this type of subdivision. (g) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (h) The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (i) The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 3 (j) Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in conformance with the Los Angeles County Code adopted by the City. (k) Approval of this project will not have an adverse impact on adjacent or adjoining residential or commercial uses. It will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity and will not adversely affect the health or welfare of persons residing in the surrounding area. 5. Based upon the substantial evidence and conclusion set forth herein above in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and conditions set forth below in this Resolution, presented to the Planning Commission on January 11, 1993, public meeting as set forth above, the Commission, hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) The project shall substantially conform to Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629 labeled Exhibit "A" dated January 11, 1993, Site Plan labeled Exhibit "B" dated January 11, 1993, as submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. (b) Applicant shall install recycling bins with enclosures for each of the ten (10) parcels created by the subdivision. Within 30 days of approval of this resolution, a revised site plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. (c) Applicant shall employ a waste contractor to collect, transport, and dispose of solid waste who has been permitted by the City of Diamond Bar to provide such service. (d) Applicant shall secure each roof access ladder located at each building to prevent unauthorized access to the roof. (e) Applicant shall provide additional lighting and landscaping along the property line adjacent to the freeway. A lighting plan and landscape/ irrigation plan shall be submitted to the City within 30 days of approval of this resolution for review and approval by the Planning Division. (f) The project shall comply with the City of Diamond Bar's Congestion Management (Transportation and Demand Management Ordinance) and other related Air 4 Quality Management District (AQMD) or Los Angeles Country requirements. (g) Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (C. C.& R.'s) are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Departments, the City Attorney, and the City Council. Any changes to the C. C. & R.'s shall be subject to the approval of the City Council. (h) C. C. & R.'s shall be recorded concurrently with final map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. (i) The subject site shall be maintained in compliance with the C. C. & R.'s. C. C. & R.'s shall provide for the maintenance of all sewer lateral from Yellowbrick Road by the maintenance district. Applicant shall provide documentation that the sewer trunklines in Yellowbrick Road are accepted for maintenance by Los Angeles County. C. C. & R.'s shall also provide the maintenance of Lot A - Yellowbrick Road and all common areas - parking and landscape space. (j) Reciprocal parking agreement by and between all lots shall be denoted in the C. C. & R.'s. (k) The term "driveway" shall be defined in the C. C. & R's and on the Tentative Parcel Map. (1) Fire Lanes shall be clearly delineated on the Final Map, described and addressed in the C. C. & R.'s, and clearly posted at the project site. (m) Applicant shall agree to contribute $3,000 towards public works improvements. (n) Applicant shall list benchmark on map and basis of bearings on condominium maps. (o) Applicant shall verify Item 10 in the Title Report. (p) A statement shall be added to the C. C. & R.'s stating that sewer laterals shall be maintained by the maintenance district. (q) Applicant shall provide documentation for location of General Telephone Company easement and shall show the location on the final map. 67 (r) Applicant shall provide documentation for the location of South California Edison Company easement and shall show the location on the final map. (s) Prior to expiration of the Tentative Parcel Map and prior to filing with the County Recorder, a Final Map shall be processed through the office of the City Engineer. (t) Details or notes shown on the Tentative Map which are inconsistent with the requirements, policies, or ordinances of the City are not approves. (u) Applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (v) Applicant shall bring all nonconforming bathrooms to an interim level of accessibility in conformance with recommendations of a disability access consultant. Future tenant improvements may require further standards of compliance in accordance with State requirements. (w) Applicant shall bring all front entrance stairways and handrails to current State handicapped standards and shall add approved handicap accessible hardware to one entry/exit door. (x) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining Planning Division processing fees. The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, James Camp, CornerStone Partners Walnut, Ltd., 42 Corporate Park, Suite 210, Irvine, California, 92660. 0 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1993, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: Bruce Flamenbaum, Chairman I, James Destefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:] NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSTAIN: [COMMISSIONERS:] Flamenbaum, Meyer, Grothe, Li, Plunk ATTEST: Pes eStefano, Secretary 7 RESOLUTION NO. 93-8% A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23629 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-8 AN APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION OF ONE PARCEL, INTO TEN PARCELS, WITH FOUR OF PARCELS DIVIDED INTO UNITS A AND B, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE WALNUT BUSINESS CENTER, AT 20418 WALNUT DRIVE. A. Recitals 1• James Camp of Corner Stone Partners Walnut, Ltd., has filed an application for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629 to subdivide one parcel, for the purpose of commercial condominiums, into ten parcels, with four of the parcels divided into units A and B, Lot A consisting of a private street (Yellowbrick Road), and common areas consisting of parking and landscape space within the Walnut Business Center located at 20418 Walnut Drive, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as describ- ed in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review application is referred to as "Application". 2. on April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal organization of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 1, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject application, as to consistency with the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of Ordinance No.4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar. 4. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, on March 2, 1993 conducted a duly noticed continued public meeting on said Application. 5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolu- tion have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The City Council hereby certifies that an Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared and which analyze this application and that said Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration reflect the independent judgment of the City of Diamond Bar. The City Council further certifies that said Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration were completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the guideline promulgated thereunder, and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration. 3. The City Council hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole, including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Council that the project as proposed by the Application, and conditioned for approval herein, will have the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence presented in the record before the Council, the Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, the Applicant shall pay all fees required for the filing of a Notice of Determination and any other fees imposed by the California Department of Fish and Game prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Council, in conformance with Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar hereby finds as follows: 2 (a) The project relates to a site of approximately 8.66 acres developed with a business center identified as the Walnut Business Center within the Restricted Heavy Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion (M -1.5 -BE) zone with General Plan designation of Light Manufacturing (I) and is located at 20418 Walnut Drive, City of Diamond Bar, California. (b) Generally, property to the north and west is the City of Industry; to the south is the Pomona Freeway; to the east is Residential -Agricultural - Minimum Lot Size 8,000 square feet (R -A-8,000) zone. (c) The subject site for the project is adequately served by Walnut Drive, Lemon Avenue, and Tucker Lane. (d) The nature, condition, and size of the site has been considered. The site is adequate in size to accommodate subdivision. (e) Substantial evidence exists, considering the record as a whole, to determine that the proposed parcel map and conditioned herein, will not be detrimental to or interfere with the contemplated General Plan. (f) The project site is physically suitable for this type of subdivision. (g) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (h) The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (i) The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. (j) Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in conformance with the Los Angeles County Code adopted by the City. 3 (k) Approval of this project will not have an adverse impact on adjacent or adjoining residential or commercial uses. It will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity and will not adversely affect the health or welfare of persons residing in the surrounding area. 5. Based upon the substantial evidence and conclusion set forth herein above in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and conditions set forth below in this Resolution, presented to the City Council on March 2, 1993, public meeting as set forth above, the Council, hereby approves this application subject to the following conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform to Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629 labeled Exhibit "A" dated January 11, 1993, Site Plan labeled Exhibit "B" dated January 11, 1993, as submitted to and approved by the City Council. (b) Applicant shall install recycling bins with enclosures for each of the ten (10) parcels created by the subdivision. Within 30 days of approval of this resolution, a revised site plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. (c) Applicant shall employ a waste contractor to collect, transport, and dispose of solid waste who has been permitted by the City of Diamond Bar to provide such service. (d) Applicant shall secure each roof access ladder located at each building to prevent unauthorized access to the roof. (e) Applicant shall provide additional lighting and landscaping along the property line adjacent to the freeway. A lighting plan and landscape/ irrigation plan shall be submitted to the City within 30 days of approval of this resolution for review and approval by the Planning Division. (f) The project shall comply with the City of Diamond Bar's Congestion Management (Transportation and Demand Management Ordinance) and other related Air Quality Management District (AQMD) or Los Angeles Country requirements. 4 (g) Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (C. C.& R.'s) are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Departments, the City Attorney, and the City Council. Any changes to the C. C. & R.'s shall be subject to the approval of the City Council. (h) C. C. & R.'s shall be recorded concurrently with final map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. (i) The subject site shall be maintained in compliance with the C. C. & R.'s. C. C. & R.'s shall provide for the maintenance of all sewer lateral from Yellowbrick Road by the maintenance district. Applicant shall provide documentation that the sewer trunklines in Yellowbrick Road are accepted for maintenance by Los Angeles County. C. C. & R.'s shall also provide the maintenance of Lot A - Yellowbrick Road and all common areas - parking and landscape space. (j) Reciprocal parking agreement by and between all lots shall be denoted in the C. C. & R.'s. (k) The term "driveway" shall be defined in the C. C. & R's and on the Tentative Parcel Map. (1) Fire Lanes shall be clearly delineated on the Final Map, described and addressed in the C. C. & R.'s, and clearly posted at the project site. (m) Applicant shall agree to contribute $3,000 towards public works improvements. (n) Applicant shall list benchmark on map and basis of bearings on condominium maps. (o) Applicant shall verify Item 10 in the Title Report. (p) A statement shall be added to the C. C. & R.'s stating that sewer laterals shall be maintained by the maintenance district. (q) Applicant shall provide documentation for location of General Telephone Company easement and shall show the location on the final map. (r) Applicant shall provide documentation for the location of South California Edison Company 5 easement and shall show the location on the final map. (s) Prior to expiration of the Tentative Parcel Map and prior to filing with the County Recorder, a Final Map shall be processed through the office of the City Engineer. (t) Details or notes shown on the Tentative Map which are inconsistent with the requirements, policies, or ordinances of the City are not approves. (u) Applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (v) Applicant shall bring all nonconforming bathrooms to an interim level of accessibility in conformance with recommendations of a disability access consultant. Future tenant improvements may require further standards of compliance in accordance with State requirements. (w) Applicant shall bring all front entrance stairways and handrails to current State handicapped standards and shall add approved handicap accessible hardware to one entry/exit door. (x) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees. (y) It is here by declared and made a condition of this permit that if andy condition hereof is violated or if any law, statue, or ordinance is violated, the permit may be revoked; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. (z) The City Council hereby provides notice to Cornerstone Partners Walnut, Ltd. that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of the California Code Of Civil Procedures, Section 1094.6. 1.1 The City Council shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, James Camp, Cornerstone Partners Walnut, Ltd., 42 Corporate Park, Suite 210, Irvine, California, 92660. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 1993, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: MAYOR I, Lynda Burgess, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] NOES: [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] ABSENT: [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] ABSTAIN: [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] ATTEST: Lynda Burgess, City Clerk 7 N (0 a M y Yj 0 kJ!'k lm y 03 v m Q 3 J N CITY OF DIAMUND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. �, � I TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: March 2, 1993 REPORT DATE: February 26, 1993 FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer TITLE: Fixed Route Deviation Transit System SUMMARY: UMA Engineering, Inc. was retained to conduct a study to determine the need and feasibility of providing a fixed route deviation transit system to the general public within the City on a regular basis. Phase I of the study presented the results of the questionnaire and telephone survey which was designed to identify and estimate the demand should a transit service hP ,..., t, City. Phase II of the study presented various options in funding, ridership pc ales, fare structure, and vehicle requirement that are available to the City. Both ph, tents which were received from the Traffic and Transportation Commission are in RECOMMENDATION: That a fixed route deviat II Q,(-- ted at this time, but that staff explore alternatives for partial or total implementa ""�`7 ��. nd. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS A Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification _ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) _ Ordinances(s) X Other: Phase I/II Reports _ Agreement(s) T/T Commission Minutes EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed Yes X No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? 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 _ REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. Belanger City Manager —George A. Wentz Interim City Engineer CITY COUNCIL REPORT MEETING DATE: March 2, 1993 AGENDA NO. TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Fixed Route Deviation Transit System ISSUE STATEMENT Feasibility of implementing the Fixed Route Deviation Transit System. RECOMMENDATION That a fixed route deviation system not be implemented at this time, but that staff explore alternatives for partial or total implementation based on ridership demand. FINANCIAL SUMMARY The approximate annual direct operating cost of the recommended fixed route system is $680,300. The City has the following options for funding in FY 1992-93: * Estimated Prop A Local Return Reserve: $ 52,000 * Estimated Prop A Discretionary Fund: $ 20,000 * Farebox Revenue: $ 15,000-$30,000 * Anticipated Prop C Fund: $408.000 TOTAL $495,000-$510,000 With a total available Prop A and C funds of between $495,000 - $510,000 for FY 1992-93, the City will need additional resources to subsidize the remaining operating cost estimated between $185,300 and $170,300. Additionally, the City will need to fund the initial, one time, start-up cost estimated between $20,000 and $50,000. BACKGROUND In 19901 the City of Diamond Bar introduced the Holiday Shuttle transportation within the City limits, focused to provide transportation for senior citizens and holiday shoppers. The overall support and response to the Holiday Shuttle encouraged the continuance of such service in the future. Further, it prompted the City to consider the feasibility of providing a similar service on a regular basis to the general public. In April 1992, a study was initiated to determine the feasibility of developing a fixed route deviation public transit system. DISCUSSION Phase I, which assessed support for the transit system and ridership potential, was conducted through a mail -back household questionnaire Page Two Fixed Route Deviation Transit sva+ems, March 2, 1993 to every household in Diamond Bar and telephone survey of 658 telephone calls with 203 interviews. The results of the telephone survey are summarized below: * 66% of residents agree that a regular transit service is needed; and only 37% are likely to use the service; * 57% would utilize transit service for shops/services, 21% for work, 19% for school, and 3% to reach a transit/park-n-ride connection; * The acceptable fare (average) was $.59 for shopping strip and $.64 for work trip. The key data obtained from the household questionnaire was to identify the destinations for the transit trip and are summarized below: * Travel to shops/services (52%); * To connect with RTD/Foothill express buses (17%); * To travel to school (14%); * To travel to park -n -ride lot (10%); and * To travel to work (8%). In summary, Phase I recommended the following: * Implement a transit system which consists of a fixed route with one bus running clockwise and a second bus running counterclockwise around the loop, a modified route of the Holiday Shuttle. During week day peak hours, this main route is to be supplemented by 3 feeder vans running on a fixed route and regular schedule. During off-peak hours and weekends, the main route is to be supplemented by one feeder van operating on a dial -a -ride basis; * Implement a base fare of $.50 for the off-peak period and a fare of $.75 for the peak period subject to a refinement of this basic fare strategy in Phase II of the study; * Formally request to join the Pomona Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) to take advantage of PVTA resources and Proposition A discretionary funding; * In May, 1993, apply to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for funding to purchase methanol powered buses; and * Undertake a survey of commuter rail users (after service commence) to establish potential demand for a feeder bus service to the Industry Metrolink Station. It is estimated that the weekly (annual) ridership will be in the area of 600 (30,000) to 1,200 (60,000), the lower figure being likely in the first year. While stated intended use is much higher, given the high cost of providing an extensive service to the many inaccessible subdivisions in the City, these high ridership targets are probably unattainable in the foreseeable future. Phase II outlined in detail a plan for implementing a transit system which is proposed in the Phase I report. It expanded on the route layout and schedules, marketing plans, method of service monitoring, service delivery and resource (operator) requirements. Page Three Fixed Route Deviation wx&.,.t ogatcm March 2, 1993 Based on an annual cost of $680,300 and ridership of 60,000 passengers, the costs are as follows: $680,300 = $11.34 per passenger; and based on a $.75 per passenger fare, 60,000 the City of Diamond Bar needs to subsidize 10.59 per passenger. Staff has approached Foothill Transit to determine if a pilot program is feasible to evaluate ridership prior to making a full commitment. This would also afford an opportunity to assess operations and determine what works. This will be brought back to the City Council at a future date. The Phase I and II reports were reviewed by the Traffic and Transportation Commission on August 13, 1992 and November 12, 1992, respectively. The Minutes of these both meetings are attached. Comments received from the Commission on the Phase II report is outlined below: 1. That City of Diamond Bar not consider alternate fuel vehicles at this time, since they are experimental at the present stage; 2. That the proposed per trip seems too expensive and that the cost breakdown per passenger be provided; 3. That the City consider Proposition C funding to fund the program; 4. That the proposed route include Brea Canyon Road so to provide service to the Industry Metrolink Station if implemented; and 5. That the Traffic and Transportation Commission has reviewed and commented on the reports, but that the Commission is neither in support nor in opposition to the reports. The above comments and those that will be received from the City Council will be incorporated to finalize the Fixed Route Deviation Transit System Study. The proposal to implement the proposed fixed route deviations transit system is not recommended by staff at this time. Alternatives , however, will be explored based on ridership demand. PREPARED BY: David G. Liu Tseday Aberra August 13, 1992 Page 2 Installation AE/Liu presented the staff report regarding the No U -Turn request, by a resident, that "No U -Turn" signs be signs on Grand/ installed on Grand Ave. and Cleghorn Drive. Cleghorn Following investigation, staff has determined that the Grand Ave./Cleghorn Dr. intersection is the safest and most perceptible location in providing U-turn and left -turn maneuvers for the travelling motorists. It is recommended that the Commission deny the request to install "No U -Turns" signs on Grand Ave. and Cleghorn Drive. Stan Granger, residing at 2300 Gold Nugget Ave., stated that because of the traffic, it is very difficult for the residents to get on Grand Ave. from Cleghorn Drive. Most motorists getting on the left turn lane on Grand Ave. are making U-turns rather than making a left turn onto Cleghorn Drive. He presented the Commission and staff with a map indicating the pattern being travelled by motorists. He noted that motorists are even coming off of Diamond Bar Blvd. onto Grand Ave. and making a U-turn at Cleghorn Drive. AE/Liu, in response to C/Ury, stated that staff did not observe the pattern as indicated by Mr. Granger. Most traffic is coming out of the shopping center versus Diamond Bar Boulevard. C/Beke noted that if the U-turns are prohibited at the Grand Ave./Cleghorn Dr., then motorists will be forced to travel further on Grand Ave. to make their U-turn. Motion was made by C/Ury, seconded by C/Beke and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommendation to deny the request for "No U -Turn" signs on Grand Ave./Cleghorn Drive. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Gravdahl. NEW BUSINESS: AA/Aberra reported that Mr. Steve Keen and Mr. Fixed Route Gerald Smith, of UMA Engineering, Inc., will Deviation present a summarization of the Phase I report, of the Fixed Transit Prog. Route Deviation Transit Program, and introduce what Phase II of the study will entail. This matter was presented to the Commission prior to Old Business items at the request of UMA Engineering, Inc. August 13, 1992 Page 3 Steve Keen stated that UMA Engineering, Inc. has studied an array of options before coming up with the recommendation for a Fixed Route Deviation Transit Program. The study scope of Phase I was looking to gage support for transit in Diamond Bar, identify the potential markets that transit could serve, evaluate the various route lay out options, and the financing for the preferred route lay out. Phase II would be more of a detail design of the transit system. He then made the following summarization of the study scope: there ,is a strong support for a transit service in Diamond Bar; 48% of the ridership market is for school/work trips, and 52% is for shopping/service trips; with any system developed, most of the ridership will be generated from the main roads in Diamond Bar; it is recommended that the transit system not be considered outside of Diamond Bar because the work locations, of those residents working outside of the City, are scattered, thus having no transit market; the school/work trips require very reliable, on time, direct and fast service, that can have a higher fare; the shopping/service trips can be a more flexible, but reliable service, that should have a lower fare; of the route options considered, he recommended two different systems - one for the peak periods (7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00- 7:00 p.m.) and one for the off peak periods (9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.); he reviewed the various loop route options, and stated that he prefers option 1 for the off peak period, and option 1 for the peak periods: the average cost for both options added together is $797,500; there is a Proposition A reserve of $400,000 for 1991/92, and $485,000 for 1992/93; if Diamond Bar were to join the Pomona Valley Transit authority in running this system, Diamond Bar would then qualify for Proposition A discretionary funds of between $30,000 to $90,000 a year; the fare box is in the range of $10, 00o to $50,000; the estimate funds available, on a three year average, is $658,000 to $758,000, with Proposition A and the fare box; the estimated funds available, on a three year average, using Proposition A funds, Proposition C funds (1992/93) and the fare box is 1 million dollars; modifying option 1, of the peak period, by using only two dial -a -ride vans, and option 1, of the off peak period, by using only one van on the dial -a -ride, would reduce the total cost of the system to $635,000, which would be affordable using Proposition A funds; another alternative, if Bial- a -ride proves unsuccessful in the peak periods, would be to eliminate the van during the peak periods and use four buses, thus costing $725,000; August 13, 1992 Page 4 in regards to utilizing the Commuter Rail and a future commuter rail station on Grand Ave.(1994/95), he suggested that Diamond Bar first determine the demand, and then determine if Diamond Bar has a role in taking people to the commuter rail station; and he suggested that, if this system does get going, Diamond Bar join the Pomona Valley Transit. Chair/Chavers noted that just because transit is supported, it does not necessarily mean that it will be used. Furthermore, the main issue at hand is not ridership and routes, but rather if it makes financial sense to go forward. C/Beke stated that the study shows that two thirds of the people feel transit is needed, but only one third of the people will use it, sometimes. The fare box revenues will not even be 5% of the operational costs. It appears that Proposition A funds are about to be used to run empty buses to connect to empty trains. Gerald Smith stated that one of the aspects of phase two will be a recommendation of a set of service standards. If the scenario depicted by C/Beke is accurate, then it will be recommended that Diamond Bar take the service off. A member of the audience, a resident, stated that she is in support of a transit system. She pointed out that the park -n -ride users would also support such a system, and that children could use the bus to go to movies and other activities, if the system runs into residential areas. The Commission approved the recommendation to receive and file this report. OLD BUSINESS: Diamond Bar AE/Liu presented the staff report regarding the Boulevard/ request to investigate the intersection of Diamond Fountain Springs Bar Blvd. and Fountain Springs Road. Based upon investigation, staff believes that the sight distance can be improved significantly by modifying the existing wall and trimming the cedars presently in place. Furthermore, it is believed that the no parking on the northside to be more important than the restriction on the south side of Fountain Springs. Staff recommended that, based on the cost and impact on Diamond Bar Blvd. traffic, additional design modifications should be made only if the proposed modifications do not prove adequate. It November 12, 1992 NEW BUSINESS: Page 6 County to determine if there is a way to move the installation of the signals forward regardless of what stage the development may be at. Staff will contact CalTrans to find out how the freeway ramps are listed in regards to their TSM program. C/Cheng requested an update of the signal at Diamond Bar Blvd./Shadow Canyon Drive. ICE/Wentz stated that the Council requested further clarification on how the signals for existing residential development should actually be funded. The item will be on the Council agenda for the first meeting in December of 1992, with a recommendation consistent with the recommendation of the Commission. Motion was made by C/Ury, seconded by Chair/Chavers and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommendation to receive and file the report. Fixed Route AA/Aberra reported that phase II, of the Fixed Deviation Route Deviation Transit System plan is completed Transit System and ready for the Commission's review. It is recommended that the Commission review and discuss Phase II of the Fixed Route Deviation Transit System. Chair/Chavers forwarded the following comments made by C/Beke: he could not recommend alternative fuels, and pointed out that it is not a proven technology; the price per rider, $13.60 per round trip, seems too expensive; and, if the City is serious about the Transit System, then it should apply for Proposition C funding at the beginning of the year. ICE/Wentz informed the Commission that he is in the process of investigating the feasibility of acquiring vehicles from the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority, who is cutting back from the size and scope of their services, and obtaining these vehicles could significantly reduce the cost of the service in Diamond Bar. Chair/Chavers noted that the ridership projection, as indicated in the Phase I report, was very Optimistic, making the cost per passenger a suspect number. The Phase I1 report should include a table on the cost breakdown per passenger. Any decision made regarding the system is a budgetary issue, therefore a Council decision. November 12, 1992 page 7 ICE/Wentz stated that the system will be subsidized. The City is also contemplating creating some Proposition A monies for general fund with other cities. C/Ury suggested keeping the main line on Brea Canyon, with the blue line through Fallow Field and the commercial area, to serve more of the public. Chair/Chavers requested that the report be passed on to Council with the acknowledgement that it has been reviewed and commented by the Commission, but that the Commission is neither in support nor in Opposition of the report. Chair/Chavers explained that, at the time that the Commission made the request for a right turn arrow, the City Engineer was to investigate if there was appropriate signal equipment and control hardware available to handle a phase that would run concurrent with the east and west left turns on Grand Ave., and provide an evaluation of the traffic volumes in the p.m. peak hour. The Commission had thought of the following two items to improve the flow of that right turn: run the right turn as an overlap; and take the outside through lane and make it a through and right lane. This idea has little merit, but the right turn arrow still bears some discussion. Chair/Chavers, in response to C/Ury, stated that a double right turn only works when there is a northbound through green operating, and there is no ability to take advantage of right on red, or the arrow that might come up with a right turn overlap. The other problem is determining which lane trucks would be allowed to turn in, because a large Motion was made by Chair/Chavers, seconded by C/Cheng and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to request staff to pass the Phase I & II reports to Council for their consideration, with the comment that the Commission has reviewed the report and has provided input. Traffic Circ. on Diamond Bar AE/Liu reported that on March 14, 1991, the Commission Blvd. at Grand requested staff to prepare a preliminary design and cost estimates Ave. as a. measure to improve the traffic circulation on Diamond Bar Blvd. at Grand Avenue. It was requested that the plans include a right turn arrow for the northbound Diamond Bar traffic and installation "No of a U - Turn" sign for the westbound Grand Avenue traffic. It is recommended that the Commission direct staff as necessary. Chair/Chavers explained that, at the time that the Commission made the request for a right turn arrow, the City Engineer was to investigate if there was appropriate signal equipment and control hardware available to handle a phase that would run concurrent with the east and west left turns on Grand Ave., and provide an evaluation of the traffic volumes in the p.m. peak hour. The Commission had thought of the following two items to improve the flow of that right turn: run the right turn as an overlap; and take the outside through lane and make it a through and right lane. This idea has little merit, but the right turn arrow still bears some discussion. Chair/Chavers, in response to C/Ury, stated that a double right turn only works when there is a northbound through green operating, and there is no ability to take advantage of right on red, or the arrow that might come up with a right turn overlap. The other problem is determining which lane trucks would be allowed to turn in, because a large CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FIXED ROUTE DEVIATION TRANSIT SYSTEM PHASE 2 REPORT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Report Prepared For. The City of Diamond Bar By: UMA Engineering, Inc. October 1992 7988-001 UMA Engineering, Inc. Transportation & Civil Engineers 17762 Cowan Street, Irvine, CA 92714, Telephone: (714) 660-0101 Fax: (714) 660-0681 October 12, 1992 City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Attn: Ms. Tseday Aberra Re: Diamond Bar Fixed Route Deviation Transit Study - Phase 2 Dear Ms. Aberra: UMA Engineering, Inc. is pleased to submit our report for Phase 2 of the above study, which details a plan for implementing a transit bus system for the City. The system that has been recommended offers coverage to the most populated areas of Diamond Bar and provides an alternative choice of mode for residents who may wish to travel to school, to work and to shops and services within the City, as well as to connect with the regional systems. Each route of the recommended system serves a particular part of the City and the routes are integrated, as best as possible, with each other, as well as with the SCRTD and Foothill Transit bus routes, so as to provide convenient transfers. We have appreciated the opportunity to work with you and City staff on this most interesting project and we wish the City success in implementing a bus system to serve the residents of Diamond Bar. If we can be of further assistance to the City during the implementation of the system and the ongoing monitoring program, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Gerald A. Smith, P.E. Director of Transportation/ Branch Manager GAS/dm Encl. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Scope of Study 1 1.3 Study Methodology 2 2.0 ROUTE LAYOUT AND SCHEDULES 4 2.1 System Name and Logo 4 2.2 Route and Schedule Refinement 4 2.3 Peak Period Main Loop 6 2.4 Peak Period Feeder Service 7 2.5 Off- Peak Main Loop 8 2.6 Off- Peak Feeder Service 9 2.7 Bus Stops 9 3.0 MARKETING 11 3.1 Initial Marketing 11 3.2 Periodic Marketing 11 4.0 SERVICE MONITORING 13 4.1 Initial Monitoring 13 4.2 Long Term Monitoring 13 5.0 SERVICE DELIVERY 15 5.1 Fare Policies 15 Y 5.2 System Timetable 16 5.3 Vehicle Types 17 5.4 Behavior and Operating Policies 17 6.0 RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS 18 6.1 Operator Requirements 18 6.2 Staff Support 18 6.3 Costs 18 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 21 APPENDIX A - PRELIMINARY SET OF SERVICE STANDARDS APPENDIX B - ROUTE MAP AND SCHEDULE APPENDIX C - PVTA BEHAVIOR AND OPERATING POLICIES LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Title Following Number Page # 2.1 Suggested Logo 5 2.2 Diamond Bar Bus Route .Map 5 2.3 Diamond Bar Bus Schedule 5 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Diamond Bar, incorporated as a city in 1989, is located in the south-east corner of Los Angeles County at the intersection of Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties. The City is situated at the eastern end of the East San Gabriel Valley adjacent to both State Routes 57 and 60. In 1990, the census recorded Diamond Bar as having a population of 54,000 in 16,900 households. 1.1 BACKGROUND In the period immediately before Christmas in both 1990 and 1991 the City of Diamond Bar introduced a "Holiday Shuttle" bus service to serve the residents of the City. The Holiday Shuttle proved to be popular and precipitated the desire to implement a City transit service on a regular basis. Towards the end of April 1992, a study commenced to determine the feasibility and method of service delivery for such a service. The stated objective of the study was "to develop a fixed route deviation public transit system to meet the needs of the general public of the City". The deviation aspect was included so as to provide a greater coverage of residential areas within the City than had been provided by the Holiday Shuttle service. 1.2 SCOPE OF STUDY The study required the following tasks to be completed: • assessment of support for transit service in Diamond Bar, • assessment of transit ridership potential; • evaluation of route layout options including a dial -a -ride option; • identification of a preferred route including fixed time stops and check -point stops for request only; • production of a system timetable and dial -a -ride specifications; -2- • recommendations for a fare structure and transfer policies; • determination of vehicle requirements, marketing and auxiliary requirements; and • specification of on -street sign requirements. 1.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY The study was carried out in two phases. The first phase was designed to estimate demand for transit service and make recommendations as to whether a regular transit service in Diamond Bar was feasible. The results of Phase 1 of the study were published in a separate document at the end of August 1992. The Phase 1 recommendations to the City of Diamond Bar are reproduced below: 1. implement a transit system with different service elements for peak periods and off --peak periods; 2. implement a base fare of SO cents for the off-peak period and a fare of 75 cents for the peak periods subject to a refinement of this basic fare strategy in Phase 2 of the study; 3. formally request to join the Pomona Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) to take advantage of PVTA resources and Prop A discretionary funding; 4. in May 1993, apply to the SCA QMD for funding to purchase methanol (or other alternative fuel ') powered buses; and 5. undertake a survey of commuter rail users (after service commences) to establish potential demand for a feeder bus service to the Industry Station. 1 The original recommendation was for methanol. Since the completion or the Phase 1 report, It was decided to leave open the option for alternative fuel. . -3 - The following steps were taken in Phase 2 of the study: • the preliminary route patterns recommended in Phase 1 were refined based on a closer examination of the individual streets and a more detailed estimate of run times; • a preliminary set of service standards were developed in order to guide the City in its future management of the system; • a system map and schedule was developed for peak and off-peak services; • marketing and monitoring procedures were recommended; • passenger behavior policies were formulated; and • implementation guidelines were developed. This report contains the findings of Phase 2 of the study. 2.0 ROUTE LAYOUT AND SCHEDULES 2.1 SYSTEM NAME AND LOGO The looping configuration of the main route is very similar to the "service route" system (also known as a "community bus") first developed in Boras, Sweden and now increasing in popularity across North America. The community bus concept is a looping route connecting various features of the community. Essentially, the recommended system consists of four community bus routes: one main loop, and three supporting loops in the peak period which are replaced by one demand responsive bus in the off-peak. It is suggested therefore, to name the main loop the "Diamond Bar Community Bus". It is suggested that the three supporting loops be named the "Yellow Route", the "Green Route" and the "Blue Route" for easy reference. A suggested logo for the system is shown in Exhibit 2.1. However, it is our view that a logo represents a corporate identity and its development requires the input of City Officials. An alternative strategy would be to arrange a contest with prizes to allow City residents to submit their suggestions for a logo, with City officials selecting a preferred design. The contest announcement in the local newspapers will also provide some important free advertising for the coming system. A color scheme for the logo of black and green, for the environment is suggested. It is also suggested that the buses not be painted in the first year of operation as alternative fuel buses are expected to replace the initial service vehicles and the feeder buses may undergo service revisions. Instead, the initial use of a logo transfer only is suggested. 2.2 ROUTE AND SCHEDULE REFINEMENT The route and service plans recommended in Phase 1 were preliminary and in need of some refinement of certain aspects. In .particular, the feeder van routes for the peak period needed a refinement and confirmation of certain residential streets particularly where there was a potential route choice. The final recommended route layout can be found in black & white in Exhibit 2.2, and a full-color version suitable for reproducing as an official route guide, is enclosed in Appendix B. In addition, route times had to be ' -5- confirmed through travel surveys undertaken by UMA staff and a detailed schedule produced It should be noted that these schedules may well have to be adjusted once service commences as ridership patterns, which are unknown at this time, can greatly affect route times. The recommended schedule is shown in Exhibit 2.3, and is also enclosed in Appendix B for reproduction along with the route map. Timed arrivals at shopping malls were not necessary for obvious reasons. The guiding principles in setting the schedule for each of the routes were to provide: • convenient access to/from the junior high/high schools at their respective start/finish times; • serve the Gateway Corporate Center at typical start/finish times; • provide transfer opportunities between the main loop and the feeder services; and • provide transfer opportunities between the main and feeder loops with the RTD/Foothill express services. There was often a trade-off necessary in arranging to meet all these principles. In such cases, adjustments were made to accommodate as many as possible. Given the fairly large headways in the Diamond Bar system, it was most difficult to provide an interface with Foothill Transit route 482 because of the irregular headways of that service. Transfer possibilities were more easily arranged for RTD 490 and transfers for Foothill Transit route 495 were very easily arranged as that service generally has 10 minute headways. The schedules derived to meet the above planning criteria results in the buses on the main loop operating between 6:45 a.m. and 6:45 p.m. on weekdays, with the peak timetable effective between 6:45 and 8:45 an-. and 2:45 to 6:45 p.m. The peak period feeder services operate as follows: Route AM PM Yellow (was B) 6:55-8:55 2:30-6:30 Blue (was C) 6:55-8:55 2:30-6:30 Green (was D) 6:45-8:45 2:30-0:30 EXHIBIT 2.1: SUGGESTED LOGO I Fare Schedule $0.50 Weekdays 8:50am - 2:20pm, and weekends $0.75 Weekdays before 8:50am, and after 2:20pm s„ o Te A/ EXHIBIT 2.2 DIAMOND RAR MIR RniITF MAP Wwhinq p°� a QC�C o Lyc«ming st. C� E s$ m J � °nd q vnfp Ra . m Fountain Springs Rb9e Rd. µ Rd. B reO °Argy Diamond Bar Transit a ---- Diamond Bar Community Bus Yellow Route Blue Route NAVAWMW Green Route EXHIBIT 2.2 DIAMOND RAR MIR RniITF MAP v 0 a � r � N CI •�� N� � !A � � f f f � f � C4 N � M f � � 17 � h 8 � � r � e s 3 Q � Y Y '3r � �' p N a 3 .fir —�, e+� wNi• 1N'2 chi• H !V r e;1 e A 1n .• o g CI `! 1v1^. n 4 'm e,,�p, coi• .r a .. 10 .o a far d I � 1 � chp }� _Q f� 1R f 'N� r q e� 1a r m p 7 fm 1p }Q - vpy Amy+fir Id X37 'O N wk s p- en cn1r.L a+5�� 1'�I $ 1 ,e. n a X~ r0i 4 N r�I .. .. .. r •sC 06 m99 r Y O v r r 9 S m •7 Y Y Y O Y Y r• g9 m go F 0CA 3 O 3ok�' 8 vv . 1 1 1 1 C w mm m < — N P+ � 1fl .o . o. 16 n a t VrJ C5 v5i G 'W, r vii r v a p N a 3 .fir —�, e+� wNi• 1N'2 chi• H !V r e;1 e A 1n .• o g CI `! 1v1^. n 4 'm e,,�p, coi• .r a .. 10 .o r m p 7 1p }Q - vpy Amy+fir Id X37 'O N wk s p- en cn1r.L a+5�� 1'�I $ 1 ,e. n a X~ r0i 4 N r�I .. .. .. •sC 06 8 F 3 O 3ok�' 8 — C w aLo o n t VrJ vg' gg i 'W, r vii r r A Tv ' �ie y gyp 1y � .Qi ~i In h nr. on A Sb s 10 C1 — u 5 � � g� JS CS � •a y � 3 � � � 5 � � v v6 � tf q, �- � r �? � S � � y � � cr � tf �®S S � �S 8 o � m F � r •mv Ste 3 g g g 5 x 5 5 a a 5 y 7 = 5 5 m a a m a: )% ra. ). a, m m m m m m m m 65 0y:6•SE�8i5� m `� r m m m b =u I.a S S d S m .T a tO m m 6. r �,rC O sr r U t F 2.3 PEAK PERIOD MAIN LOOP 2.3.1 Route Location The main route following the main arterial road system was not changed from the Phase 1 report. The route is a shortened version of the 1990/91 Holiday Shuttle (leaving out Lycoming and Lemon) with a slight detour from Brea Canyon Road in order to serve the Diamond Bar High School and adjacent residential areas. 2.3.2 Peak Period Timetable The critical timing points in the peak period (in order) are: • the junior high/high schools; • connecting with RTD/Foothill bus services; • Gateway Corporate Center, and • park'n ride lots. Schools top the list as they operate fixed start and finish times. Connecting with RTD and Foothill Transit service is second as there are more opportunities to intercept the frequent express buses. Offices are third as they tend to offer flexible work hours and lastly, park'n ride lots as they likely are a small market and again some flexibility in meeting bus service can be found. Because of its higher student population, the main loop in both directions was designed to arrive at Diamond Bar High School 10 minutes before the start time. However, because of the one hour headways, the buses do not coordinate very well with the finish time. The Lorbeer and Chapparal schools are served by buses between 10 and 20 minutes earlier than their respective start times and 10 to 15 minutes after their finish times. The route was designed to intercept the RTD and Foothill Transit routes in the a.m. and p.m. peaks periods during weekdays. It was not possible to meet all buses of these services so riders will have to consult the appropriate express bus timetables to plan their transfers. -7- 2.4 PEAK PERIOD FEEDER SERVICE 2.4.1 Route Location Following a review of the three feeder van routes developed in the Phase 1 study, it was determined that loop D did not require any changes. As well as providing good penetration of the respective residential areas, it also provides the opportunity to directly serve local commercial areas and schools etc., without requiring a transfer to the main loop. This was not the case with feeder loops B and C. Loop B was extended to include a residential area in the southeast quadrant of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave., and the commercial center at this intersection, as there was ample time within the 30 minute schedule to allow this extra coverage. Loop C only connected residential areas in the south end of Diamond Bar with the main loop and a minor shopping plaza. It was decided to extend this loop to provide access to a larger shopping mall on Diamond Bar Boulevard as well as two schools (see Exhibit 2.2). Loop B (Yellow Route) will commence at Grand Ave. and Diamond Bar Blvd. in the morning peak period to cover the residential area first, and at Chappwal Intermediate School in the afternoon peak period in order to collect students. Loop C (Blue Route) will commence at Lycoming St. and Lemon Ave. in the morning peak period to cover the residential area first, and at Diamond Bar Blvd. and Fountain Springs Rd. in the afternoon peak period in order to collect shoppers and students. Loop D (Green Route) will commence at Grand Ave. and Summitridge Dr. in the morning peak period to cover the residential area first, and at Diamond Bar Blvd. and Golden Springs Dr. in the afternoon peak period in order to collect shoppers and students. -8- 2.4.2 Peak Period Timetable The main timing criteria for determining the schedules for the feeder routes were: • the junior high/high schools; • connecting with the main loop; and • connecting with the RTD/Foothill routes. The route map and schedule for each feeder route is shown in Exhibits 2.2 and 2.3. 2.5 OFF-PEAK PERIOD MAIN LOOP 2.5.1 Route Location The main loop route for the off-peak (Le. weekends and 8:50 a.m. to 2:50 p.m.) is similar to the previous Holiday Shuttle except for a slight deviation from Brea Canyon Road to pass by the Diamond Bar High School, as is done in the peak period. 2.5.2 Off -Peak Period Timetable In the off-peak period and weekends, connections to various locations and express bus services are coincidental because the peak period services were made to provide convenient transfers. This then set the route schedule through the middle of the day. The schedule during the off-peak periods is also shown in Exhibit 2.3. The weekend service commences at 9:50 a.m. and finishes at 5:50 p.m. 91 2.6 OFF-PEAK PERIOD FEEDER SERVICE One feeder van is kept in operation during the off-peak periods. The basic operating scenario for this van will be to respond to pre -booked and dial-up requests. Pre -booked and dial-up requests are assumed to be accommodated -through the PVTA. In order to maximize its utilization, it will be necessary for the dispatcher to determine whether the passenger is best delivered directly to their destination, particularly if it is a short trip, or if the trip destination is on the main loop and the trip is fairly long, whether the passenger should be delivered to the main loop. The existing paratransit service provided to the Diamond Bar area can similarly be instructed to deliver passengers to the main loop. The consideration of how best to utilize the demand responsive feeder van will have to be left to the schedulers discretion, with the guiding principle of first corn0first serve, while also maximizing the use of the main loop. 2.7 BUS STOPS It is recommended that timetable information be displayed (in black and white) at every bus stop in order to provide passengers with an indication of when the bus is going to arrive. As the service will be on trial for the first year at least, it is desirable to minimize spending on bus stop signing. Use of existing poles for timetable information and bus stops, i.e. RTD and Foothill, is recommended for routes along the main arterials. It is recommended that the shuttle stops be located wherever there is an RTD or Foothill stop as this maximizes the transfer potential between the services while also allowing the use of shelters and poles, etc. In residential areas, there may well be no existing street furniture upon which to display a bus stop sign and schedule information. Therefore, temporary bus stop signs can be setup either by mounting a wooden panel on a nearby power or light pole or by using a wooden stand. -10 - Subject to a minimum distance of 500 feet between bus stops, stops should be provided at every street intersection and in front of community features (i.e. shops, services, etc.). Bus stop positions should be regularly reviewed in the first three months of operation to ensure they are located properly to provide good community access. It is an issue that needs to be included in the initial monitoring program. Example timetable information for a hypothetical stop (which would be produced in black and white) would be accompanied by a route map and is shown below: The Diamond Bar "Yellow Route" bus passes this stop at the following times: Monday to Friday 06:58 a.m. 02:27 p.m. 07:28 a.m. 03:27 p.m. I For service between 1 07:58 a.m. 03:57 p.m. 1 8:28 am and 2:27 pm, 1 08:28 a.m. 04:27 p.m. I and on weekends I (No service 04:57 p.m. I call xxx-xxxx I until 05:27 p.m 2:27 p.m.) 05:57 p.m. 06:27 p.m. Weekends and Public Holidays --- No Service Transfers to the Diamond Bar Community Bus can be made at Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard. -11- 3.0 MARKETING 3.1 INITIAL MARKETING The initial start-up of a system is a good time to undertake extensive marketing and take advantage of free press coverage. At least three weeks before service commences, a system timetable and map should be distributed to every household in Diamond Bar. A simultaneous press release announcing the distribution of this material will provide the opportunity to ensure people watch out for the material and keep it. A civic launch of a transit system is generally undertaken. This provides the press with an opportunity to take photographs and hence for the service to obtain free advertising. During the first month of operation it is appropriate to offer the service free in order to encourage people to try the service. Introduction of the fare system in the second month should not impact on ridership if the impending fare structure is made clear in the initial press releases. It is recommended that a mail box drop of map and schedule information to all households directly on the routes be undertaken toward the end of the first month of operation, reminding them of the fact that the service is on their doorstep. It will also be necessary to develop regular press releases during the first two months in order to keep the service in the news. 3.2 PERIODIC MARKETING As a basic marketing strategy, once the system is established the timetable should be made available in all public places, i.e. libraries, schools, City Hall, TMA's, the SCAQMD, schools, the Post Office, Malls, etc. It is most important to ensure that City residents are aware of the system and know where to go to find timetable details. -12 - There are any number of ongoing marketing activities that are possible if staff have the time and resources available. The following, in no particular order, are some relatively simple and inexpensive marketing ideas that would be helpful in promoting the transit service to the residents of Diamond Bar: • The Media - Take advantage of all opportunities for free publicity on radio, in newspapers and TMA publications, by sending out press releases for anything that happens to the transit system: new equipment, driver awards, schedule, route and fare changes. Announce progress at open council meetings, involve local personalities and create photo opportunities. • Celebrations - Plan festive events and special service features to mark landmarks in transit service such as anniversaries, the 10,000th rider, etc. Also get involved with other community events by providing special service or reduced rates for participants. • Transit Week - A full week of activities centered around transit to show appreciation to transit riders, and to raise public awareness of the service. Include free -ride days for various segments of the population, reduced fares and contests for riders. • Car -cost information - Explain to the public via brochures, flyers and advertising that transit is much less expensive and more environmentally friendly than taking the car. Make information available to schools to get children on -side early, capitalizing on their enhanced environmental awareness before they develop the automobile habit. -13- 4.0 SERVICE MONITORING 4.1 INITIAL MONITORING In the early days of operation it is not uncommon for the recommended service plan to be modified after assessment of the relative success and failures of the various service aspects. In the Diamond Bar situation, the success or failure of the feeder vans is very difficult to predict. Modifications to the service may have to be made in order to maximize ridership. It will be necessary to undertake formal and informal ridership opinion surveys and other general liaison (e.g. Gateway TMA, Chamber of Commence, schools, seniors, etc.). during the first months of operation in order to obtain feedback on the route system, transfer arrangements, intended fare structure, etc. and undertake modifications to the system as required. It is assumed that electronic fareboxes will be installed on each vehicle allowing an automatic passenger counting system to be in place. 4.2 LONG TERM MONITORING By the third year of operation, there may be a need to find additional -funding if the recommended system is to be continued in its entirety. The City of Diamond Bar will need to know, at that time, whether or not ridership numbers justify finding the additional resources or whether service cuts are more appropriate. There are a number of ways to cut service if demand turns out to be low. These include: • use of smaller vehicles for the main loop at off-peak times; • elimination of a feeder route if under -used; • eliminate feeder vans and increase service frequency on the main loop; • reduce service when the students are on vacation; • elimination of Sunday service if under -used; • reduction of hours of service on the weekend; etc. -14- Conversely, 14 Conversely, there are any number of ways of increasing service if the financial resources are available. Increasingly, transit properties turn to a tailored set of service standards as a means of managing the system and allocating resources. Service standards provide a rationale for making decisions with respect to transit service and the associated allocation of resources. Affected decisions include which markets to serve, the routes to add or take -away, and the levels of service, comfort and convenience to provide. A preliminary set of suggested Service Standards are presented in Appendix A for future consideration by the City. It is recommended that the City review and if necessary, revise this preliminary set of standards and then adopt through Council the standards to guide the future management of the system. It is thought to be too early to adopt the standards at present and more appropriate to wait until the initial system is established r' -15- 5.0 SERVICE DELIVERY 5.1 FARE POLICIES At the start of the second month of operation the following fare structure should be implemented: • 50¢ for weekends and between the hours of 8:50 am. and 2:20 p.m. for each normal weekday; • 75¢ during the hours of 6:50 am. to 8:50 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.; and • up to two children of 8 years of age and below and accompanied by an adult need not pay a fare. The discount for children under 8 years accompanied by adults is to encourage families to take the bus for shopping and recreational trips as well as encourage a habit of taking transit in the younger generation with the view of transit use continuing to be an option when they reach driving age. The Gateway TMA have a policy whereby they will pay for the first month of transit fares if an employee agrees to take transit after this time. This policy could provide employees in the Gateway Center a second month of free transit. 5.1.1 Transfer Policies The transfer policy currently in place between most systems, i.e., PVTA and RTD or Foothill, in the region relies on passengers purchasing a 25¢ transfer ticket at the time of boarding the first bus. This transfer is then accepted as the base fare on the second (transfer) bus. It is highly desirable for the City of Diamond Bar to be compatible with this policy and it is recommended that the City apply to the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission to join the current system of integrated fares in the region. -16 - Transfers between Diamond Bar buses are to be encouraged to maximize use of the service and therefore, no transfer cost is recommended. Instead, a flee timed transfer ticket is to be given to a passenger wishing to transfer, with the transfer remaining valid for 30 minutes (but not allowed for transfer back onto the same vehicle). 5.1.2 Fare Medium For passengers paying a single fare there is no need to be issued a ticket. For passengers wishing to transfer to either another Diamond Bar bus or an RTD or Foothill Transit bus, a time stamped transfer ticket will be required. In order to encourage regular usage of the service a cut-price multi -ride ticket is recommended. For example, a 22 ride ticket sold at the price of 20 rides. The ticket would most easily be issued as a card in which the bus driver would punch a hole each time the ticket is used. Identity card type tickets are thought to be too elaborate and expensive for the system. 5.2 SYSTEM TIMETABLE A preliminary system timetable is given in Appendix B and is suitable for printing, or refinement if necessary, for an initial circulation of service information. Once the system is up and running and changes to the routes are unlikely, i.e., toward the end of the first year, an approach should be made to mapping firms to incorporate the Diamond. Bar bus route system and timetable on a City street map. The cost of printing these better looking maps could be offset by allowing advertising on them. Copies would then be distributed throughout the community on an annual basis. The system would not operate on a number of national holidays including Christmas Day, New Years Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day and Thanksgiving Day. It is suggested that the system operate the same days as the PVTA system. On certain public holidays, the system would revert to a weekend level of service. -17- 5.3 VEHICLE TYPES The main loop will require the use of two mid-size buses (24 seat). The feeder bus loops require three vans offering seating for around 12 people. Both vehicle types will require an electronic farebox and wheel chair access. If possible, it is also suggested that the vehicles include a bicycle rack to offer further flexibility in making certain trips. For ambulatory disabled persons, low floor buses or kneeling buses are also desirable but not necessary, as most bus stops will have curbs resulting in a shorter step up to the bus. There are a number of makes available for this general specification. No further specification details are given at this stage, particularly because it is recommended that Diamond Bar purchase alternative fuel vehicles in 1993. 5.4 BEHAVIOR AND OPERATING POLICIES As it is recommended that the City of Diamond Bar apply to join the PVTA and also contract service from there in the interim, it is also appropriate that basic passenger behavior and operating policies be the same. Appendix C contains PVTA operating policies covering safety, passenger assistance, schools, passenger conduct and transfer policy. Certain of the policies are out-of-date (i.e., fares and internal transfers) and others will not apply to Diamond Bar (i.e., overlap zones, charter policy and service to County Islands). The policies are quite reasonable and fairly comprehensive. Additional policies may emerge when the Diamond Bar service is in operation and issues come to the fore which need stated policies. At this time, following the basic intent of the PVTA policies is a good approach to the matter. -18- 6.0 RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS 6.1 OPERATOR REQUIREMENTS The Pomona Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) have previously been contracted by the City of Diamond Bar to provide the Holiday Shuttle service. While it may take some time before the City of Diamond Bar can join the PVTA, it is appropriate for the City to request the PVTA to also provide the regular service. In doing so, the City can take advantage of the available scheduling, planning and managerial capabilities. All that is left is for the City to nominate a transit coordinator to liaise with PVTA staff, City Council and the public when required. 6.2 STAFF SUPPORT There will be the need for the City to nominate a staff person to be an administrative coordinator for the system. The duties of this person will include liaison with PVTA staff, handling passenger comments, overseeing the preparation of occasional monitoring reports, providing press releases, ensuring schedule information is widely available and organizing the occasional marketing initiative. It is estimated that these activities would on average, take up one and a half days per week of an administrative staff person. On occasions, this may be more than one and a half days, on others it may be no time at all. 6.3 COSTS Phase 1 estimated annual operating costs and funding availability. As no refinements have been made to the system which would affects costs, the costing and funding information still applies. The main discussion regarding funding is reproduced from the Phase 1 report, with some refinements added Consideration of the use of alternative fuel vehicles to reduce the City's costs is added at the end of the section. The monitoring and review program also provides the opportunity to reduce costs, if necessary. -19 - Prop A based financing is summarized below: Prop A (reserve) from 1991/92 - $400,000 Prop A (1992/93) - $485,000 Prop A (discretionary) - $20,000 (approx.) Farebox - $15,000 to $30,000 If the Prop A reserve was averaged out over the first 3 years of service, a three year average Prop A funded service would have $653,000 to $668,000 available per annum._ Approximate costs of contracted service vehicles are shown below: • $38 to $42 / hour for a mid-sized bus (seat 24); and • $28 to $30 / hour for a van (seat 12+). The approximate annual direct operating cost of the recommended system is $680,300. Estimated Prop A Local Return plus Prop A Discretionary plus farebox revenue plus Prop A (91/92) reserve gives a three year funding average of between $653,000 and $668,000 depending upon the farebox and Prop A discretionary funds available. This leaves a potential short fall in funding of between $12,300 and $27,300. If the Prop A reserve fund from 1991/92 is used to ensure the service is adequately financed for the first two years, in order to give the service a chance to establish itself, a review can then be carried out to determine whether the system will need additional funding and whether the City feels it is justified. IM If two methanol or natural gas buses are purchased through the use of SCAQMD discretionary funds and the vehicles are then operated and maintained by a contractor, the hourly contract costs should be significantly reduced as the contractor is not carrying purchasing costs. A rough estimate of the savings would be as much as $7 to $10 per hour per vehicle leading to a potential annual saving of between $56,000 to $80,000, which would make the system affordable in subsequent years without having to find additional funds beyond Prop A. 6.3.1 Initial Startup Costs There are some initial, once only, start-up costs that are not easy to estimate accurately. These costs include: • printing of schedules for wide distribution; • purchase and installation of temporary bus stops and schedule mounting frames; • system review and monitoring costs (e.g. consumer surveys); • printing of transfer tickets; • artwork and printing of logos; etc These costs could total anywhere between $20,000 and $50,000 with printing costs being the most significant depending upon whether every household is given a timetable and whether a cheap bulk printing cost is obtained. -21- 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS A great deal of coordination and activity will be required in the coming weeks to ensure that a smooth operation is delivered on the first day of service. The following recommendations regarding the launch of the Diamond Bar Transit System are made. 1. Implement the recommended transit system at the beginning of 1993 when the school term starts and allow passengers to travel free on the system for the first month. In arranging a contract for the service, insist on flexibility in being able to change the system in the first year, if necessary. 2. Implement the Holiday Shuttle prior to the 1992/93 Christmas season as in previous years. The route should be the same as that recommended for regular service and follow the recommended schedule between the hours of 9.50 a.m. and 5.50 p.m. 3. To announce the intended implementation of the service, provide a press release, including a route map and public information handout for wide distribution within the City. Distribute route maps and schedules of the recommended system at least 3 weeks before service commences. Ensure copies are provided on the Holiday Shuttle, at the Post Office, the Library, at schools, at the Gateway Corporate Center, the Chamber of Commerce, the Seniors Association, the SCAQMD and any other relevant locations, prior to Christmas. 4. Immediately launch a competition in the local newspapers for people to send in their suggestions for a transit logo and color scheme with City Officials deciding on the winning design. 5. Arrange a ribbon cutting Civic start up of the service and invite the press and community leaders. 6. Undertake the installation of temporary bus stop signs along the residential segments of the recommended routes together with a printed map and schedule fixed to the sign. -22- 7. Seek permission from the SCRTD and the Foothill Transit systems to affix map and schedule information to their bus stops on the main arterials used by the recommended route system and undertake same. 8. At the start of the second month of operation implement the following fare structure: • 500 for weekends and between the hours of 8:50 a.m. and 2:20 p.m. for each normal weekday; • 750 during the hours of 6:50 am. to 8:50 am. and 2:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.; and • up to two children of 8 years of age and below and accompanied by an adult need not pay a fare. 9. Apply to the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission to join the current system of integrated fares (250 transfers) in the region. 10. Undertake a passenger survey towards the end of the first or second month of operation in order to obtain feedback on the route system, transfer arrangements, intended fare structure, etc. and undertake modifications to the system as required. 11. Undertake a mail box drop of map and schedule information to all households directly on the routes toward the end of the first month of operation announcing the fact that the service is on their doorstep. 12. Develop regular press releases during the first 2 months in order to keep the service in the news. - 13. Undertake a review of the performance of the system after six months and report to City Council on the relative success of the system. Undertake additional promotional activities and/or service refinements as appropriate. -23- 14. After 12 months of operation, review the ridership levels and financial performance of the system. Based upon this review, it is recommended that Council adopt a set of service standards for use in guiding the future management and investment in the system. A preliminary set of service standards is included in Appendix A for consideration. This review should also examine the potential to meet future funding requirements. 15. Toward the end of the first 12 months of operation, approach mapping firms in order to print the route map and schedule on a street map and encourage advertising to pay for its printing. 16. The City should nominate a transit coordinator for the service with an approximate average allocation of one to one and a half days per week of this person's time for transit matters. APPENDIX PUMLEVIINARY SET OF SERVICE STANDARDS THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRANSIT SERVICE STANDARDS 1. POLICIES The policies describe the philosophies and priorities of the City of Diamond Bar as related to transit services. They consist of corporate goals, service objectives, and performance targets. 1.1 Corporate Goals The corporate goals are a general statement of our mission or why we are in the transit business and include the City's transit philosophy as follows: • Mission statement - to provide a safe, reliable, convenient, and efficient public transit service within the urban transit service area. The corporate goals are also more specific statements of the City's service and financial obligations as follows: • Service goal - to provide affordable transit services to residents who have no other choice of mode; • Financial goal - to allocate resources, including farebox and subsidies, so that the transit services are provided at the lowest possible cost to users and taxpayers. 1.2 Service Objectives The service objectives are general statements of what is needed to serve our market as follows: • Service area objectives - to locate transit routes so that 85% of all residential areas that have a density greater than 3 units/acre, places of work; and public facilities in the urban transit service area are within a 100 yard walk of a bus stop; • Headway objectives - to provide a maximum interval between buses of 60 minutes on all routes during the daytime on weekdays and on weekends; • Service hours objective - to operate the transit services so that a passenger boarding a bus between the hours of 6:45 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday can complete the trip within the urban transit service area. A.1 THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRANSIT SERVICE STANDARDS 1.3 System The performance targets are the performance levels and Performance timeframes that we will be guided by in our future planning, Targets marketing, and operating decisions as follows: Effectiveness target - to progressively increase transit ridership on the system to reach a target of 100,000 annual revenue passenger trips; Efficiency target - to improve the utilization of our transit services during the next budget year, our target: 10 system revenue passengers per revenue hour, Financial targets - to improve the revenue -cost performance of the transit system during the next budget year, our target: a recovery of 8% of total system operating costs for passenger revenues. 2. STANDARDS The corporate goals, service objectives, and performance targets provide the policy framework for adopting performance standards for existing and new transit services. 2.1 Route Performance These performance criteria will aid in evaluating the Criteria effectiveness, efficiency and economy of existing routes. Effectiveness Criteria These performance criteria will guide us in planning route changes and in making minor adjustments to the operation of the transit services so that the market served by each route receives a good quality service at all times. The criteria include the following standards: Loading standards - to operate the transit services on the routes so that maximum passenger loads per bus do not exceed 100% of the seating capacity; headways are increased or decreased to meet this standard subject to the maximum headway policy in Section 1.2 on Page A.1; A.2 THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRANSIT SERVICE STANDARDS • On-time standard - to operate each route so that there is a minimum on-time performance of no vehicles leaving early from any time point and no vehicles leaving later than 3 minutes from the time point, 95% of the time; • Safety standard - to operate the vehicles so that accidents on any route are minimized but do not exceed 3 accidents per 100,000 miles. Efficiency Criteria These performance criteria will guide us in scheduling our services so that each transit route can utilize the transit system's resources efficiently. The criteria include the following standards: • Service utilization standard - each transit route should achieve a minimum ridership performance of 2 passengers per revenue hour, Financial Criteria This performance criteria will guide us in controlling the costs of each route. The criteria includes the following standard: • Cost recovery standard - each transit route should recover at least 4% of its operating costs from passenger revenues attributed to the route, or not less than two-thirds of the average for the system 2.2 Planning Guidelines These performance criteria will aid in the planning of new or changed transit services. Service Area Warrants These determine the service area characteristics that need to be met before a regular transit route is considered: A.3 THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRANSIT SERVICE STANDARDS • Area location - a proposed new service area must be situated greater than 500 yards from existing transit services; • Area density - for each mile of route being considered in a residential area, at least 8 peoplelacre should live in the catchment area of a proposed new route. When these criteria cannot be met, demand responsive services would be considered. 2.3 Design Guidelines These determine the location and structure of new routes and route extensions: • Route design - 85% of the service area population within a 400 yard walk of the bus stops on the proposed new route; • Stop spacing - the spacing of bus stops on the proposed new route to be a minimum of 500 feet; • Schedule design - intervals between buses (headways) such that average hourly loads per vehicle on the proposed new route do not exceed 100% of seated capacity. Buses will arrive at any given bus stop at the same time each hour, • Service hours - new services to be operated in rush hours between 6:45 and 8:45 and between 2:45 and 6:45 on weekdays if full service cannot be justified initially. 2.4 Evaluation Criteria When a selection must be made between several proposals that are expected to fall within the established ridership and financial performance targets, the selection is based on evaluation criteria to determine the priorities. The criteria that would receive highest priority would include those proposals which best meet the goals and objectives. The following priorities will be considered: A.4 THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRANSIT SERVICE STANDARDS • Markets served - the proposals with the highest percent captive riders, i.e., seniors and students; • Demand - proposals with the highest potential ridership change; • Service utilization - proposals with the highest revenue passengers per hour, • Subsidy level - proposals with the lowest projected increase in net operating costs (operating costs less revenues). 3. APPLICATIONS The policies and performance indicators established above will be used to improve the performance of the transit system. The performance review process consists of three components. 3.1 Service Adjustments Service adjustments are those relatively minor changes that can be made at the discretion of management, within the established policies and budget without affecting the route structure or appreciatively changing the level or cost of service. They include: • Minor operating adjustments - adding, deleting or short -turning buses to correct loading and running time irregularities caused by unplanned fluctuations in passenger demand and operating conditions; • Minor scheduling adjustments - adjusting headways and operator schedules to account for changes in loading and running time conditions that were not accounted for in the previous schedule. All of these adjustments will be made within the framework of the headway objectives of Section 1.2 on Page A.1. A.S THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRANSIT SERVICE STANDARDS 3.2 Annual Route In order to identify the performance shortfalls that are of a more long Review lasting nature, a formal review of all transit routes will be undertaken annually. The annual review will identify the routes which perform below the targets and standards established, and will review and prioritize improvements according to the following procedures: • Public input - the public and operating staff will be requested to comment on the existing transit services and to suggest areas for improvements; • Performance -to -standard - all transit routes will be reviewed annually against one or more of the financial standards that have been established; the preferred standard is the cost recovery standard in Section 2.1 on Page A.3; • Ranking of routes - the routes will be ranked and compared to the established financial standard. Those which fail to meet the standard for the route are put on a critical list for further review; • Critical review - the critical list of routes and the requests from the public and operating staff will be subject to a detailed review using data from the transit system's service monitoring program. As a minimum, the review would evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of each route using the on-time and service utilization standards established in Section 2.1 on Pages A.2 and A.3; Public participation - improvements will be planned according to the established design guidelines in Section 2.3 on Page A.4. Proposals are formulated which are subject to public participation. Consultations will be held with the affected public and community associations to review these proposals: Evaluation - the proposals will be prioritized according to the established evaluation criteria for markets served, demand, and subsidy level, as outlined in Section 2.4 on Page A.4 and A.5. Service Plan - the priority proposals will be assembled into a Service Plan outlining recommended changes and additions to the existing transit services including their resource and budget impacts. A.6 THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TRANSIT SERVICE STANDARDS 3.3 Implementation of The Service Plan which results from the above review will be Change finalized through the following procedure: • Approval - the recommended Service Plan will be submitted to management and Council for approval in principle; • Budgeting - the Service Plan will be included in the annual budgeting process; • Staging - depending on budget limitations, the Service Plan may be implemented in stages; • Trial period - new or changed services will be operated for an initial trial period of 6 months for new routes and 6 months for changes to existing routes; • Continuance - new or changed services will be continued after the trial period if the performance of the route reaches 70% of the minimum service utilization standard established for routes (refer to Section 2.1 on Page A.3). If the performance level is not reached, the route would be subjected to additional marketing and/or corrective actions; • Discontinuance - if new or changed routes remain below 50% of the minimum service utilization standard for 6 months following implementation of corrective actions, they would be discontinued or redesigned as appropriate. After the trial period, new routes become a normal part of the route system and are subject to the same monitoring, adjustment, and improvement procedures as the existing routes. A.7 APPENDIX B ROUTE MAP AND SCHEDULE Fare Schedule $0.50 Weekdays 8:50am - 2:20pm, and weekends $0.75 Weekdays before 8:50am, and after 2:20pm ., Washington Dr. a y Lyconning St. a C � E E J o � Of C O O U 0 naeC Ra. m` 'VIE U QEx' Ridge Rd. S°nt°9uin Or. ,a. Ot a a o Fountain Springs Rd. SU�seiiqq O m CGt0/51 o wog Diamond Bar Transit �— Diamond Bar Community Bus Yellow Route -- Blue Route Green Route to is r! a �0na ��@age eels 0g � r�n� � oy�:� 9����g���eQ g� on .• 5. y � 5. g• � � 7d .o � �. �?y A w �• 3 Lg 'D W r AW W AW W .O A U U ap � v v • A A ►� S 'O N U w . n OD vNpp i r M `G O 00 .. .. _ ; •, N N 41 lwl 4i lJ N U tAA ^ (p1, T p,LAw `LS a 00 W W a �D Oo P v LAW 5.7 p a W y p OG (!� > W ,$ • F r 'O ■ r •tAJ� VAi V7 p, A14 r z �Ntj3.. L r W L4 w !J N A• p r N Do IO A G r 0,;,, N 7 P. �J /y�• c �] p Q1 Q7 Q1 ^0 IV ra, �s to co iw A 6 vwi N O N F3 U Q Q 5 U b � v a s_ o r o p Q ii' yy yi W w U i.ii U. $ O a W a � � •� � � R� � ip p �+ � � N � •• � P � � ri O. A N � � O� 4� �N g �i W 5 APPENDIX C PVTA BEHAVIOR AND OPERATING POLICIES Pomona Valley Mransporratlon Authority 3025 BOnica AVC110r. La Veri1C'. CA 91750. 7-14-596-7,f564 August 16, 1990 AGENDA ITEM 6 MEMORANDUM To: Pomona valley Transportation Authority From: George _f rks, PVTA Administrator Subject: operating policies The change in contractor's has given staff an opportunity to review many of our operating policies. Staff is recommending the additional policies in three areas, safety, school service and conduct passenger assistance. Safety 1. Any child under 4 years of age or 40 lbs. must be secured in an appropriate child safety seat. Provision of the safety seat shall be the responsibility of the adult accompanying the child. 2. The operator at his discretion, subject to review by the PVTA Administrator may require passengers to transfer to am- bulatory seating if passengers are in wheelchairs or scooters or other devices which cannot be properly and safely secured in a PVTA vehicle. Passengers whose devices cannot be safely boarded by use of the wheelchair lift may be required to transfer to an appropriate wheelchair to board the vehicle or board via the entry steps. The operator shall not be required to board any passenger, which cannot be boarded without endangering the passenger or driver. 3. Passengers who by virtue of their disability, size, be- haviors or other condition cannot be safely boarded or transported without an escort may be required to provide an escort as a condition of service. Said requirements may be imposed by the operator subject to review of the PVTA Ad- ministrator. Passenger Assistance 1. Drivers shall not be required to lift wheelchair bound pas- senger over more than one step. Operating Policies August 16,1 990 Page Two Schools 1. School children, first grade and above may be required to wait for the vehicle at designated pick-up points. 2. Passengers enrolled in home to school service shall be re- quired to be dropped off only at their predesignated des- tination. 3. School children using home to school transportation shall be required to remain seated with seat belts fastened. Passenger Conduct 1. Passengers may be suspended from service for three legitimate no-shows in a thirty day period. Suspensions shall be up to ten (10) days for the first occurrence, up to thirty (30) days for the second occurrence and indefinitely for the third occurrence. Said suspensions are subject to approval of the PVTA Administrator. 2. Passengers may be suspended from use of PVTA services for inappropriate conduct on PVTA vehicles. Inappropriate con- duct includes but is not limited to, refusal to remain seated or fasten seat belt, intoxication, vandalism, unsafe activities or other actions deemed improper by the driver. Said suspensions shall be subjectg to the approval of the PVTA Administrator who shall determine duration of said suspension. 3. If a passenger engages in unsafe or disruptive behavior on the vehicle, the driver shall notify dispatch of the situa- tion immediately. If appropriate, upon approval of a super- visor the driver may discharge any passenger engaged in un- safe or disruptive behavior on the vehicle. All such inci- dents shall be reported to the PVTA Administrator within 24 hours. POMONA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SERVICE POLICIES I. Transfer policy A. General Objective and Policy It shall be PVTA policy to provide coordinated services to maximize the mobility of our residents. To achieve this, PVTA shall provide for transfers between services. To optimize the effectiveness and efficiency of these services, PVTA shall provide for transfer to the most cost effective appropriate provider serving the requested destination. (i.e. RTD, Valley Shuttle, Get About.) Transfers are good only for travel in the same direction. Transfers must be used within two hours and are sold by the driver. B. internal Transfer 1. Dial -A -Ride to Dial -A -Ride (DAR) Dial -A -Ride to Dial -A -Ride transfer will be discouraged as much as possible. If there is no other method to make a specific trip DAR to DAR transfer can be made for a cost of 250. DAR to DAR transfer can be only made once in going to a destination. Passes are not recognized for DAR to DAR transfer, a 250 fee is required. If clients requesting a trip requiring DAR to DAR transfer can be served on a timely basis by Get About said clients will be referred to Get About. 2. Dial -A -Hide to Valley Shuttle Transfer from DAR and to the Shuttle may be made at no cost. To transfer from the Shuttle to DAR a 250 transfer fee is required. To transfer using a punch pass a 25C transfer is always required. The Shuttle driver will contact control room to arrange DAR pick- up at transfer points. If a person were starting on a DAR and then transferring to the Shuttle and then to the DAR of another city on a single trip, the transfer to the Shuttle is free and transfer to the other city's DAR would cost 250. C. Interagency Transfers 1. SCRTD Passengers may transfer to and from RTD services by purchasing a 100 transfer from the driver, no additional fare is required. The agency originating trip retains fare and transfer fee. RTD and PVTA will recognize each other's transfers as being good for their service's base fare. PVTA base fare is $b.75 for the Shuttle and S1_00 for DAR. 2. Omni -Trans Fixed Route System Passengers maybe transferred to Omni -Trans Fixed Route. Mechanism shall be determined in future. 3. Omni -Trans And Glendora DAR's Passengers may transfer to the Omni -Trans and Glendora DAR's if necessary. Passenger's will be required to pay a new fare upon transfer. PVTA transfer policy of utilization of the most cost effective carrier will apply to these transfers. PVTA Valley Connection Operating Policies Page 2 II. overlap Zones It will be the PVTA policy to allow the operator to serve desti- nations up to i mile beyond any DAR's boundary. This overlap shall be utilized at the operators discretion to minimize trans - Pers and expedite service. The overlap policy does not apply to service beyond PVTA service area. III. Service Rules 1. PVTA service is curb to curb, however drivers shall assist clients from door to door if such assistance is required by clients physical condition and for the clients safety. Assistance may include lifting or carrying parcels. 2. There shall be a limit of four shopping bags per client. All strollers, carts etc. must be stowable. 3. Conduct There shall be no smoking, eating or drinking, spitting, playing of radios without earphones, vulgar language. 4. Exact Fare is required. Drivers will not make change. 5. Tipping of drivers is not allowed. 6. Fares must be paid upon boarding, no IOU's will be accepted. Operator to use discretion to insure clients are not stranded for lack of fare. IV. Fare Structure A. Base Fares 1. Dial -A -Ride $1.00 2. Valley Shuttle $0.75 B. Passes A ten ride punch pass shall to available for $7.50. Good for both the Shuttle and DAR. Passes are good for base fare only. Passholders shall be required to pay applicable transfer fees. All transfers between PVTA services will cost $0.25 for pass - holders. Passes will be sold by cooperating banks, merchants, senior centers etc. C. Get About Both Get About and the valley Connection shall recognize each other's passes, coupons etc. _ PVTA Valley Connection Operating Policies Page 3 D. Children 1. Children under six (6) must be accompanied by fare paying adult. 2. Up to two (2) children under six (6) may ride free if accompanied by an adult. Additional children must pay full fare. IV. Charter Policy PVTA services shall be available for charter. Charters shall be permitted within a 100 mile radius of the Pomona Valley, Charters shall be subject to the authorization of the Adminis- trator. Rates shall be established by the Administrator to recover all costs incurred by PVTA in providing said service including PVTA administrative costs. VI_ Service to County Islands PVTA will not provide services outside its jurisd$ctional area. County Islandciwhich are surrounded by PVTA's service area will be served. *Bonelli Park and Raging Waters will be served only on a seasonal and pre -scheduled basis. *Administrator to pursue agreements with County to serve adjacent County Islands. `,Phase 2 Task 5 - Delivery Options If it is determined to proceed with system development, the various options will be presented to the public for their review and comments, at a public meeting. A detailed schedule will be produced for the preferred option showing start and end times for each route, bus stop locations, phone-in service areas, headways, bus and driver allocations, layovers, etc. If considered appropriate, a staging plan for implementing the service will be developed. A number of service delivery options will be evaluated from a short and long term cost basis. Options could include a City owned and operated system, a contracted service to a private operator, or a combination of options. Task 6 - Policy Considerations Certain service policy issues and operating standards will be determined. f Advance phone-in notice - This issue will require the consideration of time table flexibility along with operator support ie. central scheduling and dispatching with in -bus phone link. The amount of notice required may be policy driven rather than permissible processing time. Fare Structure - This issue will require consideration of options such as flat rate, scheduled vs. phone-in rates, peak/off peak rates, etc. Task 7 - Marketing Considerations A system marketing plan, vehicle paint scheme, logo, behavior policies, signage requirements and transfer policies will be developed. Options will be presented to the City for review before recommending preferred options. Transfer agreements will have to be negotiated with representatives of the connecting transit agencies. Task 8 - Prepare Report The results of the project will be documented in a report. A draft report will be prepared initially for review with the City and changes made before submitting the final report. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FIXED ROUTE DEVIATION TRANSIT SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY PHASE 1 REPORT Prepared by: UMA Engineering, Inc. August 31, 1992 UMA Engineering, Inc. 17762 Cowan Street, Irvine, CA 92714, Tel:(714) 660-0101 Fax:(714) 660-0681 TABLE Bi E OF CONTENTS Page # Executive Summary i - v 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1 1.1 Background 2 1.2 Scope of Study 2 1.3 Study Methodology 2.0 SURVEYS AND CONSULTATION 4 2.1 Extent of Consultation 4 2.2 Results of Telephone Survey 4 2.3 Results of Mail Back Household Questionnaire 15 2.4 Contacts with Agencies/Interest Groups 19 3.0 CURRENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 22 3.1 Transit Service 22 3.2 Road Network 25 4.0 POTENTIAL ROLE FOR TRANSIT 26 4.1 Overall Demand 26 4.2 Potential Markets Served 28 4.3 Service Overlap 32 5.0 SERVICE DELIVERY 33 5.1 Service Types 33 5.2 Service Requirements 34 5.3 Route Options 36 5.4 Bus Technologies 46 5.5 Financing Considerations 48 5.6 Final Selection of Service Options 50 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 52 6.1 Public Support 52 6.2 Market Served 52 6.3 Service Delivery 53 6.4 Service Costs and Financing 53 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 55 APPENDIX A Summary of Results from Household Questionnaire Survey APPENDIX B Origin -Destination Matrix from Household Questionnaire LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Title Following Number Page # 1.1 Holiday Shuttle Route Map 1 2.1 Survey Zone Map 4 2.2 Adult and Child Origins and Destinations 16 2.3 Zone 4 Origins and Destinations 16 2.4 Zone 9 Origins and Destinations 16 2.5 Zone 11 Origins and Destinations 16 2.6 Zone 12 Origins and Destinations 16 2.7 Frequently Requested Stops and Areas of Service 18 3.1 Existing Transit Routes 22 3.2 Future Commuter Rail Station 24 4.1 Medium Density Residential Housing 28 4.2 Commercial/Office Development 29 4.3 Local Work Trip Destinations for Diamond Bar Residents 30 4.4 Junior High and High Schools 30 5.1 Peak Period Alternative 1 36 5.2 Peak Period Alternative 2 38 5.3 Peak Period Alternative 3 39 5.4 Peak Period Alternative 4 40 5.5 Peak Period Assessment 41 5.6 Off -Peak Alternative 1 42 5.7 Off -Peak Alternative 2 43 5.8 Off -Peak Alternative 3 44 5.9 Off -Peak Assessment 46 5.10 Recommended Peak Period System 52 5.11 Recommended Off -Peak Period System 52 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Immediately before Christmas in both 1990 and 1991 the City of Diamond Bar introduced a "Holiday Shuttle" bus service. Towards the end of April 1992, a study commenced to determine the feasibility of providing transit service on a regular basis. The stated objective of the study was "to develop a fixed route deviation public transit system to meet the needs of the general public of the City". The deviation aspect was included to provide greater coverage of residential areas within the city than had been provided by the Holiday Shuttle service. STUDY PROCESS The study was carried out in two phases. The first phase involved a public consultation and survey process and was designed to estimate demand for transit service and make recommendations as to whether a regular transit service in Diamond Bar was feasible. This report contains the findings of Phase 1 of the study. PUBLIC CONSULTATION A summary of the main findings of a random telephone survey of Diamond Bar residents is given in the following: • 66% of residents agree that a regular transit service is needed, • 37% are likely to use service; • stated trip purpose for transit use: 21% work 57% shops/services 19% school 3% transitlpark n ride connection • acceptable fare (average): - 59¢ for shopping trip and - 64e for work trip. In addition a mail back household questionnaire survey was conducted and meetings and/or interviews were held with representatives of the Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce, the Diamond Bar Seniors Association, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the Gateway Corporate Center TMA, the LACTC, the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD), Foothill Transit, the Pomona Valley Transportation Authority and a number of school representatives. IM A strong show of public support is evident from the results of the public surveys carried out with 63% of respondents agreeing that transit is needed in Diamond Bar. While the number of people saying they would use transit is considerably fewer, this reflects the reality that public transportation cannot compete with the auto for the majority of trip making, particularly in a suburban situation as exists in Diamond Bar. Nevertheless, the support for transit from both potential users and non-users is encouraging. In addition, support from business and community groups is also strong. This means that implementation of a City transit service has support from the community as a whole and is more likely to be successful because of this. MARKET SERVED The majority of ridership will be generated from medium density housing which exists mostly within a short walk of the main arterial road system. Therefore, it is appropriate to concentrate most of the available resources to serving these medium density areas with t fixed route service. Dial'a ride patronage will be a minor proportion of ridership. The household transit survey indicated the relative importance of the five potential markets that a City transit system may target. These are (the percentage response to each market is shown in brackets): • travel to shops/services (52%); • to connect with RTD/Foothill express buses (17%); • to travel to school (14%); • to travel to park'n ride lot (10%); and • to travel to work (8%). Again, most of these activities are found close to or on the main arterial road network. ISERVICE DELIVERY The characteristics of these markets and implied transit service needs are such that t shopping/service trips are generally random throughout the day and not necessarily time sensitive with only minor peak times of activity. A dial'a ride capability for serving this market will be a useful add on feature. iii By contrast, education and work trips (including park'n ride and express bus connections) are extremely time sensitive and will require regular and reliable transit service. Dial'a ride service does not provide this and therefore a fixed mute service(s) was recommended for this market. RIDERSILIP POTENTIAL The likely weekly(annual) ridership will likely lie somewhere in a range of 600(30,000) to 1,200 (60,000), the lower figure being likely in the first year. While stated intended use is much higher, given the high cost of providing an extensive service to the many inaccessible subdivisions in the City, these high ridership targets are probably unattainable in the foreseeable future. SERVICE TYPES CONSIDERED The terms of reference for this study ask for an investigation of a fixed route deviation service. The study evaluated a variety of options to ensure the best option was chosen. The bus service delivery types generally considered were: Fixed Route Deviation; Fixed Route plus Dial a Ride feeder; Fixed Route only; and Fixed route plus feeder buslvan (or jitney) service. RECOMMENDED SYSTEM As discussed above a system is required which caters to the school/work trips market in the peak periods and the shopping/service trips in the off -peaks while providing the maximum coverage possible to the residential areas of the City. The recommended service (see Exhibits El and E2) consists of a fixed route (which is a modification of the Holiday Shuttle) with one bus running clockwise and a second bus running anti -clockwise around the loop. In the weekday peak periods (6:30 am to 9:30 am and 3:30 pm to 6:30 pm) this main route is supplemented by 3 feeder vans running on a fixed_ mute and regular schedule. In the off-peak period (9:30 am to 3:30 pm) and at weekends the main route is supplemented by one feeder van only operating on a dial'a ride basis. Please note that the recommended service plan may undergo minor modifications during detailed service design in Phase 2 of the study. IV SERVICE COSTS AND FINANCING The annual cost of the recommended system is $680,300. Available Proposition A based financing is summarized below: Prop A (reserve) from 1991/92 -$400,000 Prop A (1992/93) -S485,000 Prop A (discretionary) - $20,000 to $70,000 Farebox - $15,000 to $30,000 If the Prop A reserve were averaged out over the first 3 years of service a Prop A plus farebox- (with no Pron C monies) annual funding range of $653.000 to $718.000 is thought This leaves a potential short fall in funding of up to $27,000 or a surplus of up to $38,000. If the Prop A reserve fund from 1991/92 is used to ensure the service is adequately financed for the first two years in order to give the service a chance to establish itself, a review can then be carried out to determine whether the system will need additional funding and whether the City feels continued service levels can be justified. The Phase 2 report is expected to recommend a monitoring system so that periodic reviews can take place. BUS TECHNOLOGIES It had been suggested that a demonstration project involving the use of electric buses could be used for the Diamond Bar system. In discussions with SCAQMD staff they felt that the hilly terrain of Diamond Bar would be unsuitable for the use of electric buses at their current stage of development as they do not have the necessary power. While the SCAQMD do not consider CNG and Methanol to be "new" fuels and do not allocate demonstration funds, they do have an annual proposal process for financing alternative fuel vehicles. This process begins in May each year with proposals due by July. v CONCLUSIONS The recommended system is estimated to cost approximately $680,300 per annum to operate. The farebox revenue is estimated to be approximately 4% to 5% with the possibility of achieving a 10% return once established. This is not a significant return on transit investment Stand alone cities (i.e. not suburban) of similar population are known to achieve a 50% revenue/cost ratio. In these cases, there is usually a strong single commercial downtown, the roads leading to the downtown are direct and sub -divisions are mostly accessible to through transit routes. From an urban form perspective, Diamond Bar is not conducive to providing direct and cost-effective transit service. However, Diamond Bar residents have expressed a desire for a transit choice. Currently, many residents (mainly unemployed, students, seniors and homemakers not having a car available) will not have a choice at all. In addition, if a transit service is available, families can now choose not to buy the second or third, etc., car and hence save money. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the interest residents have shown in this study and the desire to have a transit choice, it is recommended that the City proceed with a trial implementation of the recommended system. Phase 2 of the study will detail more closely the service along with a monitoring plan to periodically assess whether residents are using the system adequately. There will also have to be a marketing plan to ensure people are aware of the transit alternative available to them and that they follow up on their stated good intentions. It is recommended that the City of Diamond Bar: 1. implement a transit system with different service elements for peak periods and off-peak periods as illustrated in Exhibit El and E2; 2. implement a base fare of 50 cents for the off-peak period and a fare of 75 cents for the peak period subject to a refinement of this basic fare strategy in Phase 2 of the study; 3. formally request to join the Pomona Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) to take advantage of PVTA resources and Prop A discretionary funding; 4. in May 1993, apply to the SCAQMD for funding to purchase methanol powered buses; and 5. undertake a survey of commuter rail users (after service commences) to establish potential demand for a feeder bus service to the Industry Station. T� Sur)set Crossi.g Q, a Lycoming F_1 Gr / T� c ° o11 a p a� f�ecomrnended Peck='erioc �I:c nCtive: --� Main loop wiir) feeder vc-is Route A (mo'n) Routes B,C,D TA 10 INTRODUCTION The City of Diamond Bar, incorporated as a city in 1989, is located in the south- east corner of Los Angeles County at the intersection of Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties. The City is situated at the eastern end of the East San Gabriel Valley adjacent to both State Routes 57 and 60. In 1990, the census recorded Diamond Bar as having a population of 54,000 in 16,900 households. 1.1 BACKGROUND In the period immediately before Christmas in both 1990 and 1991 the City of Diamond Bar introduced a "Holiday Shuttle" bus service to serve the residents of the City. Exhibit 1.1 shows the 1991 system map for the shuttle. The Holiday Shuttle proved to be popular and precipitated the desire to implement a City transit service on a regular basis. Towards the end of April 1992, a study commenced in order to determine the feasibility and method of service delivery for such a service. The stated objective of the study was "to develop a fixed route deviation public transit system to meet the needs of the general public of the City". The deviation aspect was included so as to provide a greater coverage of residential areas within the city than had been provided by the Holiday Shuttle service. In addition, in early 1992, as part of its General Plan, the City of Diamond Bar completed its "Plan for Physical Mobility". This plan had a stated Objective (# 2.1) to: "Maximize the use of alternative transportation modes within and through the City to decrease reliance on single passenger automobiles." And adopted a strategy to: "Investigate the feasibility of establishing a local transit system and support privately funded local transit systems for seniors and youths" .00 1 Heritage Park Apamr4rxs at Office :33 2l Brea Gnyan/Crook■d Creek :47 32: Golden Spnrgs East of Brea u2 ,� Oak Tree Plaza at Sowing Alley :33 ZT Brea CanyonlDiamane Sar Canyon at AmtsuwV :02 WindmiWRandh Center :33 231 Brea CaryorVCod Spnnp :47 xL Golden Sprirgs/Adel ;05 4. Wart :33 24, HeeRage Park at Sign :47!R Golden Sprirgs/Golden Prados 075 Sav-on. Vons :33 2S Brea CaryorvFwlx+tain Springs 52 35 KdAart :07 6 Diamond Bar/Goldrush :33 26 Brea Canyon North of 5436 C,olden Sprngs/Ballena :07 7 Diamond BadTm Paddnder in Plaza Ceruer :57 3T Golden Springs/Sunset Crossing :07 8 Diamond Bar/Clear Creek :40 2T Albertson's at Brea :.4 9 Plaza at NW Camey Diamond CanyoMColima Bar/Grand: Standard Brands/1st :40 20 Cofima at Rapid View Interstate :40 2� Lemon North of Colima :18 10 Plaza at SW Comer Diamond :40 3d Lyocrnng at Wanut Creek4� Bar/Grand. Ludrys Mobile Estates ,J :23 11. Plaza at NE Comer Diamond :40 -fg Lycorm rPww1h ' 2 Bar/Grand. RalWm Boston Store ` a. SUNSET CatoastwG 23 `2 Post Office 23 Montefrm Center .2304 Diamond BadMountaln Laurel Stop Times: _40 ► A = :3 Diamond BadMaple HN Example: StNrttle wal stop at 23 Diamond BadAeada Hifi Her"s" part Apsr&rmft an Vw 4 S 23 LT Diamond 8adriowa Crest hay 00 =W at tisk 23 �§7 Diamond BadSBvarHawk Tree ... g.A 23 tag Diamond SaMler in ler Kapesttwo nii■rtss R Vis her p :33 Country Kills Towne Cerner at AlpM Beta r `� �R R t.Yppyeq 64 e� < u � ■ , �.° N < O W r ■ A pyyo ° EXHIBIT 1.1: HOLIDAY SHUTTLE ROUTE MAP -2- 1.2 SCOPE OF STUDY The study required the following tasks to be completed: • assessment of support for transit service in Diamond Bar, • assessment of transit ridership potential; • evaluation of route layout options including a dial -a -ride option; • identification of a preferred route including fixed time stops and check -point stops for request only; • production of a system time -table and dial -a -ride specifications; • recommendations for a fare structure and transfer policies; • determination of vehicle requirements, marketing and auxiliary requirements; and • specification of on -street signage requirements. 1.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY The study was carried out in two phases. The first phase was designed to estimate demand for transit service and make recommendations as to whether a regular transit service in Diamond Bar was feasible. The following steps were taken in Phase 1 of the study: • study initiated with a meeting with City staff on April. 21, 1992; • a statement announcing the study was forwarded to the local press; -3 - contacts and data were received from representatives of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, Foothill Transit, Southern California Rapid Transit District and Pomona Valley Transit Authority; • interviews and/or meetings were held with the following community groups: the Chamber of Commerce, the Diamond Bar Seniors Association, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Gateway Transportation Management Association; • representatives of the Walnut Valley Unified School District, Diamond Bar High School, Chaparral Intermediate School, Lorbeer Junior High School, Pomona United School District and the Mt. Calvary Lutheran School were interviewed; • opinion surveys of City residents were undertaken; • an initial assessment of ridership demand was completed; • funding potential was investigated; • preliminary route and delivery options investigated; and • presentation of initial findings to the Diamond Bar Traffic and Transportation Commission on August 13, 1992. This report contains the findings of Phase 1 of the study. -4- 2.0 SURVEYS AND CONSULTATION 2.1 EXTENT OF CONSULTATION A number of groups and agencies thought to have an interest in the implementation of a transit system were contacted for their views and any data they may have. Two surveys of City residents were canted out. A comprehensive mail -back household questionnaire was distributed through the May edition of the local "Windmill" newspaper. As the mail -back survey would undoubtedly have a bias toward those interested in transit, a telephone survey was conducted immediately following the mail back survey in order to obtain a random sample of public opinion on some of the more critical questions. 2.2 RESULTS OF TELEPHONE SURVEY On weekday evenings between May 26 and June 4, a telephone survey of a random sample of households in the City -of Diamond Bar was conducted by interviewers at UMA. The purpose of the survey was to gauge the overall demand for a transit system. During the survey, 658 telephone calls resulted in 203 interviews. The zone system used for data processing is shown in Exhibit 2.1. A summary of the main findings of the telephone survey is given in the following: • 66% of residents agree that a regular transit service is needed • 37% likely to use service • trip purpose for transit use: 21% work 19% school 57% shops/services 3% transit/ park'n ride connection EXHIBIT 2.1: ZONE SYSTEM FOR TRANSIT SURVEYS -5- • acceptable fare (average): - 59; for shopping type trip - 64¢ for work trip The complete results of the telephone interview survey are presented below. The responses to multiple choice questions were rotated to avoid prompting of answers. I - WOULD YOU AGREE THAT A REGULAR TRANSIT SERVICE IS NEEDED? Number Percent Response 73 40.0% Yes - strongly agree 53 26.1% Yes - somewhat agree 21 10.3% No - somewhat disagree 34 16.8% No - strongly disagree 72 10.8% Have no opinion on the 203 100% matter 2 - HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT YOU WOULD USE TRANSIT SERVICE IF IT WERE LOCATED WITHIN TWO BLOCKS OF YOUR HOME? Number Percent Response 105 51.7% very unlikely 23 11.3% somewhat unlikely 37 18.2% somewhat likely _$ 18.7% very likely 203 100% 3 - WOULD ANY OF YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS USE THE TRANSIT SERVICE IF IT WAS IMPLEMENTED ON A REGULAR BASIS? HOW MANY? Numb percent BespgIlse 119 58.6% no (none) 36 17.7% 1 person 35 17.2% 2 persons 7 3.4% 3 persons 6 IAM 4 or more persons 203 100% 4 - WOULD YOU USE THE TRANSIT SERVICE DURING THE WEEK OR ON THE WEEKEND? Numb er Percent Response 40 47.6% week 26 31.0% weekend 21.4% both week and weekend 84 100% -7- 5 - FOR WHAT PURPOSE WOULD ANY OF YOUR FAMILY USE THE SERVICE? Numb 23 Percent 21.3% Travel P=ose to work in Diamond Bar 20 18.5% to school in Diamond Bar 62 57.4% to shops and services in Diamond Bar 1 0.9% to the park'n ride lot at the Pomona Freeway 2 1.9% to connect with 108* 100% RTD or Foothill express buses (84 respondents) * multiple selection options, therefore higher than the number of respondents. 6 - WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE AN ACCEPTABLE ADULT FARE FOR A ONE-WAY TRIP? Numbs Percent Response 17 22.0% $0.25 34 44.1% $0.50 10 12.9% $0.75 14 18.1% $1.00 2 2.6% other 77 100% NOTE: $0.57 was the average acceptable adult fare for a one-way trip. -8- 7 - FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS THE CITY HAS OFFERED A SHUTTLE SERVICE DURING THE CHRISTMAS SEASON, DID ANYONE IN YOUR FAMILY USE THIS SERVICE? IF SO, HOW MANY? Number Percent Response 173 85.2% no (none) 11 5.4% 1 person 7 3.4% 2 persons 2 1.0% 3 persons 3 1.5% 4 or more persons 7 _3 4% unsure of what 203 100% holiday shuttle is 8 - IT HAS BEEN PROPOSED THAT A DIAL -A -RIDE OPTION BE ADDED SO THAT THE BUS WOULD DEVIATE FROM ITS REGULAR ROUTE IN ORDER TO PICK UP PASSENGERS CLOSER TO THEIR HOME. WOULD THIS OPTION MAKE YOUR FAMILY MORE LIKELY TO USE THE SERVICE? 100 49.3% yes Im 50.7% no 203 100% 9 - HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD? Response Num 21 Percent 10.3% 1 person 49 24.1% 2 persons 38 18.7% 3 persons 62 30.5% 4 persons 19 9.4% 5 persons 7 3.4% 6 persons 6 3.0% 7 persons 0 0% 8 persons 1 0.5% 9 persons 203 100% 10- HOW MANY VEHICLES DO YOU HAVE? Response Numbe 1 Percent 0.5% no vehicles 22 10.9% 1 vehicle 103 51.2% 2 vehicles 53 26.2% 3 vehicles 16 7.9% 4 vehicles 3 1.5% 5 vehicles 0 0% 6 vehicles 1 0.5% 7 vehicles 1.5% 8 vehicles 202 100% _10- 11 - 10- 11- GENDER? Number Percen Response 108 53.2% male —21 46.8% female 203 100% 12 - LOCATION OF RESIDENCE. THE RESPONDENTS' ADDRESS WAS PLOTTED ON A ZONE SYSTEM MAP OF DIAMOND BAR Number 2 Percent 1.0% Response zone 1 13 6.5% zone 2 7 3.5% zone 3 12 6.0% zone 4 11 5.5% zone 5 4 2.0% zone 6 10 5.0% zone 7 34 16.9% zone 8 44 21.8% zone 9 5 2.5% zone 10 24 11.9% zone 11 22 10.9% zone 12 13 6.5% zone 13 201 100% NOTE: the responses for each question may not total 100% exactly as a result of numerical round -off -11- 2.2.1 Cross Tabulations A number of cross tabulations between different elements of the telephone survey provide some useful information on market relationships. These are discussed as follows: Trip Purpose versus Preferred Fare • 40% of the respondents that would use the transit service to travel to the shops and services in Diamond Bar consider $0.50 an acceptable adult fare for a one-way trip. 21% of these respondents consider $0.25 an acceptable fare and 21% feel $1.00 would be acceptable. For this trip purpose, $0.59 was the average acceptable fare. • For the respondents that would use the service to travel to work in Diamond Bar, 45% consider $0.50 to be an acceptable adult fare while 27% consider $1.00 acceptable. For this trip purpose, $0.64 was the average acceptable fare. Number of Vehicles Owned versus Likelihood of Transit Usage • About 11% of the respondents were from 1 vehicle families. 50% of these people were very/somewhat unlikely to use a transit service located within 2 blocks of their homes and 50% were somewhat/very likely to use the service. • The majority of respondents interviewed had 2 cars in the family. 63% of these people are very/somewhat unlikely to use a transit service. Of this group of respondents 37% are somewhat/very likely to use the service. • The 3 car households interviewed showed a similar pattern in that 64% are very/somewhat unlikely to use the service and 36% are somewhat/very likely to use the service. • 82% of households with 4 or more cars were very or somewhat unlikely to use transit. -12 - Support for Transit versus Gender • Females showed more support for transit with 44% strongly agreeing and 29% somewhat agreeing that a regular transit service is needed. By comparison, 29% of males strongly agreed and 23% somewhat agreed that a service is needed. Likelihood of Transit Usage versus Gender • Females responded that they would more likely use a transit service within two blocks of their home. While 44% of the females interviewed said they would somewhat/very likely use the service, only 31% of the males responded similarly. Also, only 40% of the females said they would be very unlikely to use the service compared to 62% of the male respondents. Past Usage of Christmas Shuttle Service versus Likelihood of Future Transit Usage 89% of all respondents had not used (or were not aware of) the Christmas shuttle service during the previous two years. Of these non-users: • 61% said they (or a family member) would not use a transit service if it was implemented on a regular basis. • 39% said they (or a family member) would use the system if implemented on a regular basis). Of the 11% that had previously used the shuttle: • 35% said they would not use a transit service if implemented on a regular basis. 0 65% said they would. 8 0 IV 11 W Z O N 0 W Z f - N W 0 0 a C\2 C12 c C � U N C ° :. a N Ln N cam'] C\2 14' 4 N U C C O O N N O a n y .moi a O G y co � cd C _ W C' U � O [ u'J N M IV 11 W Z O N 0 W Z f - N W 0 0 a Lul O. W z O N O W z P Q) W z Q ii v 4 4 c� .� co c� co c Go y o G N O � r v, c . a -' .a .y co C _ 00 L y y 0 v t N � CO of CU w C pp O O N N `axa:M •ti} • w GL r$:• L. co L rz co r.4 . •••.mx'tokx::: . N M Lul O. W z O N O W z P Q) W z Q ii v 4 4 W ►i a z CD CLIO N a F- f- Z Q F-� J a 0 L6 N H m x W uj z O N O ui Z F= W cl in z a :. co CC) 0 coC\2 Z C\l �- -- Q N Z, C 3z W CN N .- O O O .-' : cn O y a o. LU O _ Z N y C W � fr U � o F F Q Oz .16N co X W co co .� CQ ej 6\2 Q) -13 - Tendency for Potential Transit Usage within each Zone A number of zones showed a greater potential for transit usage, that is, respondents within these zones indicated that 1 or more of their family members would use the transit service if it was implemented on a regular basis. The tendency for transit usage for each zone follows: ZONE # FAMILY WOULD USE SERVICE FAMILY WOULD NOT USE SERVICE SAMPLE SIZE* 1 100% 0% 2 2 23% 77% 13 3 57% 43% 7 4 58% 42% 12 5 36% 64% 11 6 0% 100% 4 7 40% 60% 10 8 47% 53% 34 9 43% 57% 46 10 60% 40% 5 11 29% 71% 24 12 27% 73% 22 13 62% 38% 13 * Please note that sample size is small for certain zones and results have to be treated with caution. Zones Favouring Dial -A -Ride Approximately 50% of those interviewed responded that implementing a dial -a - ride option would more likely make their family use the transit service. Generally, on a zonal basis, a similar pattern was evident_ The following indicates the preference for dial -a -ride for each of the 13 zones. -14 - ZONE # FAMILY MORE LIKELY TO USE SERVICE WITH DIAL -A -RIDE SAMPLE SIZE* YES NO 1 50% 50% 2 2 31% 69% 13 3 71% 29% 7 4 67% 33% 12 5 45% 55% 11 6 25% 75% 4 7 30% 70% 10 8 53% 47% 34 9 52% 48% 46 10 60% 40% 5 11 33% 67% 24 12 55% 45% 22 13 62% 38% 13 Please note that sample size is small for certain zones and results have to be treated with caution. Zones Using the Christmas Shuttle Approximately 11% of those interviewed responded that someone in their family had used the Christmas shuttle during the previous two years. Past usage of this shuttle service for each of the 13 zones follows. -15 - ZONE # FAMILY HAS USED CHRISTMAS SHZTI 'LE FAMILY HAS NOT USED SHUTTLE SAMPLE SIZE* 1 0% 100% 2 2 0% 100% 13 3 0% 100% 7 4 8% 92% 12 5 9% 91% 11 b 0% 100% 4 7 20% 80% 10 8 12% 88% 34 9 15% 85% 46 10 20% 80% 10 11 21% 79% 24 12 0% 100% 22 13 15% 85% 13 * Please note that sample size is small for certain zones and results have to be treated with caution. 23 RESULTS OF MAIL BACK HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE General support for transit and fare preference was similar to the findings in the telephone survey. The transit trip information was the key data required from the mail -back survey. A summary of the mail -back survey including household information can be found in Appendix A. Key results of the questionnaire are summarized below. A number origin -destination (O -D) matrices were derived from the survey - utilizing home-based origins and desired transit destinations. The analysis of these trip patterns included adult/child and week/weekend comparisons as well as an analysis of total transit trip patterns for all trip purposes. Only respondents identified as potential transit users were included in the analysis. The trip -16 - matrices are included in Appendix B. Adult - Child Ridership The adult to child ratio of intended transit trips was approximately 75%/25% respectively (1190 adult trips and 381 child trips). Adults were considered to be all persons over 19 years of age. The total origins and destinations for adult and child transit trips for each of the 13 zones is illustrated in Exhibit 2.2. Zones 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are shown to generate and attract the highest number of trips. Generally, the 75%/25% ratio in favor of adult riders is evident for the majority of the zones, the exceptions being zone 4 destinations (65/35 adult/child - 3 schools in zone 4) and zone 11 origins (65/35 adult/child). 54% of all trips would be made on the weekend versus 46% during the week. Weekday versus Weekend Trips Of the adult riders, 53% would use the service on the weekend and 47% during the week. Children favor weekend usage as 57% would use the service on the weekend and 43% during the week. With the exception of trips destined to zone 12 (47% weekend/53% week), a similar preference for weekend trip making was evident for each of the zones. Trip Orientation Desire line diagrams for transit trips originating in and destined to zones 4, 9, 11 and 12 are shown in Exhibits 2.3 to 2.6. The exhibits illustrate the strong linkage for transit trips originating in zone 9 and destined to zones 4, 11, and 12. The main transit trip linkages are: Potential Users and Disabled Ridership If a transit service similar to the holiday shuttle was implemented on a regular basis, 35% of the respondents (372) indicated that 1 or more of their family members would use the service. Of these users, 8% indicated they are registered disabled and would require boarding assistance. Potential Users and Dial'a Ride Approximately 64% of the respondents identified as potential users (i.e. very/somewhat likely to use the service) of the service indicated they would more likely or much more likely use the service if a dial -a -ride option was added Trip Purpose Over 50% of the potential users indicated they would use the transit service to travel to shops and services in Diamond Bar. A summary of trip purpose for this group follows: • 8% - -17 - Zone Linkage 9 to 11 # Trips 137 9 to 4 103 9to9 83 9 to 12 79 8to4 61 8to9 58 8to12 54 8to11 50 Potential Users and Disabled Ridership If a transit service similar to the holiday shuttle was implemented on a regular basis, 35% of the respondents (372) indicated that 1 or more of their family members would use the service. Of these users, 8% indicated they are registered disabled and would require boarding assistance. Potential Users and Dial'a Ride Approximately 64% of the respondents identified as potential users (i.e. very/somewhat likely to use the service) of the service indicated they would more likely or much more likely use the service if a dial -a -ride option was added Trip Purpose Over 50% of the potential users indicated they would use the transit service to travel to shops and services in Diamond Bar. A summary of trip purpose for this group follows: • 8% - to travel to work in Diamond Bar • 14% - to travel to school in Diamond Bar • 51% - to travel to shops and services in Diamond Bar • 10% - to travel to park'n ride lot at the Pomona Freeway • 17% - to connect with the RTD or Foothill express buses -18 - Comments An opportunity was provided for the respondents to comment on how the holiday shuttle (route) could be changed to better serve them. Of the 339 people that provided comments, 101 (30%) said the system was a poor/bad idea and is not desirable compared to 19 (6%) that felt the system was a good idea. 35 (10%) of the respondents replied that the route shown on the map was sufficient and did not need to be changed. The remaining comments were route/service oriented. A summary of the common responses follow: • respondents did not want to walk up hills to/from bus stops; • a more frequent transit service required; • routes serving La Puente and Brea Malls; • service to all schools; • service to the residential area bounded by Pathfinder Rd., Diamond Bar Blvd., and Grand Ave. (area'x' on Exhibit 2.7) • service to residential area bounded by Summitridge Dr. and Longview Dr. (area 'y' on Exhibit 2.7); • service to residential area bounded by Armitos PL, Highcrest Dr., Diamond Bar Blvd., and Golden Springs Dr. (area'z' on Exhibit 2.7) • a list of specific stops that were frequently requested by the residents is given below. Each of the stops are referenced on Exhibit 2.7. A - Grand AveJSummitridge Dr. B - Grand Ave./L.ongview Dr. C - Golden Springs DrJCarpio Dr. D - Golden Springs DrJSylvan Glen Rd. E - Golden Springs Dr./Temple Ave. F - Diamond Bar B1vdJSunset Crossing Rd. G - Diamond Bar Blvd,/Golden Springs Dr. H - Grand Ave./Golden Springs Dr. I - Grand Ave./Montefino Ave. (Library) J - Pathfinder Rd./Evergreen Springs Dr. (High School) K - Pathfinder Rd./Canyon Cut-off Rd. r ��� 19- 2.4 CONTACTS WITH AGENCIESANTEREST GROUPS Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce The Chamber of Commerce is interested in increasing economic activity in Diamond Bar and a local transit service would encourage this in that it gives the opportunity for people who do no have a car available to use the local shops and services. They did note that a City bus service may compete with some aspects of school bus service in the municipality and care is needed in ensuring the two services do not compete. It was noted that a City bus service could compliment the SCRTD and Foothill Express bus services. The Chamber of Commerce were very interested in the outcome of the study and wished to be informed of study progress and would ensure their members were kept up to date. A list of passenger requests for specific Holiday Shuttle stops arising from the previous years Holiday Shuttle list was provided to the consultant. Diamond Bar Seniors Association There are approximately 2300 Diamond Bar residents over 65 years of age, making up 4% of the City's population. The Seniors Association has 130 members ("..most of them being well off..") and nearly all have a car available. Opinion was expressed that a deviation system would be advantageous as walking (particularly in Diamond Bar's hilly terrain) to a bus stop is a deterrent Wheel- chair access and low floor buses (for people using walkers) would be advantageous. The Seniors Association did express an ongoing interest in the study and wished to be kept informed of progress. -20 - South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) The SCAQMD have their office in the Diamond Bar Gateway Corporate Center and therefore have a number of potential interests in a City bus system. Firstly they are concerned with effecting a 19% transit modal share for the region and are therefore extremely supportive of transit initiatives such as this. Secondly, they actively promote alternative fuel and new technology transportation projects. A discussion of this aspect is given in Section 5.3.1 (Bus Technologies). More relevant to this phase of the project is the fact that they are actively encouraging their employees to locate in Diamond Bar to reduce the commute trip length. It is estimated that 35% of their employees now live in Diamond Bar. This could have some positive implications for transit in serving work trips to the Gateway Corporate Center. Gateway Corporate Center TMA The Gateway Corporate Center currently has. approximately 2,000 employees and is likely to grow to about 5,000 employees in the future. As such, it will become the major employment center in the city, thereby having a good potential for generating transit ridership. As well as the usual "9 to 5" type office jobs in the center, there is also a University of Phoenix night school. The Gateway TMA is active in encouraging employees to car/van pool and to take transit. They currently have an incentive program for ridesharing and a guaranteed ride home program. They also have a policy of paying the full transit fare for the first month for an employee agreeing to take transit on a regular basis. The Gateway TMA completed an employee travel survey in November 1991 and supplied the consultant with the results. One of the key findings was that approximately 12% (i.e 240) of the employees live in Diamond Bar. The Gateway TMA is very supportive of the transit initiative and included news of the study in --their bimonthly publication "Center Line". -21 - Los Angeles County Transportation Commission(LACTC) The LACTC is a key player in the provision of transit service. They control the Proposition A (Prop A) and C (Prop C) Funds (see section 5.4) used for local transit which would be needed for the service in question. They are involved in the supply of transit for the disabled for the City of Diamond Bar and they are involved in the planning of the new commuter rail station in nearby Industry. Several LACTC staff have been assisting on this study with information and data. Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) The SCRTD operate express bus service through Diamond Bar (see section 3.1). Staff of the SCRTD were contacted and informed of the study and were invited to provide comments. Foothill Transit Foothill Transit also operate express service through Diamond Bar (see section 3.1) and again similar contacts were made with their staff. Pomona Valley Transportation Authority (PVTA) The PVTA was set up by the cities of Claremont, La Verne, San Dimas and Pomona. They are adjacent municipalities which combine resources and facilities resulting in a more efficient operation. It is possible that Diamond Bar could join the PVTA in order to similarly maximize resources. A further advantage for Diamond Bar would be the potential to defer the cost of purchasing buses by taking advantage of the PVTA fleet. Discussions were held with PVTA staff to discuss the pros and cons of such a move. Due to the fairly distinct nature of Diamond Bar, it is unlikely that services - would be combined. The main opportunities come from being able to share dial'a ride dispatching services (all of PVTA's service is dial'a ride), qualify for Prop A discretionary funds (see discussion in section 5.4) and utilize the transit expertice of PVTA staff. A decision of whether to join the PVTA will depend partly on the type of service offered with implementation of dial'a ride being a key factor. -22- 3.0 CURRENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 3.1 TRANSIT SERVICE Diamond Bar is currently served by three fixed route transit services. The Southern Californian Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) operates two services within the City, routes 482 and 490 and Foothill Transit operates route 495 (see Exhibit 3.1). SCRTD Routes Route 482 is an east -west intercity transit line which connects the Los Angeles Central Business District with Pomona. The route originates in Pomona and travels along Holt Avenue, Valley Boulevard, and Temple Avenue before turning south onto Diamond Bar Boulevard It then services the City of Diamond Bar along Diamond Bar Boulevard to Golden Springs Drive where it continues west exiting the City along Colima Road. The line goes through the cities of Rowland Heights, Industry, Hacienda Heights, South El Monte, and El Monte prior to entering the busway along the San Bernardino Freeway where it continues into downtown Los Angeles. In addition to a park'n ride facility at Diamond Bar Boulevard and the Pomona Freeway, the route serves an additional parlen ride lot at the Lanterman State Hospital near Highland Valley road Service parameters are given below. Route 482 Operating Hours Monday to Saturday Sunday and Holidays 5:45 a.m. to 11:30 pm. 5:45 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. 15 to 30 minute headways peak 1 hour headways -23 - Route 23Route 490 Route 490 is also an intercity route which connects the cities of Fullerton and Brea to the south of Diamond Bar, with the cities of Walnut, Covina, West Covina, Baldwin Park, El Monte, and the Los Angeles Central Business District The line originates near Cal State Fullerton, and continues north where it also serves the Brea Mall. It then travels along the Orange Freeway north into the City of Diamond Bar, exiting at Diamond Bar Boulevard. The route operates within the City along the entire length of Diamond Bar Boulevard. It exits the City in the north turning west along Temple Avenue where it services Cal State Polytechnic University and the Eastland Shopping Center before entering the West San Bernardino Freeway at Azusa Avenue. Route 490 also services the two park'n ride lots at the Diamond Bar Boulevard/Pomona Freeway interchange and the Lanterman State Hospital. Access is provided to disabled persons on nearly all buses serving this route. Route 490 Operating Hours Monday to Friday 5:10 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 1 our headways Foothill Transit Route Route 495 Saturday (Sundays and Holidays) 6:50 a.m. to 8:00(7:00 p.m) 1 hour headways Line 495 is an express route to downtown Los Angeles operated by Foothill Transit. It originates at the Diamond Bar park'n ride facility at the Diamond Bar/Pomona Freeway interchange. Service is limited to weekday commute with am peak hour departures from the park'n ride lot and pm peak hour departures from downtown Los Angeles. Route 495 Operating Hours Monday to Friday 5:10 a.m. to 7:50 a.m. 10 minute headways -24 - (returns 24 - (returns from downtown Los Angeles between 3:20 pm and 6:20 pm at 10 minute intervals.) Paratransit Service Demand responsive transit service is provided to the City of Diamond Bar by the jointly sponsored Los Angeles County and City of Diamond Bar Paratransit Service. The diara ride service provides transportation to disabled persons and senior citizens within the City of Diamond Bar and to portions of the surrounding area. Transportation is limited to Los Angeles County with service to medical facilities within the cities of Pomona, Walnut, Industry, and West Covina. It operates Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM at a fare of 50 cents. Passenger Rail There are currently no passenger rail facilities in operation within the City of Diamond Bar. The nearest Amtrak facilities are located in Pomona and Fullerton. The Pomona Amtrak station, which serves the Southwest Chief Line, is located at 2701 Geary Avenue and is approximately nine miles north of Diamond Bar. The Fullerton Amtrak station, which serves the San Diegans line, is located at the corner of Santa Fe and Harbor Boulevard and is approximately 13 miles to the south. Commuter Rail It was expected that by the fall of 1992 Commuter Rail service would be extended to the City of Industry. This initiative has now been delayed until the spring of 1993 at the earliest. Initially, the station for Industry would be extremely close to Diamond Bar being situated on the Union Pacific line at its intersection with Brea Canyon Road (Exhibit 3.2). When certain lands become available in the future, there are plans to relocate the station to the Grand Avenue intersection with the rail line. Residents of Diamond Bar commuting to downtown Los Angeles will benefit from this service; however, the demand for this service is unknown at present. In the surveys for this study a question regarding a bus link to the station was not included as the station location had not been confirmed. POMONA , 'b 0�j ('SUNSET' \ WALNUT CROSS IN IN I ND TRY - \a , PROSPECTORS RD � W , INTERIM ! �' ZGVIAITER z L ON (1993) , o a�a � z ac CHIN i v P�aJ �- --- �•--------� -J AV CHINO HILLS iNO R Qp� D I AMOND BAR Z / --------- i EXHIBIT 3-2 FUTURE COMIJUTER RAIL STATION A-25- G!Y i 31 ROAD NETWORK The main roadways in Diamond Bar are shown in Exhibit 3.2. The road system has not been designed with transit in mind with the result that the options for 7 N continuous and direct transit routes are limited The continuous arterial roadways i necessary for efficient transit service are provided by Diamond Bar Boulevard; Golden Springs Road; Pathfinder Road; Grand Avenue; Temple Avenue; Colima Road; and Lemon Avenue. The only collector roads providing a moderate amount of continuity between the arterial roadways are: Lycoming (between Brea Canyon Rd and Lemon Ave.); Leyland Drive/Armitos Place (between Golden Springs Dr. and Grand Ave.); Leyland Drive/Gold Rush Drive (between Diamond Bar Bvd and Grand Ave.); and Sunset Crossing Rd./Prospectors Rd. (between Golden Springs Dr. north the Pomona Freeway and Golden Springs Dr., south of Diamond Bar Bvd.). The above noted roads are the only links that offer the possibility of providing a continuous bus services. To serve other streets would require the bus to enter a sub -division and then double back on itself to continue its trip. Of course this is not efficient and is time consuming. These cul-de-sac type streets can only be considered for dial'a ride type service and then only if demand justifies. -26- 4.0 POTENTIAL ROLE FOR TRANSIT 4.1 OVERALL DEMAND Estimating transit ridership for a new system is an inexact science. Ridership is heavily dependent on the type and frequency of service in place which is not known at this stage. Using previous Holiday Shuttle information and survey results from this study a number of different approaches to estimating ridership are given below. Factoring Holiday Shuttle Ridership A simple method of estimation is simply to factor up the 1991 Holiday shuttle ridership to a full year. This approach will undoubtedly yield a low end of a forecast range as additional service is anticipated. In 1991, there were 1,239 riders in 34 days (8 hour day). Factoring to a 12 hour day and 360 service days (say) results in 19,700 riders per year or approximately 400 per week. Using Positive Results From Telephone Survey The total number of households in Diamond Bar (1990 data) is 16,900. Question 3 of the telephone survey questioned intended use. Assuming a once a week use on average and applying the percent response to each category (i.e. 0, 1, 2 ,3, 4 persons) results in: 16,900 * 0.177 * 1= 2990 16,900 * 0.172 * 2 = 5810 16,900 * 0.034 * 3 = 1720 16.900 * 0.030 * 4 = 2030 TOTAL 12,550 A factor of 1/4 has shown to be appropriate to take into account an over -optimism usual in such surveys. This would result in an approximate weekly ridership of 3,150 and an annual ridership of 150,000. -27 - Factoring Pair And Intended Shuttle Use The cross tabulation of previous shuttle use versus intended regular use indicates that 39% of residents who had not used the shuttle (89% of total) in the past say they would use a regular service and 65% of shuttle users (remaining 11%) say they would use a regular service. If previous non-users of the shuttle are factored down by 4 again, factoring previous shuttle usage by these percentages results in : [(1239 * 0.65) + (1239 * (0.39 * 0.89/0.11/4))]/34 = 52 (for an average 8 hour day) After factoring to a 12 hour day results in a weekly ridership of 550 and an annual ridership of approximately 27,500. Trips per Capita A fairly reliable method of estimating annual ridership on an annual basis is to use a trips per capita factor. The trips per capita factor is proportional to the overall size and density of a city. At a population of 54,000, Diamond Bar could conceivably attract a ridership level of 4 trips per capita or 216,000 trips per year. Given the more difficult urban form (from a transit perspective) of Diamond Bar, this factor could well be nearer the 2 trips per capita level and 108,000 trips per year. 4.1.1 Ridership Summary From the above calculations possible weekly(annual) ridership figures are 400(20,000), 550(27,500), 2,150(108,000) and 3,000(150,000), with the lower figure based upon factoring previous shuttle ridership. The lower figure is likely to be too low as it reflects the lower level of service provided by the holiday shuttle rather than a more extensive service as envisaged in this study. Similarly the higher figures are likely too high. A high level of service would be needed to attract the higher ridership figures as these calculations are based upon stated EXHIBIT 4-1 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING -29- travel 9- travel to shops/services (52%); • to connect with RTD/Foothill express buses (1795); • to travel to school (14%); • to travel to park'n ride lot (10%); and • to travel to work (8%). The trip orientation and transit characteristics of each of these markets is discussed below. Shopping/service kips Exhibit 4.2 illustrates the location of the main commercial areas of Diamond Bar. All these locations were served by the looping Holiday Shuttle service route as they are located on the main arterial roadways. The majority, of shopping/service trips take place between the hours of 10:00 am and 6:00 pm, with a smaller number of recreational type trips taking place after 6:00 pm. These type of trips are generally random throughout the day with only minor peak times of activity (possibly meal times and theater start/finish times). The clientele for such trips tend to be teenagers, elderly people and non -employed people, i.e. for the most part people who do not have the availability of a car. Work Trips Based on very recent travel data (Diamond Bar "Plan for Physical Mobility"), there are 18,568 work trip origins in Diamond Bar. Of these, 20.9% (3,886) are destined to locations within the City itself. The rest (79.1%) are destined elsewhere. Only 7.1% (1315) of all work trips from the City are destined to zones outside but nearby. Only 0.9% of work trips (169) from the City are destined to the City of Industry. The vast majority of externally destined trips are of longer distances. ® COMMERCIAL (OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL OFFIC= AND BUSINESS PARK) EXHIBIT 4-2 COMMERCIAL / OFFICE DEVELOPMENT -30 - Exhibit 4.3 shows the distribution of work traps bore Diamond Bar to Diamond c ; Bar and the immediate area. Only two nearby zones have more than 100 destinations, and they are not much over 100. This scatter of trip destinations is more suited to service by a regional transit service than a local urban service: Most of the jobs in Diamond Bar are located on the major arterial network and again were potentially well served by the Holiday Shuttle (although it did not operate in the morning peak period). Special attention would have to be given to the Gateway Corporate Center as it will become the City's major employer with 5,000 jobs and also the SCAQMD are encouraging employees to locate in Diamond Bar. There is a disadvantage with serving the Corporate Center in that the loop road system causes considerable lost time for other passengers. In addition, the public surveys did not show a significant demand for this Center. Park'n Ride and Express Bus Trips The household mail back survey showed a potential market of 27% of ridership for these two purposes. The telephone survey was not so positive with a 2.8% share indicated. School Trips Junior school students are thought unlikely to take a municipal transit service. Most are either driven to school by a parent or have school busing available. There are four High or Junior High Schools in Diamond Bar (see Exhibit 4.4). These being: • Diamond Bar High School ) Grades 9 to 12 ) Times 7:25 am to 2:25 pm ) Walnut enrollment 2155 ) Valley • Chaparral Intermediate School ) Unified Grades 6 to 8 ) School Times 7:55 am to 1:20 or 2:15 pm ) District enrollment 1084 ) Exhibit 4.3: Work trip destinations for Diamond Bar residents Scale: = 500 trips O LORBEER J. H. S. O MT. CALVARY LUTHERAN EXHIBIT 4-4 JUNIOR HIGH AND HIGH SCHOOLS • Lorbeer Junior High School Grades 6 to 8 ) Pomona United Times 8:00 am to 2:15 pm ) School Enrollment 725 ) District • ML Calvary Lutheran School Pre-school to grade 8 ) Private School Times 8:15 am to 3:00 pm ) enrollment 295 ) Diamond Bar High School and Chaparral Intermediate School are both in the Walnut Valley Unified School district Discussions with Walnut Valley personnel lead us to believe that most students for these schools live within a reasonable walk or bicycle ride of the schools. Students of Diamond Bar High School and Chaparral Intermediate School come mostly from within a reasonable walk or cycle ride of the school . In addition, other students qualify for school busing and pay $75 per semester for school bus service. There are approximately 200 students of Lorbeer Junior High that live in Phillips Ranch, a community just outside the northern boundary of Diamond Bar. These students are not eligible for school busing and have to rely on car/van pooling, cycling etc. A school representative expressed an opinion that there is a need for a bus service for these students. Potential Market for school students In the mail -back questionnaire there were a significant number of trips for education purposes. In particular, 18.5% of all speed trips were for trips to school. This shows up in the transit trip origin -destination patterns (see Exhibits 2.2 to 2.6) whereby 137 or 84% of weekday transit trips for persons under 18 years of age were to destination zones 4, 9, 11 and 12. Diamond Bar High School is in zone 4, Chaparral is in zone 12 and the Mt. Calvary and Lorbeer schools are in zone 11. -32 - With respect to service from Phillips Ranch to Lorbeer Junior High School, while there is likely a real need for bus service, the market is very specific and is best catered to by a specific school bus service. In addition, school bus service would not be eligible for Prop A or Prop C funds (see section 6.4). Care has to be taken with the school market so as not to compete with existing school bus services and end up with the local municipal service overloaded 4.3 SERVICE OVERLAP When the Holiday Shuttle service was put in place the SCRTD noted that the route duplicated Line 482 for approximately 2.7 miles and Line 490 for approximately 6.0 miles. However, RTD granted consent to the City to proceed with the shuttle. service. The survey results show a distinct local focus for trip maldng whether it is for work trips, shopping trips or school trips within Diamond Bar. These markets are not catered to by the existing RTD and Foothill Transit routes which are serving longer distant trips with a fairly large spacing of stops. In addition, there appears to be a demand for feeder bus access to these express bus routes which could be provided by a local Diamond Bar municipal service. It is fair to conclude that a local municipal Diamond Bar service will not compete in any significant way with RTD or Foothill Transit routes and that a Diamond Bar service would be a worthwhile complimentary service to the RTD and Foothill routes. -33- 5.0 SERVICE DELIVERY 5.1 SERVICE TYPES The terms of reference for this study ask for an investigation of a fixed route deviation service. The study will evaluate a variety of options to ensure the best option is chosen. Before beginning to formulate service delivery options, it is worth discussing the bus service delivery types generally considered and their service characteristics Dial a Ride Dial a ride service is mostly used for very low demand level situations, the most common application being for the disabled population. This service is usually door-to-door and demand responsive with no fixed route and does not allow the ride to be guaranteed. In fact, the rejection rate is quite high in some instances. As the service is very trip specific and the average bus occupancy is usually very low, the result is a very expensive cost per trip, usually in the order of $15 to $40. For this reason, this type of service is avoided if at all possible. There is a trend to serve dial'a ride trips with fixed routes wherever trip patterns have some common elements in order to reduce demand and hence costs of the dial's ride system. Fixed Route Most conventional transit systems are of the fixed route variety with fixed stops and a firm timetable for buses. The disadvantage is that they are not demand responsive and the passenger has to arrange their schedule to suit the bus timetable. Once a person has made this adjustment there is (or certainly should be) a regular service on which a person can rely. This sort of service is advantageous when a trip has to be made such that rejection would be unacceptable. In addition, routes tend to stay on the main arterial roadways as diversion into suburban sub -divisions would result in circuitous trips and long trip times for passengers. j^ -34- Fixed 34 -Fixed Route Deviation This type of service is meant to be a compromise between the fixed -route reliability and the sub -division penetration ability of dial a ride service. In -that it is a compromise, the service takes on a degree of the disadvantages and c advantages of both services. The service involves one or more segments of a fixed route in which a person can dial for the bus to be diverted to a predetermined stop. The bus then rejoins the regular route after picking up the passenger. This means that for a passenger waiting for the bus downstream of the diversion, the bus will be later than the scheduled time. In fact, other than at the start or end of a route, there can be few fixed schedule intermediate stops but rather a range of times. Stops towards the end of a route could have a larger range due to the larger number of potential diversion points unless a limit to the number of diversions per trip is applied Of course, this would result in a curtailing of the dial a ride demand responsive aspect of the service. A variation of the fixed route deviation concept which reduces some of the service disadvantages is the fixed route plus feeder buslvan (or jitney) service concept. This service uses an extra bus or van to pick up the dial a ride deviation requests and deliver those passengers to a fixed route service. While this allows the fixed route service to remain on a fixed schedule, its disadvantage is that an extra bus or van (and hence cost) is required 5.2 SERVICE REQUIREMENTS One of the overriding considerations in developing route options is the desire to serve as many of the residential neighborhoods of Diamond Bar as possible. The Holiday Shuttle operated on the main arterials only with the result that many requests were received for the service to penetrate residential subdivisions. The main potential markets discussed in section 4.1 can be grouped under two main headings having similar needs and hence service requirements. For the schoolwork trips (48% of stated demand including park'n ride and express bus trips which are mostly work trips also), people have to be at a specific place at a certain time and there is not always flexibility (wanted or given) in such situations. Therefore, service has to be reliable and on-time every day and -35 - generally a direct and fast service is required. Therefore, it can be concluded that this market will not find a deviation system attractive and that a regular and reliabie service will be required. It follows that the main service delivery options are: • fixed route only; and • fixed route plus feeder van run on a regular schedule with specific transfer points with the main fixed routes. The above services would only operate in the am. and p.m. peak commute periods of a weekday. Dial a ride options for this market are not considered to be either cost-effective or logistically feasible due to the lack of a guaranteed ride. While it cannot be said that shopping/service trips (52% of stated demand) are not restricted by time, shoppers in particular are more likely to plan by the hour rather than the minute unlike the case for school or work trips. Entertainment trips can be more time sensitive, although these can be planned around a transit timetable if necessary. Therefore the options for this, potentially the largest market, can involve the more flexible routing of a dial's ride component. Indeed as this market will involve a greater proportion of people with special mobility requirements, e.g. seniors and parents with young children, a door to door capability is an advantage. The array of options to be considered will include: • fixed route; • fixed route deviation; and • fixed route plus demand responsive feeder van/bus. While a dial'a ride system on its own could be appropriate, again it is rejected because of its unreliability and high cost per ride and partly because of a lack of profile in the community that a regular service would give. Also, whereas a fixed route (only) option is included in the above list, it is unlikely this option will be chosen initially as the focus of the study is to improve on the previous fixed route Holiday Shuttle service. -36- 53 ROUTE OPTIONS S3.1 Peak Period The following goals guided the design of these route system alternatives: serve the most popular weekday work/school origin- destination pairs; provide access to the existing commuter express bus service; maximize coverage of the principal residential areas, with preference given to higher population densities; serve trips to the two park'n ride lots; and design for a headway of 30 minutes (if possible). In the following descriptions, route lengths are estimates only. In addition, the following assumptions have been made: • average bus running speed is 15 mph • acceptable walldng distance is approximately 1000 feet 1 Main loop wi h feeder buses tan (see Exhibit 5.1) This alternative provides a relatively fast arterial road route for which passengers are collected in certain residential areas by four smaller vehicles, either small buses or large passenger vans. �A_ 2 medium size buses, 4 vans Advantages This option provides good service to residential and employment locations near to the main roads in Diamond Bar, without requiring transfers between routes. The four feeder buses provide more frequent service for many local trips (destination within roughly 2 miles of origin). The feeders being smaller vehicles should not face resident opposition in neighborhoods. Disadvantages Residents in neighborhoods more distant from the main streets of the City must take a local feeder bus to reach a transfer point to the main route, if they wish to travel to the other end of the City. It is even possible that they would need to transfer onto another feeder before reaching their destination, depending on exactly where their origin and destination are located. Summary The vehicle -resistant design of the residential road system makes service to those areas difficult without a large number of buses. Due to the low population density in most areas of the City, smaller feeder vans appear to be a more cost effective alternative. For the major roads, medium size buses would provide the needed passenger capacity. The use of two sizes of vehicle gives the service some added flexibility. -37 - Statistics Route Length Tune # Vehicles Headway (miles) (min.) (min.) A (main) 14.0 56 2 30 B 5.8 23 1 30 C 6.9 28 1 30 D 7.5 30 1 30 E 7.7 30 1 30 2 medium size buses, 4 vans Advantages This option provides good service to residential and employment locations near to the main roads in Diamond Bar, without requiring transfers between routes. The four feeder buses provide more frequent service for many local trips (destination within roughly 2 miles of origin). The feeders being smaller vehicles should not face resident opposition in neighborhoods. Disadvantages Residents in neighborhoods more distant from the main streets of the City must take a local feeder bus to reach a transfer point to the main route, if they wish to travel to the other end of the City. It is even possible that they would need to transfer onto another feeder before reaching their destination, depending on exactly where their origin and destination are located. Summary The vehicle -resistant design of the residential road system makes service to those areas difficult without a large number of buses. Due to the low population density in most areas of the City, smaller feeder vans appear to be a more cost effective alternative. For the major roads, medium size buses would provide the needed passenger capacity. The use of two sizes of vehicle gives the service some added flexibility. -38- 2 ble T,= (see Exhibit 5.2) This alternative uses two large loops to cover the entire city area. Each route serves a combination of arterial and local collector roads. Both routes cover the major work sites, including the office development, while they serve different residential areas. Several variations on this option are possible by trading individual residential areas between routes, but the basic concept is the same. Statistics Route Length Time # Vehicles Headway (miles) (min.) (min.) A 15.8 63 2 35 B 16.3 65 2 35 4 medium size buses Advantages In this alternative, most cross -city trips can be served by one route with no transfers, with a travel time in the order of 40 minutes. Disadvantages Trips to the central area around Grand Avenue could take up to 40 minutes, depending on the origin. Running the two buses on each route in opposite directions (one clockwise, one anti -clockwise) would minimize this problem, with the side-effect of complicating the description of routes to the riders. Since each route must collect its passengers in residential areas, the travel time for those already aboard the bus may seem excessive. This design also requires medium size urban buses to drive significant distances in residential areas posing a potential negative reaction from the residents. Te q�P Sunset Crossing o` 1 ccs `� coo �Q zc a o- �° o l_ycoming J ' 1 G ren Cr a i I EXHIE3 5.2 Peak F'er!od n lernch've 2- double I oop Route A Route B S -39- ummary With the operation of counter -rotating buses, this appears to provide good service for the major work/school trip origin -destination pairs. 3 - North-South Loon (see Exhibit 5.3) In this alternative, transit service is focused on the segment of Grand Avenue between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Golden Springs Drive. Two long routes, each composed of a pair of loops, pass through that central road segment. This option essentially divides the City into four areas: two in the north and two in the south. Statistics Route Length Time # Vehicles Headway (miles) (min.) (min.) A (north) 19.9 80 2 45 B (south) 20.0 80 2 45 4 medium size buses Advantages Travel time from almost any residential area served by these routes to the Grand Avenue area is in the order of 15-25 minutes. Relatively local trips (within each of the four areas) will have even shorter travel times. Disadvantages Travel not originating or destined in the Grand Avenue area is more time consuming. Within the south or north ends, trips could take about 40-45 minutes. Trips from the south to the north (or visa -versa) could take as long, with the added delay of a transfer between buses. This delay could be avoided by having buses switch from the south route to the north route when they reach Grand Avenue, but then a transfer would be required for trips within the south and north ends. -40 - Summary With employment activity centered along Grand Avenue and nearby arterials, this system is effective. However, several high activity zones of the City are..not in this area (e.g. zone 2 - the southwest area) and all but local trips to those areas suffer. 4 - Radial Structure (see Exhibit 5.4) This alternative is a combination of alternatives 2 and 3. Transit service is focused on the area of Grand Avenue between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Golden Springs Drive as in alternative 3, but in this case three large loop routes travel most of the length of the City north and south. The top and bottom ends of each loop cover different residential areas similar to alternative 2. Statistics Route Length Tune # Vehicles Headway (miles) (min.) (min_) A 14.3 57 2 30 B 13.6 54 2 30 C 12.1 48 2 30 6 medium size buses Advantages Travel time from almost any residential area to the central area is quite good. Most major destinations are within walking distance of at least two routes. A trip to Grand Avenue will take between 12 and 35 minutes depending on the origin. Travel from the north end of the city to the south is also relatively good, from 25 to 40 minutes, and many popular origin -destination pairs can be served without transfers. -41 - Disadvantages Customers whose travel needs necessitate a transfer receive relatively poor service due to the large size of the loops. Medium sized buses travel considerable distances in residential areas. The 6 medium size buses required represents the largest capital investment of all the alternatives presented. Summary This is a fairly good compromise between alternative 2 and 3, although it would be more costly to set up and operate. The circuitous road system in Diamond Bar makes it extremely difficult to arrive at a typical radial system. In addition the commercial centres are not centrally located making a radial system not a viable prospect. 53.2 Assessment of Peak Period Options An assessment of the above four options is tabulated in Exhibit 5.5. Alternative 1 performs better than the other three options for the following reasons: 1. best service on the primary road network as there are no deviations for the main route; 2. best directness for most of the popular origin -destination pairs; 3. best coverage of the urban area; 4. generally the shortest routes, therfore the smallest headways; and 5. the mix of vehicles gives greater flexibility to modify service if required. Notes: - 5 minute wait time assumed at transfer points - 15 mph vehicle speed assumed - a dash indicates either no service or transfer involved - D=directness ratio (low is good) - cost assumes 251 work days/year, 6 hours each Diamond Bar Transit Study Exhibit 5.5: _ Peak Period Route System Assessment Average travel time for most popular trips System Route Length (zone to zone, minutes) Annual AN. (miles) 9-11 D 9-4 D 9-9 D 9-12 D 8-4 D cost M 1 A 15.6 10 1.9 36 2.3 5 1.4 14 1.5 31 2.3 361,500 B 5.8 - - - - - C 6.9 - - -- D 7.5 13 2.5 - E 7.7 13 2.5 - - 7 2.0 11 1.2 - 43.5 2 A B 16.7 15 2.8 30 1.9 5 1.4 21 2.2 - - 361,500 ------------ 16.7 15 2.8 33 2.1 8 2.3 17 1.8 30 2.2 33.4 3 A B 19.9 15 2.8 33 2.1 6 1.7 21 2.2 30 2.2 361,500 21.6 - - - - - - - - - 41.5 4 A B 23 11 2.1 29 1.8 6 1.7 30 3.2 542,000 C 14.3 17 3.2 32 2.0 - - 21 2.2 25 1.9 ------------ 13.1 10 1.9 - - 50.4 Direct line travel time (minutes between centers) 5.3 16.0 3.5 9.5 13.5 Notes: - 5 minute wait time assumed at transfer points - 15 mph vehicle speed assumed - a dash indicates either no service or transfer involved - D=directness ratio (low is good) - cost assumes 251 work days/year, 6 hours each .Y Diamond Bar Transit Study Exhibit 5.5 cont'd: Peak Period Route System Assessment Busses passing per hour System System System System Intersection 1 2 3 4 Average Diamond Bar at Sunset Crossing 4 4 4 6 4.5 Diamond Bar at Golden Springs 8 6 6 10 7.5 Diamond Bar at Grand 4 4 12 8 7.0 Diamond Bar at Cold Spring 4 2 2 4 3.0 Diamond Bar at Canyon 2 2 2 2 2.0 Pathfinder at Canyon 6 4 4 2 4.0 Canyon at Colima 4 6 4 6 5.0 Gateway Center 2 4 2 4 3.0 Grand at Golden Springs 2 6 12 8 7.0 Average 4.0 4.2 5.3 5.6 -42- 533 Off -Pear Period The following goals guided the design of these route system alternatives: • serve all the main shopping/commercial areas; • maximize coverage of the principal residential areas, with preference given to higher population densities; and • design for a minimum headway of 60 minutes. A secondary consideration was to provide access to and from the two parlen ride lots and the existing commuter express bus service. 1 Fixed Route with Feeder Vans (dial'a ride) (see Exhibit 5.6) Description This alternative provides a relatively fast arterial road route for which passengers can utilize a dial -a -ride service to be collected at any location within four residential areas (using vans). Statistics Route/Area Length Time # Vehicles Headway (miles) (min-) (min.) Main Route 15.1 60 2 60 Area A - - 1 Area B - - 1 Area C - - 1 Area D - - 1 - 2 mid-sized buses, 4 vans TA_ -43 - If the demand for dial'a ride is low , the number of feeder vans could be reduced. in the assessment of alternatives shown in Exhibit 5.9 a range of cost is given assuming 3 or 4 vans. Advantages The main route provides good service to medium density residential and commercial locations within walldng distance of the main roads in Diamond Bar. The feeder vans provide a more frequent service for the majority of local trips - The main route and the four diary ride areas are very similar to the peak hour fixed route feeder system (peak hour Alternative 1), malting implementation and operation easier if both alternatives are used simultaneously. Disadvantages Residents in neighborhoods more distant from the main streets of the City must take a local feeder van to reach a transfer point to the main route, if they wish to travel to the other end of the City. Summary Due to the low population density in most areas of the City, smaller feeder vans appear to be more cost effective and would provide better service than buses. The dial -a -ride service would require additional communications to ensure connection with the main route. For the major roads, buses would provide the needed passenger capacity. \ 1 r l 1 MI137-7 MIT.M. I lil 1M 1 This alternative uses two large loops to cover the entire city area. Each route serves a combination of arterial and local collector roads. Both routes cover the main commercial sites while they serve different residential areas. The buses would alternate routes upon reaching the commercial site at Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave. intersection to eliminate transfers. -44- g� Length Time # Vehicles Headway" (miles) (min.) (min.) A 27.5 110 4 60 4 buses * in each direction Advantages In this alternative, most trips can be served by one route with no transfers. Disadvantages Since each route must collect its passengers in residential as, the travel time arefor those already aboard the bus may seem excessive. This alternative also requires the larger buses to drive significant distances in residential areas posing a potential negative resident reaction. The routes are different from any of the proposed peak hour routes, which may create confusion for riders. Summary This alternative covers both commercial and residential locations throughout the city. The alternative eliminates transfers, but is different from any of the peak hour alternatives. IMA- -- - -JI - In this alternative, the arterial roads make up the main route of the service. This main route deviates in any of tine possible residential locations utilizing a dial -a - ride service. -45 - Statistics 45 -Statistics # Vehicles Routie Length Tune Headway (miles) (min.) Main Route 16.1 64 4 45 4 buses (2 each direction) * in each direction Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Deviation 'T'une Length Length Tune (miles) (miles) (mom) (min') 1.0 3.7 4.0 14.6 A10.6 B 2.6 2.6 10.6 0.8 1.1 3.0 4.4 C D 1.4 1.7 5.7 6.6 l: 0.8 1.9 3.0 7.5 g 1.1 1.1 4.4 4.4 1.1 1.1 4.4 4.4 .: G g 1.2 1.7 4.8 6.6 I 1.9 1.9 7.5 7.5 Advantages The main route provides good service to medium density residential and commercial locations within walking distance of the main roads in Diamond Bar. The deviations provide service to the low density residential areas. Disadvantages This option requires buses to drive significant distances in low density residential areas posing a potential negative resident reaction. The deviations are different from any of the peak hour alternatives, making implementation and operation difficult and possibly leading to rider confusion. With this option, passengers would have to wait longer for a bus when compared with any of the route options. The indirectness of the route may create frustration for some riders- -46 - Summary The main route would take approximately 64 minutes to complete. With a 5 minute layover, 21 minutes remain to maintain a 90 minute run. The deviations range from 3 to 15 minutes, therefore, on average 3 deviations could be undertaken on each run. 53.4 Assessment of Off -Peak Period Options An assessment of the above three options is tabulated in Exhibit 5.9. Alternative 1 performs better than the other three options for the following reasons: 1, best service on the primary road network (i.e. where there are most trip origins/destinations) as there are no deviations for the main route; 2. best directness for most of the popular origin -destination pairs; 3. best coverage of the urban area; 4. the mix of vehicles gives greater flexibility to modify service if required; and 5. is most similar to the preferred peak period option and therefore most easy for passengers to understand when the system changes from one mode of operation to another. 6. offers the opportunity to reduce current paratransit costs by offering a similar but augmented system 5.4 BUS TECHNOLOGIES It had been suggested that a demonstration project involving the use of electric buses could be used for the Diamond Bar system. The SCAQMD are trying to speed up the introduction of clean air technology. "Their emphasis at this stage is on methanol and compressed natural gas (CNG) engines. The SCAQMD are also participating in the development and demonstration of electric buses. The Diamond Bar Transit Study Exhibit 5.9: Off -Peak Route System Assessment 3 Main 16.1 Max. Dev. 5.2 Fixed route --------'-- with deviations 21.3 minimum maximum Direct line travel time (minutes between centers) 11 2.1 23 4.3 5.3 21 1.3 7.5 2.1 17 1.8 17.5 1.3 42 2.6 19.5 5.6 33.5 3.5 26.3 1.9 16.0 3.5 9.5 13.5 Notes: - 15 mph vehicle speed assumed - a dash indicates not applicable - D=directness ratio (low is good) - cost assumes 251 dayslyear, 6 hours each & 114 day/year, 8 hours each 580,000 Average travel time for most popular trips (zone to zone, minutes) Annual cost System Route Length (miles) 9-11 D 9-4 D 9-9 D 9-12 D 8-4 D ($�-- Aft. Main' 15.1 11.4 2.2 24.2 1.5 6.2 1.8 13.2 1.4 15.8 1.2 580,000 1 w/ 4 vans A - - - - -_ or Main loop B - _ _ - 508,000 plus Dial- G - - _ _ _ _ - w/ 3 vans a -Ride D ----------- -_ 15.1 ' Dial -a -ride times are additional to the main route times - - - - - 580,000 13.5 - - - North- B 14.0 - - - - - South Loop Total ------'--"- 27.5 15.8 3.0 37.8 2.4 15.8 4.5 22.5 2.4 48.3 3.6 3 Main 16.1 Max. Dev. 5.2 Fixed route --------'-- with deviations 21.3 minimum maximum Direct line travel time (minutes between centers) 11 2.1 23 4.3 5.3 21 1.3 7.5 2.1 17 1.8 17.5 1.3 42 2.6 19.5 5.6 33.5 3.5 26.3 1.9 16.0 3.5 9.5 13.5 Notes: - 15 mph vehicle speed assumed - a dash indicates not applicable - D=directness ratio (low is good) - cost assumes 251 dayslyear, 6 hours each & 114 day/year, 8 hours each 580,000 -47- SCAQMD have developed a fuel cell which could be used for charging. They are participating in a trial in Vancouver B.C. using a fuel cell in the bus. In discussions with SCAQMD staff they felt that the hilly terrain of Diamond Bar would be unsuitable for the use of electric buses at their current stage of development as they do not have the necessary power. In addition, it is not appropriate to demonstrate a new technology (with its inherent possibility of occasional breakdowns) for a new transit system. It is more usual for new technologies to be tested by large transit operators where failure is easily covered by other service elements. A number of manufacturers are developing buses fueled by CNG or MethanoL A methanol station is being constructed in Diamond Bar and a Natural Gas station is proposed for (or close to) Diamond Bar. Twelve mid-sized CNG buses are currently in use in the City of Los Angeles and are apparently successful. The advantages of diesel or gasoline buses is that they are a well developed technology and fuel is readily available. The cost of a mid-sized bus is $50,000. While diesel or gasoline would only be considered as an interim choice, it has to be remembered that the comparative cost of a mid-sized CNG bus would be $117,000 (fuel costs would be similar). Due to the large capital outlay for an alternative fuel bus, it is unlikely that a bus contract service would be willing to purchase such a vehicle. This would put a heavy burden on the City having to purchase such vehicles up -front. While the SCAQMD do not consider CNG and Methanol to be new fuels and do not allocate demonstration funds, they do have an annual proposal process for financing alternative fuel vehicles. This process begins in May each year with proposals due by July. It would be appropriate for the City of Diamond Bar to pursue this proposal process in 1993. As a methanol fueling station will be set up in the city, purchase of a methanol powered bus(es) would be advisable. Such a proposal is not guaranteed to be accepted but is thought to have a good chance of succeeding. -48- 5.5 FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS SS.1 Service Costs It is generally accepted that it is not worth a municipality considering owning and operating its own bus fleet unless at least a ten bus fleet is in operation. As this is unlikely to be the case for Diamond Bar, a contracted service will have to be sought. The approximate costs of a contracted service are shown below: • $55 to $60 / hour for a full-sized bus (seat 40); • $38 to $42 / hour for a mid-sized bus (seat 24); and • $28 to $30 / hour for a van (seat 12+). Seating capacity is dependant on the number of spaces allocated for wheelchairs and the make of vehicle. For a 12 hour day and (say) 350 days per year, annual contracted costs for the above 3 sized vehicles are (approximately) $240,000, $170,000 and $125,000 respectively. 55.2 Available Funding Proposition A, the 1/2 percent sales tax for transit was approved by voters in November 1980. Collection of the tax began on July 1, 1982. The proceeds of the 1/2 cent sales tax are used to finance a Transit Development program in Los Angeles County. The program is administered by the LACTC. Under the Proposition A ordinance adopted by the LACTC, 25% of these revenues, net of administrative costs, are returned to local jurisdictions for local transit. The LACTC distributes these local return funds on a population -share basis. The funding eligibility documentation states that Proposition A (Prop A) funds, "...be spent exclusively for public transit projects. In addition, Prop A funds IBX be loaned or exchanged under certain circumstances. The LACTC reviews each application for eligibility and also ensures that services do not duplicate or -49 - compete with existing transit services. The LACTC also requires an annual audit of a municipality's use of Prop A funds. The City of Diamond Bar used Prop A funds to fund the 1990 and 1991 Holiday shuttle. Using Fiscal Year 1988-1989 figures the City of Diamond Bar would be eligible for $550,000 of Prop A money for transit service. The figure for 1993 will be in the order of $485,000. In addition, the City of Diamond Bar have available a $400,000 reserve from the 1991/1992 Prop A local return which could be used for transit service over the next few years. Proposition A Discretionary Funds are available through the LACTC. Of particular relevance to Diamond Bar is the "Sub -Regional Paratransit Incentive". This fund is set up to encourage municipalities to join together in the supply of dial'a ride service and to share resources. This fund allows organizations such as the Pomona Valley Transit Authority to claim from discretionary funds 25% of the net operating cost of its dial'a ride service (both for general and disabled ridership). This could potentially result in Diamond Bar being eligible for between $20,000 to $70,000 per year depending on the amount of dial'a ride service provided. Unlike the local return funds outlined above, this source of funding is not guaranteed and therefore, a level of risk is incurred by relying on such funds. Proposition C is another 1/2 cent sales tax for transit (or roads) approved by voters in November 1990. Collection of the tax began in April 1991. Distribution of the said monies began recently after a delay caused by a High Court challenge to the tax. The monies will be distributed in a very similar manner as that set out for Prop A monies. The main exception being that funds cannot be loaned or exchanged and that many more road projects are eligible for the funding. The local return money available is 20% (rather than 25% for Prop A) and therefore there will be approximately $388,000 available to the City of Diamond Bar for 1993. -50- Fairbox revenues are difficult to estimate as this will depend upon the level of service provided, the final selected fare structure and of course the public reaction. The previous Holiday Shuttle service was provided at no cost. Using the likely range of annual ridership forecast in section 4. 1.1 and assuming a 50 cents fare per passenger would yield a total fairbox revenue in the range of $15,000 to $48,000 per annum. 5.6 FINAL SELECTION OF SERVICE OPTIONS 5.6.1 Affordable Service Options The route options considered in the Section 5.3 could command anywhere between $500,000 and $1,000,000 annually to operate when the peak and off- peak service plans are combined. The above funding sources total as much as $1,100,000 annually depending upon the amount of farebox and Prop A Discretionary funding that is forthcoming. It is likely that Prop C Funds will be used for road improvements only. However, if Prop C Funds were made available for transit service a very good level of transit service could be provided for the City which could result in ridership levels towards the higher end of the forecast range (see section 4.1.1). Prop A based financing is summarized below: Prop A (reserve) from 1991192 -$400,000 Prop A (1992193) -$485,000 Prop A (discretionary) - $20,000 to $70,000 Farebox - $15,000 to $30,000 If the Prop A reserve were averaged out over the first 3 years of service, a three year averagg P= A funded service would have $653.000 to $718.000 available If it is assumed that Prop C funds were available then E= A plus R= Q RIUS .s .•. 3 year average. of 14 1,000 to $1.106,000 would be -51 - Preferred Service Options if Prop C Funds are Available From the assessment of options in section 5.3 it is clear that peak period Option 1 (2 buses and 4 vans all on fixed schedules) and off-peak period Option 1 (2 buses on a fixed schedule and 2 diaPa ride feeder vans) are the preferred choices. These two options combined would cost $797,000 per annum to operate. This would require between $79,000 and $144,000 of Prop C funds for each of the first 3 years. Preferred Service Options if Prop C Funds not Available The preferred option mentioned above requires Prop C funding. In order to arrive at a preferred system that does not rely on Prop C funding, modifications to this option have to be made. The off-peak option could be reduced by having one rather than two feeder vans thereby saving $72,000 per annum. Reducing the number of feeder vans in the peak period saves $45,200 per annum. Therefore, if the peak period Option 1 were changed to utilize 2 or 3 vans rather than 4, the overall annual cost (including the off-peak reduction) would reduce to between $635,100 (2 peak period vans) and $680,300 (3 peak period vans) per annum. However, it would be very difficult to provide a reasonable coverage of the City using 2 vans only for the fixed route option, and therefore, is to be avoided if possible. With Prop A plus farebox annual funding likely to range between $653,000 and $718,000, the 2 feeder van option is affordable but the 3 feeder van option is potentially underfunded by up to $27,000 per annum. However, it should be noted that before the recession commenced, in the 1988/89 financial year, Prop A local return funds available to Diamond Bar were $60,000 per year greater than the 1992/93 allocation. If it were assumed that a modest economic recovery takes place in the next 2 years, this potential short fall in funds may be less than $27,000 per year and not significant. Another approach to this potential funding problem is to use the Prop A reserve in a shorter time period (say 2 and a 1/2 years) and delay a decision as to whether the extra funding should be found for year 3 onward, or alternatively, to reduce -52 - service 52 - service at that point. A review of the service in the third year of operation would be appropriate in any case. The service may exceed ridership expectations and funding may not be a problem. In contrast, ridership may be disappointing and it may be appropriate to reduce service. The Phase 2 . report is expectsd to recommend a monitoring system so that periodic reviews can take place. It is in the context of the above funding discussion and recommendation for service review that the recommended service system be the modified alternatives (#1) for both peak and off-peak options at an estimated cost of $680,300 per annum. The recommended system is shown in Exhibits 5.10 and 5.11. F. r T�, Sunset Cr °ssin9 \ �a O �\ Dz O - v � L ycorning \ L fro n 2' z� Fd LXI IIB1T 5.10 Recommended Peak Per'od Alkae►-)cl've. \ Medi l000 with Feeder vans Route A (mein) Routes B,C,L) Fi. -53- 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Public Support A strong show of public support is evident from the results of the public surveys with 63% of respondents agreeing that transit is needed in Diamond Bar. While the number of people saying they would use transit are considerably fewer, this reflects the reality that public transportation cannot compete with the majority of trip making , particularly in a suburban situation as exists in Diamond Bar. Nevertheless, the support for transit from both potential users and non-users is encouraging. In addition, support from business and community groups is also strong. This means that implementation of a City transit service has support from the community as a whole and is more likely to be successful because of it. 6.2 MARKET SERVED The majority of ridership will be generated from housing within a short walk of the main arterial road system and hence the fixed part of any transit system will be the most successful. Dial'a ride patronage will be a minor proportion of ridership. There are four main markets which can be served in Diamond Bar, most of which are extremely close to or on the main arterial road network. These are: • shopping/service trips; • work trips; • connecting trips to park'n ride and express bus services; and • home to school. The characteristics of these markets and implied transit service needs are such that shopping/service trips are generally random throughout the day with only minor peak times of activity (possibly meal times and theater start/finish times). The clientele for such trips tend to be teenagers, elderly people and non -employed people., i.e. for the most part people who do not have the availability of a car. A dial's ride capability for serving this market will be a useful add on feature. -54 - By contrast, Work Trips are very time sensitive and will require regular, reliable and guaranteed transit. Dial'a ride service does not provide this and therefore a fixed route service(s) is recommended for this market. Most ridership will be generated from housing within a short walk of the main arterial road system and hence the fixed part of any transit system. Service to locations outside Diamond Bar is not recommended at this time due to the scattered work trip patterns. When commuter rail service is in place (sometime in 1993), a survey of commuter rail users should be carried out in order to determine the potential demand for feeder bus service. Consideration should be given to providing service to the station in Industry only when the ridership potential is known. 63 SERVICE DELIVERY As discussed above a system is required which caters to the school/work trips market in the peak periods and the shopping/service trips in the off -peaks. The recommended service (see Exhibits 5.10 and 5.11) consists of a fixed route (which is a modification of the Holiday Shuttle) with one bus running clockwise and a second bus running anti -clockwise around the loop. In the peak period this main route is supplemented by 3 feeder vans running on a fixed route and regular schedule. In the off-peak period the main route is supplemented by one feeder van operating on a dial'a ride basis. 6.4 SERVICE COSTS AND FINANCING The cost of the recommended system is $680,300. Estimated Prop A Local Return plus Prop A Discretionary plus farebox revenue plus Prop A (91/92) reserve gives a three year funding average of between $648,000 and $723,000 depending upon the farebox and Prop A discretionary funds available. This leaves a potential short fall in funding of up to $32,000 or a surplus of up to $53,000. If the Prop A reserve fund from 1991/92 is used to ensure the service is adequately financed for the first two years in order to give the service a chance to establish itself, a review can then be carried out to determine whether the system will need additional funding and whether the City feels it is justified. -55- 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS - It is recommended that the City of Diamond Bar. 1. implement a transit system with different service elements for peak periods and off-peak periods as illustrated in Exhibit 5.10 and 5.11; 2. implement a base fare of 50 cents for the off-peak period and a fare of 75 cents for the peak periods subject to a refinement of this basic fare strategy in Phase 2 of the study; 3. formally request to join the Pomona Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) to take advantage of PVTA resources and Prop A discretionary funding; 4. in May 1993, apply to the SCAQMD for funding to purchase methanol powered buses; and 5. undertake a survey of commuter rail users (after service commences) to establish potential demand for a feeder bus service to the Industry Station. APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY MAIL -BACK SURVEY A mail -back questionnaire was distributed to every household in Diamond Bar through the May edition of the Windmill newspaper. The survey was used as a tool for determining potential demand and requirements of a transit system. Of the 16,900 households in Diamond Bar, 1066 responses were'received.' The results presented in this section are based on the mail -back questionnaire. 1 - WOULD YOU AGREE THAT A REGULAR TRANSIT SERVICE IS NEEDED? Number Percent Response 240 22.7% Yes - strongly agree 246 23.3% Yes - somewhat agree 142 13.4% No - somewhat disagree 342 32.3% No - strongly disagree —88 8.3% Have no opinion on the 1058 100% matter 2 - HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT YOU WOULD USE TRANSIT SERVICE IF IT WERE LOCATED WITHIN TWO BLOCKS OF YOUR HOME? Number Percent Response 575 54.2% very unlikely 133 12.5% somewhat unlikely 170 16.0% somewhat likely 183 17.20/0 very likely 1061 100% 3 - MUNICIPAL TRANSIT SERVICES DO NOT GENERATE ENOUGH REVENUE FROM PASSENGERS TO COVER ALL OPERATING EXPENSES. PUBLIC FUNDS MAY BE USED TO PAY A PORTION OF THE OPERATING COST OF TRANSIT SERVICE. HOW MUCH WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PAY IN TAXES EACH YEAR TO SUPPORT THE SERVICE? Number Percent Res4Ilse 257 26.4% $10 124 12.7% $20 58 6.0% $30 18 1.8% $40 48 4.9% $50 469 4 .1 % other 974 100% Note: 0 $10.24 was the average the respondents were willing to pay. • 454 (47.1%) replied that they would not be willing to pay to support transit (i.e. filled in $0 for the 'other" option). 4 - WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE AN ACCEPTABLE ADULT FARE NOTE: $0.57 was the average acceptable adult fare for a one-way trip. FOR A ONE-WAY TRIP? Number Percent Response 139 16.2% $0.25 351 40.9% $0.50 125 14.6% $0.75 153 17.8% $1.00 90 10.5% other 858 100% NOTE: $0.57 was the average acceptable adult fare for a one-way trip. I - THE RESPONDENTS LISTED THE PLACES MEMBERS OF THEIR HOUSEHOLD WOULD TRAVEL BY TRANSIT IN DIAMOND BAR. -- THE NUMBER OF DESTINATIONS TO EACH OF THE 13 ZONES, THE PERCENTAGE OF ADULT VS. CHILD TRIPS AND WHETHER THE TRIPS TAKE PLACE DURING THE WEEK OR ON THE WEEKEND IS SHOWN. Destination # of Person Making Trip Made on Zone Destinations Trip 1. % 4 or more persons 1066 Adult Child Week Weekend 1 16 81% 19% 69% 31% 2 41 76% 24% 41% 59% 3 49 78% 22% 51% 49% 4 365 65% 35% 43% 57% 5 11 91% 9% 73% 27% 6 3 33% 67% 0% 100% 7 24 92% 8% 50% 50% 8 101 71% 29% 47% 53% 9 344 78% 22% 47% .53% 10 23 35% 65% 13% 87% 11 391 81% 19% 44% 56% 12 266 77% 23% 53% 47% 13 14 71% 29% 64% 36% Total 1648 75% 25% 46% 54% 2 - FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS THE CITY HAS OFFERED A HOLIDAY SHUTTLE SERVICE WHICH RAN AT I HOUR INTERVALS. DID ANYONE IN YOUR FAMILY USE THIS SERVICE IN EITHER OF THE LAST 2 HOLIDAY SEASONS? IF SO, HOW MANY? Number Percent Response 944 88.6% no (none) 63 5.9% 1 person 32 3.0% 2 persons 16 1.5% 3 persons 11 1. % 4 or more persons 1066 100% 3a - WOULD ANY OF YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS USE THE SAME SERVICE IF IT WAS IMPLEMENTED ON A REGULAR BASIS? HOW MANY? Number Percent Response 694 65.1% no (none) 161 15.1% 1 person 134 12.6% 2 persons 50 4.7% 3 persons 27 5 °Q 4 or more persons 1066 100% 3b- INDICATE HOW MANY OF THESE FAMILY MEMBERS WHO WOULD USE THE SERVICE ARE REGISTERED DISABLED AND WOULD REQUIRE BOARDING ASSISTANCE. Numb er Percent Response 344 92.4% 0 (none) 24 6.5% 1 person 4 Liyg 2 persons 372 100% 4 - IF THE HOLIDAY SHUTTLE COULD BE CHANGED TO SERVE YOU BETTER, PLEASE INDICATE ON A MAP OR DESCRIBE HOW THE ROUTE SHOULD BE CHANGED. THE NUMBER OF COMMENTS IS SHOWN BELOW. Numb Percent Res2gnse 339 31.8% comments provided 727 68.2% no comments provided 1066 100% 5 - WHICH DAY(S) OF THE WEEK WOULD YOUR FAMILY MOST LIKELY USE THE SERVICE? Number percent Response 231 13.8% Monday 210 12.5% Tuesday 226 13.5% Wednesday 209 12.5% Thursday 266 15.9% Friday 318 18.9% Saturday 28 12.9% Sunday 1678 100% lot at the Pomona Freeway 6 - FOR WHAT PURPOSE WOULD ANY OF YOUR FAMILY USE THE SERVICE? Number Percent Response 67 7.7% to travel to work in Diamond Bar 121 13.8% to travel to school in Diamond Bar 456 52.1% to travel to shops and services in Diamond Bar 86 9.8% to travel to the park'n' ride lot at the Pomona Freeway 145 16.6% to connect with the 875 100% RTD or Foothills express buses 7 - IT HAS BEEN PROPOSED THAT A DIAL -A -RIDE OPTION BE ADDED SO THAT THE BUS WOULD DEVIATE FROM ITS REGULAR ROUTE IN ORDER TO PICK UP PASSENGERS CLOSER TO THEIR HOME. WOULD THIS OPTION MAKE YOUR FAMILY MORE LIKELY TO USE THE SERVICE? Number Percent Reslmnse 167 16.2% much more likely 208 20.1% more likely 76 7.4% less likely 5i$a 56.30/a would not use it at all 1034 100% zone 2 Part C - Household Information I - LOCATION OF RESIDENCE. THE RESPONDENTS' ADDRESS WAS PLOTTED ON A ZONE SYSTEM MAP OF DIAMOND BAR (AS ILLUSTRATED) Number Percent Response 0 0% zone 1 76 8.3% zone 2 37 4.0% zone 3 35 3.8% zone 4 38 4.1% zone 5 31 3.4% zone 6 50 5.4% zone 7 126 13.7% zone 8 207 22.6% zone 9 43 4.7% zone 10 75 8.2% zone 11 130 14.1% zone 12 71 7.7 % zone 13 919 100% 2 - HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD? HOW MANYTRUCKS, Numb Percent Respgnsc 91 8.7% 1 person 343 32.9% 2 persons 223 21.4% 3 persons 244 23.4% 4 persons 86 8.3% 5 persons 35 3.4% 6 persons 12 1.2% 7 persons 4 0.4% 8 persons 2 0.2%a 9 persons 1 0.1% 10 persons 1 0.117/0 11 persons —1 1042 100% F3- HOW MANYTRUCKS, R MOTORCYCLES) VANSEMBERS IV, TO M(AUTOS, OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD TO MAKE AVAILA BLEICLES TRIPS? Number Percent 15 1.4% no vehicles 143 13.8% 1 vehicle 530 51.1% 2 vehicles 234 22.6% 3 vehicles 85 8.2% 4 vehicles 21 2.0% 5 vehicles 8 0.8% 6 vehicles 1 0 1% 7 vehicles 1037 100% { a 4 - THE RESPONDENTS LISTED FOR EACH PERSON IN THEIR SEX, AND WHETHER HEISHE HAS A HOUSEHOLD: PERSONS AGE, THE RESULTS ARE SUMMARIZED BELOW. DRIVERS LICENSE. 21`�4 i Age in Number Gender % With Drivers License Years F E. Male Female Male Female 1-18 734 52% 48% 49% 51% 19-50 1541 48% 52% 49°!0 51% 51-65 444 50% 50% 52% 48% 65+ 208 51% 49% 56% 44% Total7 2927 =010 50% 50°10 50% CROSS TABULATIONS Cross tabulations were undertaken between different elements of the mail-back survey to 1 provide additional information. -- Likelihood of Transit Usage versus Preferred Fare • 41% of all respondents considered $0.50 to be an acceptable adult fare for a one- way trip. For these respondents, $0.57 was the average acceptable fare. • For those respondents replying that they would very/somewhat unlikely use a transit service if it were located within two blocks of their home, 36% considered $0.50 to be an acceptable adult fare for a one-way trip. $0.58 was the average acceptable fare for these respondents. l:3 For the respondents that would very/somewhat likely use the service, 48% considered $0.50 to be acceptable and $0.55 was the average acceptable adult fare. F A summary of the responses for this group follows. F`v Number Percent ti 67 19.6% $0.25 162 47.5% $0.50 62 18.2% $0.75 43 12.6% $1.00 —2.1% other 341 100% APPENDIX B ORIGIN -DESTINATION MATRIX FROM HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE Trip matrices extracted from the mail -back survey of Diamond Bar residents - no trips excluded ------------------------------------------ Weekday trips: Children Weekday trips: Adults 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 8 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 6 S 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 7 3 0 24 7 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 2 3 5 0 3 9 3 7 0 0 24 32 9 1 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 2 1 0 2 1 0 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 0 14 11 12 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 4 4 0 3 4 0 22 13 0 4 3 7 0 0 2 13 27 2 30 28 2 163 13 9 2 3 52 6 0 10 32 129 0 132 104 7 556 Weekday trips: Adults 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 8 0 1 2 38 2 0 3 1 3 0 0 0 4 1 11 7 0 7 2 0 24 3 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 4 0 0 10 4 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 4 0 3 3 0 18 5 6 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 10 0 7 0 0 4 32 7 1 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 8 7 21 0 16 18 1 86 8 1 0 2 7 15 32 1 0 32 58 39 2 141 9 10 3 0 2 1 0 10 2 0 14 0 3 4 0 0 28 0 0 1 5 7 12 0 0 7 12 11 1 57 12 1 4 3 7 13 9 15 22 90 6 0 10 32 129 0 132 104 7 556 Trip matrices extracted from the mail -back survey of Diamond Bar residents - no trips excluded --------------- ------------------------------------------ weekend trips: Children 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 2 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 11 3 0 4 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 6 2 8 0 2 23 44 g 0 0 0 13 0 0 2 0 0 0 9 2 4 10 0 2 15 5 0 52 9 2 2 2 2 12 8 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 7 0 21 10 0 11 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 6 3 0 0 0 16 22 12 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 7 4 10 13 2 8 0 60 0 2 0 16 42 10 42 26 2 218 Weekend trips: Adults 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 12 0 0 0 15 0 6 0 0 1 46 2 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 1 10 3 0 4 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 6 0 1 0 0 13 18 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 1 0 0 4 2 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 3 11 0 0 0 4 0 12 2 8 7 0 44 7 0 8 2 0 2 25 1 0 3 13 28 0 0 25 63 25 28 0 0 124 206 9 1 3 10 54 0 1 1 2 6 2 39 8 0 14 2 1 49 10 0 0 0 18 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 4 1 0 25 11 0 0 2 0 12 0 0 2 6 12 6 10 13 0 55 12 0 6 .0 13 3 16 16 140 3 11 12 38 133 8 166 95 3 634 Trip matrices extracted from the mail -back survey of Diamond Bar residents - no trips excluded ---------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- Total trips: 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 6 1 18 0 3 0 2 7 8 0 4 0 6 0 2 0 5 1 4 1 2 2 6 0 0 0 7 0 7 1 0 1 38 0 8 3 0 4 61 2 9 7 7 20 103 2 10 0 1 2 37 4 11 1 0 6 29 0 12 1 10 3 17 0 13 1 3 4 20 0 83 15 41 49 342 10 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 10 26 0 25 14 1 101 0 1 2 13 0 14 5 1 53 0 0 1 9 0 11 3 0 32 0 0 8 15 2 7 4 1 47 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 12 0 4 0 29 2 29 19 0 123 2 8 33 58 0 50 54 3 278 1 4 18 83 3 137 79 2 466 0 3 4 26 0 26 13 1 117 0 1 2 14 0 18 12 0 83 0 3 17 35 10 31 28 1 156 0 0 3 21 3 19 22 4 100 3 24 99 331 20 370 253 14 1571 Trip matrices extracted from the mail -back survey of Diamond Bar residents - seniors trips excluded from applicable tables -------- ---- ------- --------------------------------- Weekday trips: Children 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 5 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 6 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 5 6 0 0 p 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 3 0 23 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 2 4 0 2 3 0 21 9 1 0 1 5 1 0 0 2 3 1 6 5 0 25 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 0 14 12 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 4 4 0 3 4 0 22 13 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 1 13 1 2 2 51 1 0 2 10 24 2 25 25 2 147 Weekday trips: Adults 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 1 9 0 5 5 1 27 7 0 5 2 0 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 0 0 10 5 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 4 0 3 3 0 18 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 7 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 10 6 0 29 8 1 0 2 14 1 0 3 1 19 0 14 15 1 77 9 3 2 3 17 0 0 i 1 11 0 307 21 0 32 10 0 1 0 8 2 0 11 1 0 2 5 0 0 1 0 5 0 5 4 0 23 12 1 2 2 6 0 0 1 5 9 0 9 6 1 42 13 1 0 1 5 0 0 0 2 9 0 7 9 2 36 9 11 15 68 5 0 9 23 98 0 100 73 7 418 Trip matrices extracted from the mail -back survey of Diamond Bar residents - trips seniors --------- excluded ------------------------ from applicable tables--------------------------- weekend trips: r` 3 Children 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 2 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 2 0 21 7 0 0 0 0 0 11 12 0 2 0 5 4 0 4 6 2 35 8 0 9 2 0 2 11 12 12 5 0 16 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 3 0 16 11 0 0 2 5 3 0 0 0 0 2 7 4 6 0 0 22 12 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 10 q 40 2 10 2 35 0 21 0 2 10 187 2 4 4 57 0 2 0 Weekend trips: Adults 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 0 0 13 0 4 0 0 1 36 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 7 3 0 0 4 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 6 4 0 1 0 0 13 18 5 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 1 0 2 0 0 6 X 6 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 4 0 9 12 28 2 0 8 19 6 22 0 0 42 107 8 2 0 2 21 43 1 0 0 1 3 1 4 32 0 49 18 0 158 9 1 3 10 0 0 6 0 14 2 0 2 2 5 0 12 4 2 1 1 0 40 23 11 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 4 8 0 6 8 5 0 37 12 0 2 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 9 10 1 37 13 0 2 3 12 2 12 117 3 1 12 28 117 8 138 71 3 525 Trip matrices extracted from the mail -back survey of Diamond Bar residents - seniors trips excluded from applicable tables ---------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- Total trips: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0- 3 2 0 5 1 18 0 0 0 3 22 0 21 9 1 80 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 1 1 13 0 10 5 1 39 4 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 0 11 3 0 32 5 1 4 1 2 2 0 0 8 15 2 7 4 1 47 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 12 7 1 0 1 36 0 0 4 0 25 2 29 17 0 115 8 3 0 4 55 2 2 8 23 55 0 39 46 3 240 9 7 5 12 76 1 1 3 10 58 3 95 49 2 322 .10 0 1 0 30 4 0 3 3 20 0 22 8 1 92 11 1 0 6 26 0 0 1 2 12 0 16 12 0 76 12 1 4 2 16 0 0 3 17 28 10 26 15 1 123 13 15 29 33 293 9 3 23 71 279 20 298 190 14 1277 City of Diamond Bar Meeting Agenda For March 2, 1993 1. CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 P.M.''� T}" Litigation - Government Code 54956.9 Personnel - Government Code 54957.6 2. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MAYOR MILLER INVOCATION: REVEREND JOHN ORTBERG, Horizons Community Church ROLL CALL: COUNCILMEN MACBRIDE, FORBING, WERNER, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Mayor Miller 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 02/24/93 V' fZN--' Page: 1 5.1.1 PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 1993 - 7:00 P.M., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.2 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - MARCH 11, 1993 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 16, 1993 - 6:00 P.M., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 5.2.1 REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 2, 1993 5.2.2 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 1993 5.2.3 REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16, 1993 5.3 WARRANT REGISTER - APPROVE WARRANT REGISTER DATED March 2, 1993 in the amount of $ 5.4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 5.4.1 REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 1993 - Receive & file. 5.4.2 REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 25, 1993 - Receive & file. 5.5 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of January 14, 1993 - Receive & file. City of Diamond Bar 02/24/93 Meeting Agenda For Page: 2 March 2, 1993 �(A 5.6 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES - �Xkf Regular Meeting of January 28, 1993 - Receive & file. 5.7 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - FILED BY STATE FARM INSURANCE on February 17, 1993. Recommended Action: Reject request and refer matter for further action to Carl Warren & co., the City's Risk anager. s y3- x,� � 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PRO CLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES ETC., 6.1 CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION - PRESENTATION TO Adam Hardie, age ?? and Megan Henderson, age?? , for their efforts in obtaining signatures in opposition to the proposed MRF in the City of Industry. 6.2 PROCLAMING THE WEEK OF MARCH 7 - 13, 1993 AS "GIRL SCOUT WEEK" in the City. 7. OLD BUSINESS: 7.1 -XX: A RESOLUTION COUNCIL OF THE CITY ONLY" AMOND BAR BOULEVARD BAR ON FOUNTAIN SPRINGS ROAD - Recommended Action: 7.2 POLICY & PUBLI 1992 . / Recommended Action: 8. NEW BUSINESS: TRAFFIC SIZNALS AT ERSECT S - Conti CITY SHING "RIGHT -TURN EQ4CATION OF A VATE ,from October 20, 8.1 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR DESIGN OF PANTERA PARK - Recommended Action: 8.2 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A GENERAL SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1993 - Recommended Action: City of Diamond Bar Meeting Agenda For March 2, 1993 02/24/93 Page: 3 8.3 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1993, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS A QUESTION RELATING TO REFERENDING RESOLUTION NO. 92-43 ADOPTING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - Recommended Action: 8.4 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS - Recommended Action: 8.5 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING A WRITTEN ARGUMENT REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS - ----_Recommended Action: ORDINANCE N0. XX (1993) CONGESTION MANAGEMENT -� Recommended Action: S.7 AGREEMENT FOR SPECIAL LITIGATION SERVICES - Recommended Action: B.8 UMA REPORT (MASS TRANSIT) - Recommended Action: 8.9 GOLDEN SPRINGS MEDIANS 1,li ecommended Action: 9. PUBLIC FMARING: 7:00 PA4. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS MATTERS CAN BE HEARD. 9.1 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23629 - Recommended Action: 1 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 11. ADJOURNMENT: i