Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/06/1993CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Mayor — Gail 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 Quality Management DistrictAudito»um 21865 East Copley Drive MEETING DATE: April 6, 1993 MEETING TIME: Closed session - 5:00 p.m. Regular session - 6:00 p.m. Terrence L. Belanger City Manager Andrew V. Arczynski City Attorney Lynda Burgess City Clerk 1TE ��►�t �w�,. 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.. 93-16 Next Ordinance No. 03(1993) 1. CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 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: Pastor Don Winchler, Diamond Bar Christian Fellowship 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on this agenda. Please complete aSpeaker'sCard and aive it to , _ - --- _ wThere Council. 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Councilmembers are for Council discussion. Direction may be given at this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a future meeting. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. 5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: Traffic & Transportation Commission - April 8, 5.1.1 1993 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. 5.1.2 Copley Dr. Planning Commission - April 12, 1993 - 7:00 P.M., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.3 City Council Meeting - April 20, 1993 - 6:00 P.M., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 5.2.1 Regular Meeting of City Council Meeting of March 2, 1993. 5.2.2 Regular Meeting of City Council Meeting of March 16, 1993. MARCH 6, 1993 PAGE 2 5.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Approve Warrant Register dated April 6, 1993 in the amount of $772,089.43. 5.4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 5.4.1 Regular Meeting of February 8, 1993 - Receive & file. 5.4.2 Regular Meeting of February 22, 1993 - Receive & file. 5.4.3 Adjourned Regular Meeting of February 25, 1993 - Receive & file. 5.5 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 11, 1993 - Receive & file. 5.6 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES: 5.6.1 Filed by Leoncio Gonzales March 12, 1993. Recommended Action: Reject request and refer matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 5.6.2 Filed by Donald Jacob Rossier March 18, 1993. Recommended Action: Reject request and refer matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 5.7 APPROVAL OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN LOTS NO. 72 AND 73 OF TRACT MAP NO. 30578 LOCATED AT 2846 AND 2834 WAGON TRAIN LN. - This Lot Line Adjustment has been submitted to the City for approval. Recommended Action: Approve the attached Lot Line Adjustment, authorize signature of related documents and direct City Clerk to process the Lot Line Adjustment for recordation. 5.8 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE ELSMERE CANYON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY IF PERMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS INCLUDING CEQA AND NEPA - Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 93 -XX supporting the Elsmere Canyon Solid Waste Management Facility. 5.9 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR GRANTING CONSENT AND JURISDICTION TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES IN THE MATTER OF COUNTY LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 10006 AND COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROJECT NUMBER 201-86 - In order to provide funds for operation and maintenance of street lights which are bounded by Pathfinder Rd., Canyon Ridge Rd., Brea Canyon Cut-off MARCH 6, 1993 PAGE 3 Rd., and Peaceful Hills Rd., it is necessary to incorporate said street lights into the County LMD 10006 and County Lighting District LLA -1 - Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 93 -XX granting consent and jurisdiction to the County of Los Angeles to annex street lights within said territory and direct the City Clerk to provide two executed copies to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. 5.10 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING A RED CURB ON THE EAST SIDE OF SUNSET CROSSING ROAD NORTH OF BOWER CASCADE PLACE - To enhance visibility for motorists attempting to turn onto Sunset Crossing Rd. from Bower Cascade Pl., the Traffic & Transportation Commission recommends the installation of red curb along the east side of Sunset Crossing Rd. north of Bower Cascade for approximately 100 ft. commencing from the northeast curb return. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 93 -XX establishing a red curb on the east side of Sunset Crossing Rd. north of Bower Cascade P1. for approximately 100 ft. commencing from the northeast curb return. 5.11 AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELY, CHHE CITIES OF ARCADIA, AZUSA, BALDWIN PARK, COVINA, DUARTE, EL MONTE, GLENDORA, INDUSTRY, IRWINDALE, LA HABRA HEIGHTS, LA VERNE, MONROVIA, POMONA, SAN DIMAS, SOUTH EL MONTE, TEMPLE CITY, WALNUT, WEST COVINA AND DIAMOND BAR TO CHANGE COUNTY REPRESENTATION ON THE FOOTHILL TRANSIT ZONE - Recommended Action: Approve Amendment Number Two to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. 5.12 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: RESOLUTION REGARDING THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA) PROPOSED FOR CONSIDERATION AND ENDORSEMENT BY FORMAL RESOLUTION OF THE CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOCIATION AT ITS ANNUAL BUSINESS SESSION MAY 20-23, 1993, 1 IN PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA - Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No 93 -XX regarding North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC., 6.1 CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION/ CITY TILE - Presented to former Parks & Recreation Commissioner Pat Whelan. 6.2 PROCLAIMING APRIL 8 - 24, 1993 AS "NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK." MARCH 6, 1993 7. PAGE 4 OLD BUSINESS: 7.1 POLICY FOR FUNDING TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT PUBLIC/PRIVATE INTERSECTIONS - The Traffic & Transportation Commission has recommended that a policy be established for private and public street intersections within the City. As a result, a proposed policy is being presented to the Council, based on the recommendations of the Traffic & Transportation Commission and comments by the Council. Recommended Action: Establish a policy for determining participation in funding traffic signal installations at public/private intersections. 7.2 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE MEDIAN DESIGN - At their meeting of March 16, 1993, the City Council approved the layout of the proposed medians along Golden Springs Dr. between Brea Canyon Rd. and 260 ft. west of Adel Ave. This has necessitated additional design and survey work in order to incorporate it into the Golden Springs Dr. rehabil- itation plans. Dwight French and Associates has submitted a proposal of $7,200 for the additional work. Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute contract amendment with Dwight French and Associates, Inc. to increase the contract amount from $57,340 to $64,540. 7.3 ORDINANCE NO. 02 (1993): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RELATING TO THE PREVENTION AND REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI AND OTHER INSCRIBED MATERIAL AND ESTABLISHING THE PAYMENT OF A REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO THE CONVICTION OF GRAFFITI INSCRIBERS - First reading held March 16, 1993. Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance No. 02 (1993) relating to the prevention and removal of Graffiti and other inscribed material and establishing the payment of a reward for information leading to the conviction of Graffiti inscribers. 8. NEW BUSINESS: 8.1 STATUS REPORT FROM COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE ON CODE ENFORCEMENT - Recommended Action: Direct staff as necessary. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 P.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS MATTERS CAN BE HEARD. 9.1 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 50519, ZONE CHANGE NO. 91-1 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 91-2 - The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 2.3 acre site located at 23575 Golden Springs Dr. at Torito Ln. into 34 MARCH 6, 1993 PAGE 5 individual ownership lots/units and three (3) common lots, to change the zone classification from C-1 (Restricted Business) to R -3-(15)U (Limited Multiple Residence) and to obtain design review approval of the architecture, exterior treatments and site plan of the proposed development. Continued from March 16, 1993. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, receive testimony and: 1) adopt Resolution No. 93 -XX entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 91-2 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 34 UNIT CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX ON A 2.3 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 23575 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF; 2) adopt Resolution No. 93 -XX entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 50519 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 2.3 ACRE SITE INTO 3 COMMON LOTS AND 34 CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED AT 23575 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF; and 3) approve for first reading by title only and waive further reading of Ordinance No. XX (1993) entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BY RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, HEREIN DESCRIBED, FROM THE C-1 (RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL) ZONE TO THE R -3-(15)U (LIMITED MULTIPLE RESIDENCE, 15 UNITS MAXIMUM PER GROSS ACRE) ZONE, (ZONE CHANGE NO. 91-1). 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 11. ADJOURNMENT: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION AGENDA #/SUBJECT CITY CLERK DATE: (J Ca'5T ,PHONE:. V" r ST�--4 I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: DATE: ADDRESS: PHONE: 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 D TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK AGENDA #/SUBJECT: S. (D 1�- vb\ -- C - DATE: y' � lot PHONE:, 8t)— 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: CITYCLERK FROM: _ 1�/ ISI -j C �-�� `� DATE: ADDRESS:c� 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. ignafure VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: G //�P�17 /�5 DATE:4?e�e'z, ADDRESS: /�d ..� �1�.B,�C� PHONE: ORGANIZATION: ""� �fThC AGENDA I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. I -, -, /Z z. ,, � � Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: %%✓p/l,? e ���G�1 DATE: 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. ignature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: DATE: 9� ADDRESS: Z10,5 6'qd A i�70J &L4 PHONE: /0% A 0-0)Sl ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: A10 l k4 -rtf N L /,-c � o I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. ot s ignature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK �> FROM: DATE: 7 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 TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK DATE: 041061RJ PHONE: 5)O -/L/ I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. /,-, 11 �C % y4 Signature TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLE K �( G� DATE: =�2 !�7 rv7 e '77 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. Signature City of Diamond Bar C3/31/a3 Meeting Agenda For Page: 1 April 6, 1993 1. CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 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: PASTOR DON WINCHLER, DIAMOND BAR CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1.1 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - APRIL 8, 1993 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.2 PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 12, 1993 - 7:00 P.M., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 20, 1993 - 6:00 P.M., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 5.2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF March 2, 1993. 5.2.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 16, 1993. 5.3 WARRANT REGISTER: APPROVE WARRANT REGISTER DATED April 6, 1993 in the amount of $ 5.4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 5.4.1 REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 8, 1993 - RECEIVE & file. 5.4.2 REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1993 - RECEIVE & file. 5.4.3 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 1993 - Receive and file. 5.5 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 11, 1993 - Receive & file. City of Diamond Bar 03/31/93 Meeting Agenda For Page: 2 April 6, 1993 5.6 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES: 5.6.1 FILED BY LEONCIO GONZALES MARCH 12, 1993. Recommended Action: Reject request and refer matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 5.6.2 FILED BY DONALD JACOB ROSSIER MARCH 18, 1993 Recommended Action: Reject request and refer matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 5.7 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - LOTS 72 & 74 IN THE COUNTRY Recommended Action: 5.8 GOLDEN SPRINGS MEDIAN DESIGN Recommended Action: 5.9 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR GRANTING CONSENT AND JURISDICTION TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES IN THE MATTER OF COUNTY LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 10006 AND COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PROJECT NUMBER 201-86 - Recommended Action: C5.10 CDBG BLANKET CONTRACT - Recommended Action: 5.11 RED CURBING ON SUNSET CROSSING - Recommended Action: 5.12 AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, THE CITIES OF ARCADIA, AZUSA, BALDWIN PARK, BRADBURY, CLAREMONT, COVINA, DUARTE, EL MONTE, GLENDORA, INDUSTRY, IRWINDALE, LA HABRA HEIGHTS, LA VERNE, MONROVIA, POMONA, SAN DIMAS, SOUTH EL MONTE, TEMPLE CITY, WALNUT, WEST COVINA AND DIAMOND BAR TO CHANGE COUNTY REPRESENTATION ON THE FOOTHILL TRANSIT ZONE - Recommended Action: 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES ETC., City of Diamond Bar 03/31/93 Meeting Agenda For Page: 3 April 6, 1993 6.1 CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION/CITY TILE PRESENTED to former Parks & Recreation Commissioner Pat Whelan. op 6.2 PROCLAMING APRIL 8 - 24, 1993 AS "NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK." 7. OLD BUSINESS: y 7.1 POLICY FOR FUNDING TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT� PRIVATE Intersections - Recommended Action: 7.3 ORDINANCE NO. 02 1993): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RELATING TO THE PREVENTION AND REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI AND OTHER INSCRIBED MATERIAL AND ESTABLISHING THE PAYMENT OF A REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO THE CONVICTION OF GRAFFITI INSCRIBERS - First reading held March 16, 1993. Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance No. 02 (1993)... 8. NEW BUSINESS: 8.1 STATUS REPORT FROM COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE ON CODE ENFORCEMENT - Recommended Action: 8.2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF C% DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE ELSMERE CANYON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY IF PERMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS INCLUDING CEQA AND NEPA - Recommended Action: 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 P.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS MATTERS CAN BE HEARD. 9.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR VTM 50519 - Recommended Action: 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 11. ADJOURNMENT: MLXUWZD OF THS CITY COUNCIL 44*1 REGULAR MELTING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MARCH 2, 1993 1. CLOSED SESSION: 4:00 p.m. Litigation - Government Code 54956.9 Personnel - Government Code 54957.6 No reportable action taken. 2. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Miller called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was lead in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Miller. INVOCATION: The Invocation was given by Reverend John Ortberg, Horizons Community 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: Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., requested assistance in alleviating the problems with the postal service within Area A. Jim Paul, 1269 Ahtena Dr., expressed concern that there was not a transition period given to the name change from Colima Rd. to Golden Spgs. He suggested that in the same area, a sign "Entering the City of Diamond Bar" be placed eastbound Golden Spgs. and a sign "Leaving the City of Diamond Bar, Please Return" be placed westbound on Golden Spgs. He also suggested that median improvements to Landscape District #38 include the extreme west City limits because those residents also pay the tax assessment. C/Werner, a member of the Entry Sign Committee with C/Forbing, explained that the committee is currently considering entry and exit signs. ICE/Wentz stated that a recommendation will be brought back to the City Manager regarding alternative designs for medians in Landscape District #38, which will include from Lemon St. west. Clair Harmony, referring to a comment made at the last meeting that the consultant placed double asterisks by changes made to the General Plan, pointed out that the General Plan text dated July 16, 1991 did not include asterisks for the Golf Course item or the Triangular Area item, as indicated on page I-15, item M, Plan for Community Development Land Use. The reasons those ideas were scrapped was because the community came out MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 2 in large numbers to protest it. Furthermore, because the City Clerk indicated that the petitioners of the Referendum were turned down because of legal reasons cited by the City Attorney, then the City Clerk did indeed have contact with the City Council through the City Attorney, contrary to what was said at the last meeting. Eileen Ansari, 1823 S. Cliffbranch Dr., expressed concern that the Council appears to be pro -development and that they are not sympathetic to the needs of the community. Fred Scalzo, President of the Chamber of Commerce, announced that the Chamber recently held their annual Community Retreat, which included members of different facets of the community. Many items were discussed, but the one common goal was to make Diamond Bar a better place to live, grow, retire and do business. He suggested that the general public be given the same clarification regarding General Plan issues given at the Community Retreat. Barbara Beach Cushane, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., responding to a request made at the last Council meeting to hear from individuals that are not involved in the Referendum, stated that, for the record, she is opposed to the destruction of hills and canyons for mass housing densities and commercial buildings. She expressed concern for the two lawsuits pending. 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: C/MacBride, after conducting inter- views with applicants applying for the position of Commissioner, stated that he recommended the following appointments: Michael Li, Planning Commissioner; David Schey, Parks & Recreation Commissioner; and Diana Cheng, Traffic & Transportation Commissioner. He requested that the item be placed on the next Council agenda. He then commented on how impressed he was with the parental support and participation during the recent Boy Scouts Blue & Gold Dinner. C/Forbing, in response to Mrs. Cushane, explained that the most recent lawsuit is a result of the Council's denial of a request to develop a tract. In response to a comment made by Mrs. Ansari, he explained that a property owner has a right to develop his land and that the City would have to buy his property in order for the Council to deny him a right to develop it. In response to a comment made by Mr. Harmony, he stated that a vital City has to have an opportunity to have ideas put forth for discussion. C/Werner expressed support of joint efforts by the Chamber of Commerce and the D.B. Improvement Association (DBIA) in working with the City to accomplish mutual objectives. In response to some of the public comments made, he stated that he plans on keeping an open mind by listening to all points. In his opinion, the General Plan Resolution should be rescinded, and the issues brought back for discussion to be MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 3 resolved. Some items having community -wide importance could possibly be placed on the ballot to seek public input. MPT/Papen stated that she attended the Girls Softball League's Opening Day at Peterson Park. The sports groups of this community have indicated appreciation for the response from the Parks & Recreation Department and the City Council in supporting the youth activities in the community. In response to some of the public comments made, she pointed out that the Council negotiated with Bramalea to reduce their density and donate over 300 acres to the City. All development agreements reached have great benefit in public services to the community, at no cost to the City. MPT/Papen suggested that it was time to stop dealing with drafts of the General Plan that were not approved and start dealing with what was approved and get on with building the future of our community. M/Miller stated that he enjoyed both the Boy Scouts Blue and Gold Dinner and the Girls Softball League's Opening Day. Further, he stated that he felt that the Chamber of Commerce Community Retreat was a very beneficial workshop. In regard to the General Plan, he stated that he feels that it is a good document and that since the signers of the referendum most likely signed it on the basis of what was on the petition, then those are the specific items that will need further consideration. He also stated that he will not put the citizens of this community in a position to be assessed additionally to buy property that this Council arrogantly zoned opened space. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: CM/Belanger requested that item 5.8, a proposed Resolution to accept the vacation of a sewer easement, be removed from the agenda for consideration at the next meeting. CC/Burgess stated that the Minutes of February 2, 1993 were corrected to indicate, on page 5, that C/Werner voted "no" on the request for attendance at a Sister City Conference, and that C/MacBride "abstained." MPT/Papen requested that the Minutes of February 2, 1993 properly specify, on page 11, that the motion for a "No Right Turn, 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m." was for a 90 -day -trial period. C/Werner moved, MPT/Papen seconded to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 5.8. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Werner, Forbing, MacBride, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - None 5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 4 5.1.1 Planning Commission - March 8, 1993 - 7:00 5.2.2 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.2 Sheriff's Breakfast - March 9, 1993 - 7:00 2, 1993 a.m., AQMD Cafeteria, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.3 Traffic & Transportation Commission - March Regular Meeting of January 25, 1993 - Received 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 - Approved as amended. 5.2.2 Adjourned Regular Meeting of February 9, 1993 - Approved as submitted. 5.2.3 Regular Meeting of February 16, 1993 - Approved as submitted. 5.3 WARRANT REGISTER - Approved Warrant Register dated March 2, 1993 in the amount of $528,799.46. 5.4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 5.4.1 Regular Meeting of January 11, 1993 - Received & filed. 5.4.2 Regular Meeting of January 25, 1993 - Received & filed. 5.5 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of January 14, 1993 - Received & filed. 5.6 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by State Farm Insurance on February 17, 1993 - Rejected claim and referred for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 5.7 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-09: 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. It was moved by C/Werner, seconded by MPT/Papen, to adopt Resolution No. 93-09 entitled: 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. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, MacBRide, Forbing, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 5 MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 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. l 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. Continued to March 16, 1993. 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC. 6.1 CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION - M/Miller presented Certificates of Appreciation to Adam Hardie and Megan Henderson for their efforts in obtaining signatures opposing the proposed MRF by the City of Industry. 6.2 PROCLAIMED MARCH 7-13, 1993 AS "GIRL SCOUT WEEK." 7. NEW BUSINESS: 7.1 RESOLUTION NO. 93-10: 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 PARK - CM/Belanger reported that the City had been awarded a $1.47 million grant, funded by Prop A funds to develop Pantera Park and that a landscape architect is required to complete the plans and specifications for development. He indicated that the Parks & Recreation Commission recommended authorization of the release of the RFP for landscape architectural services. In response to C/Werner, CM/Belanger stated that staff will move as swiftly as possible to bring the plans and specifications back to Council for approval. CSD/Rose stated that a timeline showing when Proposition A bond money will be available will be received in April of 1993. MPT/Papen moved, seconded by C/Werner, to adopt Resolution No. 93=10 entitled: 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 PARK. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 6 AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, MacBride, Forbing, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 7.2 AGREEMENT FOR SPECIAL LITIGATION SERVICES - CM/Belanger reported that the City is involved in litigation entitled Diamond Bar Assoc., Inc. vs. City of Diamond Bar and that the Council deemed it prudent to retain special litigation services to advise and represent the Council in the matter. After meeting with representatives of four law firms, it was recommended that the City retain the services of Rutan & Tucker to provide these services. It was further recommended that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the appropriate agreement. MPT/Papen requested that the attorney interviewed during Closed Session be the attorney of record to represent the City in the case and in all actions. CA/Arczynski stated that Leonard Hempel would be lead counsel and that terms and conditions of the agreement would be in accordance with the written proposal previously submitted. It was moved by MPT/Papen, seconded by C/MacBride to retain Rutan & Tucker for special litigation services related to Diamond Bar Assoc., Inc..vs. City of Diamond Bar, and direct the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate agreement. Motion carried 4 to 1 with C/Werner abstaining. 7.3 FIXED ROUTE DEVIATION TRANSIT SYSTEM - ICM/Wentz reported that UMA Engineering, Inc. was retained to conduct a feasibility study for a fixed route deviation transit system for the general public within the City on a regular basis. Phase I of the study presented the results of a questionnaire and telephone survey designed to estimate the demand if a system were implemented. Phase II of the study presented various options in funding, ridership potential, route layout, timetables, fare structure and vehicle requirements available to the City. It was concluded that, based upon an estimated cost annually of about $680,000, and using 60,000 trips estimated in Phase I as a guideline, the cost would be approximately $11.34 per passenger, requiring a subsidy of $10.59 per passenger per trip for ridership. Both phases were reviewed by the Traffic & Transportation Commission who were concerned that the cost of the service would be too expensive. There was additional concern regarding the types of vehicles to be used and how the system would be funded. If funding was to be used for such a program, there was a consensus that Proposition C funds be explored. The Traffic & Transportation Commission did express either support or MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 7 opposition. He recommended that the fixed route system not be implemented at this time, but that staff explore alternatives for partial or total implementation based on ridership demand. At the request of C/MacBride, ICE/Wentz explained that a fixed route deviation transit system involves having vehicles operating on fixed routes within the City and running on known schedules, so that riders could utilize those particular fixed routes, along with other feeder routes from specific areas with the most potential for ridership within the City, to feed into that particular system. C/MacBride suggested that staff explore the possibility of assistance and cooperation from the Foothill Transit District. MPT/Papen suggested that there be some publicity in the City and in Chino Hills regarding opening of the Metrolink Station in the City of Industry in mid-June 1993. It was the consensus of Council to direct staff to explore alternatives for partial or total implementation of a fixed route deviation transit system 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 - CM/Belanger reported that the 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 (reconsider Resolution No. 92-44) or submit the matter to the voters at an election. If the Council repeals Resolution No. 92-44 or conducts an election and the Resolution is not voted in the affirmative, the matter cannot be considered for a period of one year. However, if the Council repeals the Resolution, a new General Plan can be adopted for the City without the one-year waiting period if it could be found that the new document is essentially different than what was adopted. The following items of concern have been expressed by the community in asking that Resolution No. 92-44 be subjected to referendum: the number of acres to be developed under the General Plan; objection to a transportation corridor designated in the sphere of influence area generally known as Tonner Canyon and impacts of development on the circulation system, both of which would be generated from within and outside the City. If the Council determines not to repeal Resolution No. 92-44, then the matter must be set for an election no sooner than 88 days from the date of that determination. MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 8 M/Miller suggested that Resolution No. 92-44 be repealed and that public hearings be reconvened regarding the General Plan to discuss changes to: the number of total developed acres, the number of total housing units, the removal of reference to a transportation corridor in the sphere of influence area and an evaluation of the circu- lation system impacts. Those changes should be made in the General Plan designation which are Constitutionally permissible. Staff should then be directed to prepare the necessary staff analysis, and where appropriate, secure the assistance of technical and legal consultants to provide whatever information and/or advice is neces- sary to create an essentially different General Plan based on the parameters, concerns and impacts stated in the referendum petition. Council should form a sub- committee to work with staff to be certain that the issues at hand are being addressed in an appropriate and expeditious manner. He further stated that notwith- standing any legal argument that could be posed related to the referendum process, it is critically important to move forward as a community by taking those actions which are necessary and prudent to bringing to full force and effect the General Plan. CM/Belanger noted that the wording of the petition clearly does not ask for the recall of the City Council. C/Werner pointed out that the Government Code clearly states that when a referendum is placed before the City Council, the Council can either rescind the action or the decision that caused the referendum to be circulated, or to place the matter before the electorate. Putting the matter on the ballot may not be to the best benefit of the community because the people can only vote "Yes" or "No" and if the ballot measure fails, there would be no justification to make any changes. Since the petition identifies four issues of concern, it may be best to rescind the General Plan and deal with those four specific issues, to try to settle them to the community's satisfaction through the public hearing and adoption process. Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove Dr., stated that it is the responsibility of the Council to submit this to a vote of the people. If the Council concurs to repeal the General Plan, then they should be prepared to state specifically what they feel is wrong with the General Plan, as did the proponents of the Referendum. If it is to be placed on the ballot, then the ballot should also include the following items: the election of the City Clerk; the election of the City Council by district; and an advisory measure as to whether or not there should be term limits for the Councilmen. MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 9 M/Miller pointed out that the intent is to bring the specific issue within the referendum petition back for public hearing to receive input from the community. Mr. Neely pointed out that the General Plan process did not work because the issues regarding Tonner Canyon, Sandstone Canyon and the Bramalea property of upper Sycamore Canyon were not open to public debate to allow full participation regarding decisions to be made. MPT/Papen requested Mr. Chavers, Chairman of the Traffic & Transportation Commission, to come forward and comment on what occurred at the Commission and GPAC level regarding the issue of a Tonner Canyon transportation corridor versus a highway. Todd Chavers explained that a consultant was selected, in the development of the circulation element portion of the General Plan, to prepare a technical model so that there would be a common data base for analysis, evaluation and comparison. The consultant brought forward alternative mitigation measures to improve traffic in the City, specifically Grand Ave. and Diamond Bar Blvd. It was determined that without a Tonner Canyon corridor, based with the prospect of 50,000 to 60,000 cars on Grand Ave. and Diamond Bar Blvd., the community would be unbearable and unlivable. Therefore, a transportation corridor through Tonner Canyon seemed to be a solution to help the City maintain a level of traffic congestion within the City that is tolerable. The Traffic & Transportation Commission felt that Tonner Canyon could be a potential route, whether a light rail segment, a monorail segment, or an HOV-lane-only type of segment, to accommodate the traffic. C/Werner pointed out that Tonner Canyon is identified and recognized as an environmental area of significance and that the current version of the General Plan attempts to balance both the environmental as well as future traffic issues. Mr. Chavers further pointed out that not having a Tonner Canyon statement in the General Plan would not make the issue of traffic go away or get better. MPT/Papen explained that Brea's sphere of influence already plans for development in Tonner Canyon that includes a roadway, but not through to Chino Hills. In addition, a roadway currently exists through Tonner Canyon, within L.A. County which is not open to the public. C/MacBride stated that the City has Tonner Canyon and the improvement to the 57/60 freeway as two major potentials for removing traffic from our roadways. There is a vast MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 10 difference between a roadway, or a freeway and an environmentally -sensitive corridor that might accommodate such things as paralleling horse trails, bicycle paths, hiking trails and parkways. A corridor could be built environmentally sensitive, as was done with the George Washington Parkway, if all the communities work cooperatively to do so. Mr. Chavers, concurring with C/MacBride, stated that he would lean toward development of a Tonner Canyon corridor over improvement of the 57/60 freeway because the environmental aspects of double decking an interchange through the City in that neighborhood would be unacceptable. Tonner Canyon offers an opportunity to create something the way we want and with financial benefit to the City. MPT/Papen stated that she feels that the General Plan should have included a map of Tonner Canyon specifically showing where the SEA is located so people could see the possibilities of providing another traffic outlet for vehicles without imposing on the SEA. Through L.A. County, Tonner Canyon is approximately 3,500 acres with the SEA portion at 1,000 acres, and clustered in one area. Furthermore, since there was also some discussion about other significant ecological areas in the community, it would seem appropriate to prioritize those areas that the community might give up for community enhancement and those areas that can be saved. M/Miller pointed out that the projections stated in the EIR of the General Plan indicate that there are approximately 6,300 units potentially buildable in the City. MPT/Papen stated that the Council has many ways of implementing controlled and planned growth that is environmentally sensitive in this community. Clair Harmony stated that the Council should take care to hear the people during public hearings if the City decides to repeal the General .Plan. M/Miller explained that he will be abstaining from hearings or any processing of the South Pointe Master Plan because of his prior involvement as an owner in that area. That information and the sale of that property was given to the City Attorney. Though the City Attorney indicated that there is no legal conflict of interest, M/Miller decided to abstain from the process because of his professional and personal relationship with ,Ian Dabney, JC Dabney & Associates, who is currently working for one of the land owners involved in the process. MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 11 M/Miller then pointed out that the Tonner Canyon property that is being referred to is not in Diamond Bar and that it is the decision of the Boy Scouts of America to either stay with L.A. County or be part of this community. Furthermore, any road that may go through Tonner Canyon would have to be with the cooperation of the Boy Scouts. The concept of leaving the language in the General Plan is to allow for that option to be considered in the future so it can be discussed. Fred Scalzo, President of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that in the best interest of the business community's commitment to prosperity and the community at large, it is vital that the Council find the quickest and most equitable solutions to the issues of the petition. If it is to go to ballot, then it is important that the public be educated as soon as possible to the issues. Jack Bath, 13232 Twelve Street, Chino, representing the Sierra Club's Diversity Task Force, pointed out that the Council has been negligent in addressing the wildlife movement in the General Plan. He stated his support for the decision to rescind the General Plan. RECESS: M/Miller recessed the meeting at 9:12 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Miller reconvened the meeting at 9:18 p.m. 7.4 CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 92-44: Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fair Wind Ln., stated that he felt that there had not been a great enough attempt made by the transportation authority of the City to control the flow of traffic through synchronized signalization. Furthermore, since the City's traffic condition is determined by its neighbors, the City should not be attempting to solve a regional problem with our minimal resources. Eileen Ansari, 1823 S. Cliffbranch Dr., suggested that the City look at the City of Whittier to see what they have done to get money to save certain areas or certain properties. MPT/Papen pointed out that Diamond Bar received funds from the same source as the City of Whittier; however, Whittier received more funds because they applied for a different project. Mrs. Ansari then stated that with certain modifications of the General Plan, there could be a meeting of the minds. In response to a comment made by Mr. Smith, M/Miller stated that the City is synchronizing the lights to the City's advantage to discourage cut through traffic in the MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 12 City. The problem is that the people living on Grand Ave. must also get home and go to work. It was moved by M/Miller and seconded by C/Werner to direct staff to draft a Resolution repealing Resolution No. 92-44, to reconvene the General Plan for Public Hearing regarding changes to the number of total devel- oped acres, the number of total housing units, reconsider the reference to the transportation corridor in the sphere of influence area, i.e. Tonner Canyon, and to evaluate the circulation system impacts. Further, direct staff to prepare an analysis and, where appropriate, secure the assistance of public information, technical and legal consultants to provide whatever information and/or advice is necessary to create an essentially different General Plan. C/Forbing suggested that staff first be directed to bring the Resolution back so that Council can vote on repealing Resolution No. 92-44 and then direct staff to schedule a Public Hearing as soon as possible for discussion of essential changes to the General Plan. Further, devel- opment of a City Council subcommittee, appointed by the Mayor, should work with staff to come up with ideas and proposals for discussion at Public Hearings. C/Werner pointed out that the M/Miller's motion indicated that the matter would be brought back to Public Hearing and identified the four items discussed in the petition, but does not lock the Council into those items only. He felt that the motion was adequate to satisfy the Council's objectives. He further stated that there is no need for another subcommittee and that everything should be kept out in front so as not to give any illusions as to what is to be accomplished. MPT/Papen stated that only two or three chapters of the General Plan would need to be reviewed. She suggested that staff come back with a Resolution, that Public Hearing dates be set and that the chapters to be dis- cussed be identified for discussion at a pre-set meeting date. She concurred that a Council subcommittee was not necessary. M/Miller amended his motion to exclude consideration of a subcommittee. MPT/Papen expressed concern that once Resolution No. 92-44 is repealed, then the City has a draft General Plan. The four issues identified in the motion are the four areas of concern raised in the petition and are not the only issues that can be discussed. CA/Arczynski stated that it was staff's understanding that a Resolution to repeal Resolution 92-44 is to be MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 13 prepared and brought along with a memorandum to the Council outlining the projected hearing dates, potential times that might be allotted for different areas of the General Plan and to initiate analysis of the specific areas mentioned, subject to new areas or other modifications the Council wishes to place before the staff during the conduct of the Hearings. M/Miller restated his motion to direct staff to prepare a Resolution repealing Resolution No. 92-44, to reconvene the General Plan for Public Hearing regarding changes to the number of total developed acres, the number of total housing units, consideration of the transportation corridor in the sphere of influence, i.e. Tonner Canyon, and an evaluation of the circulation system impacts, and to bring those changes back in the form of the General Plan for consideration. Staff was further directed to prepare the necessary staff analysis and, more appropriate, secure the assistance of public information, technical and legal consultants to provide whatever information and/or advice is necessary to create an essentially different General Plan. C/Werner affirmed his second to the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 7.5 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 OF A QUESTION RELATING TO REFERENDING RESOLUTION NO. 92-44 ADOPTING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - Not adopted. 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 - Not adopted. 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 - Not adopted. 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 - Not adopted. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters can be heard. 8.1 ORDINANCE NO. 01 (1993) - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADDING A NEW CHAPTER MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 14 22.78 TO TITLE 22 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED BY REFERENCE PERTAINING TO TRIP REDUCTION AND TRAVEL DEMAND MEASURES - ICE/Wentz reported that State statute requires local jurisdictions to adopt and implement a (TDM) Ordinance, consistent with the County Congestion Management Program (CMP), encourag- ing car pooling, van pooling, transit ridership and on - motorized transportation. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Ordinance and recommended Council adoption. The Traffic & Transportation Commission also reviewed the Ordinance and their comments were included in the staff report. He further stated that staff recommended that Section 22.78.20, Page 9, of the Ordinance be amended to clarify and highlight the City's compliance with the land use analysis portion within the Congestion Management Plan of the County. M/Miller opened the Public Hearing. With no testimony offered, M/Miller closed the Public Hearing. It was moved by C/Werner and seconded by MPT/Papen to waive further reading and adopt first reading of Ordinance No. 01(1993) entitled: 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, as amended. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Werner, Forbing, MacBride, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 8.2 RESOLUTION NO. 93-11: 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 - CDD/DeStefano reported that Cornerstone Partners Walnut, Ltd. requested approval of TPM No. 23629 for subdivision of one parcel into ten parcels for commercial condomin- iums. The subdivision meets or exceeds all development standards within the planning and zoning code for the M-1.5 zone. The Planning Commission reviewed the pro- posed subdivision beginning in December of 1992 and concluded on January 25, 1993 by recommending that Council adopt a resolution approving the Parcel Map. The Planning Commission augmented their actions by adding specific conditions dealing with the existing graffiti problems with some of the parcels that have MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 15 existing buildings facing the freeways. In response to C/Werner's inquiry regarding management of property maintenance, CDD/DeStefano stated that there would be a Commercial Owners Assn. In regard to uniform signage, CDD/DeStefano stated that a Planned Sign Program for this project was approved by the Planning Commission late in 1992 which allowed for a diversity of signage styles but with an overall theme complimentary to the architecture that exists within the area. The design criteria would remain and become a part of this project, even upon the individual sale of the units. It is not specifically part of the subdivision issues; however, if the Council desires, a provision could be incorporated in the CC & R's indicating that the property owners abide by the Planned Sign Program. C/Werner asked what controls the City would retain to assure that individual uses do not exceed the confines of the building, for parking spaces to accommodate the building, or the ability for the Center to continue operating without being impacted by one individual user. He also inquired if there would be any overriding management control over the uses to avoid the competition that might occur from like businesses. CDD/DeStefano stated that, at this point, the Center is 100% occupied. In most cases, any new land use would require some form of tenant improvements, which gives the City the ability to look at the ratio of parking spaces based upon the square footage of the use. Presently, there are no other means of double checking the intensity of the parking. The management issues regarding the concerns for similar land uses would be more aptly directed to the applicant. In response to MPT/Papen's inquiry, CDD/DeStefano explained that, as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act, the project is a combination of ground space subdivision and air space subdivision, and though the project is ten lots, it is better described as 14 units. The two units on one lot could have different owners. MPT/Papen expressed concern that the present property owners don't own the billboards and don't have rights to them and over the lack of adequate guest/visitor parking on the street for each of these complexes. She noted that every parking space on the street is marked reserved. M/Miller opened the Public Hearing. James Camp, Cornerstone Partners, Walnut, explained that they purchased the property about a year ago with MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 16 the intent of subdividing. He made the following responses to those comments made by the Council: his firm has provided for the Walnut Business Center Maintenance Business District in the CC&Rs which will control all of the common area, including landscaping, parking lot maintenance, sweeping, irrigation; each owner will be assessed a maintenance district fee to cover the costs; Cornerstone Partners would maintain control of the District.as long as they own one building and they plan to retain parcels #1, #2, and #3, which are multi -tenant buildings; the CC&Rs provide for the owners to have the right to vote Cornerstone Properties out, usually after all buildings are sold; the current tenants expressed interest in purchasing their respective units; the project includes the parking spaces on Yellow Brick Rd., and the District will strive to avoid reserve parking spaces; his firm will comply with State Handicap Codes by putting in those facilities that are immediately and readily available including putting proper handles on doors, adjusting access to restrooms, installing ramp access as building permits are pulled, and other requirements as tenant improvement permits are pulled. CDD/DeStefano confirmed, upon M/Miller's request, that the applicant is not required to meet the State Handicap Requirements unless a tenant improvement permit is pulled. That condition cannot be implemented as a condition of approval for the map. James Camp, in response to C/Werner, explained that they are trying to meet a demand for purchase of small buildings. Businesses want to own their buildings and there is currently attractive financing through FBA. The purpose of the Maintenance District is to provide the control that the City desires. C/Werner inquired if the applicant would object to a condition prohibiting someone who purchases a building from subleasing part of the building. Mr. Camp stated that he would prefer not to have such a restriction because too many restrictions begin to raise concerns from the buyers. However, from a practical standpoint, it will most likely not occur. Mr. Camp, in response to MPT/Papen, explained that the seller, when in escrow to purchase the property, leased it to a church who improved the building 80%, thus requiring additional parking, and as a result, encum- bered the neighboring lots. His firm has shifted that parking to lots #1, #2 and #3. There are plenty of parking spaces provided throughout the project when including spaces approved when the project was origin- ally developed 17 years ago on the private drive, MARCH 2, 1993 Yellow Brick Rd. PAGE 17 CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Werner, stated that he does not believe that any of the uses there today require, or would require a CUP. The Council is reviewing and considering approval of a subdivision of the land or the air space, not considering the land uses that are there, which may change in the future. C/Werner inquired if it would be in the City's discretion to impose some land use restrictions on this lot split so as to avoid any future parking problems or land use over-intensifications. Mr. Camp, in response to MPT/Papen, explained that at the time of the traffic study they were vacant, however, since then, those units have been leased and the park is 100% occupied. There is ample parking at the center for those tenants. In response to C/Werner's concern regarding graffiti, Mr. Camp stated that they have agreed to do whatever they could, within reason, to get rid of the graffiti problem. A 12 ft. high steel barrier had been placed on all roof access ladders with padlocks to keep taggers off the roof, 56 five gallon creeping vines for the wall will be planted to deter graffiti, and additional wall pack lighting on the freeway will be installed. In response to MPT/Papen's concern regarding the billboard issue, Mr. Camp explained that they do not have the right to those billboards, nor do they derive any income from them, and that they are held by two individuals who have the rights to them for another 10 to 15 years. MPT/Papen suggested that there should be documentation on that lease in the files so that the City knows when to give them notice. CDD/DeStefano stated that there is no information in the files regarding the specific lease, but information from the applicant that discusses in more detail the easement that allows for the operation, maintenance, etc. of the two billboards that exist. Staff was able to find from the building permits the original permits granted for the erection of the billboards in the early to mid 701s. With no further testimony offered, M/Miller closed the Public Hearing. CA/Arczynski stated that it is staff's recommendation that subsection z on page 6 be deleted from the Resolution. Further, in response to C/Werner's concern regarding condition C on page 4, stated that the point MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 18 of the condition was to alert, not only this applicant but subsequent purchasers, that trash haulers must be permitted by the City. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Werner's suggestion that the property owners also be alerted that they are required to provide facilities for separated recycling and solid waste, to be properly screened, stated that condition B may accomplish that goal. CA/Arczynski, in -response to C/Werner's suggestion that condition T, on page 6 be less vague, stated that the condition is used by the Engineering Department for any inconsistencies on the map that was not caught and are not really particular to the map. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Werner, confirmed that from a planning standpoint, the map has been reviewed for inconsistencies. ICE/Wentz confirmed that the map was reviewed for inconsistencies from an engineering perspective. MPT/Papen stated that she is hesitant to allow lot splits with irregular lines, where the private street is a separate lot, with a mixture of individual buildings and duplexes. The design of the Center was not intended to be a condominium industrial parcel and it may not be consistent with the General Plan for the design of that property. Furthermore, there does not seem to be any real benefit to the City. C/Werner stated that even though he shares the concerns expressed by MPT/Papen, there may be some pride of ownership that would result in a better use or maintenance of the property. It was moved by C/Forbing and seconded by C/MacBride to adopt Resolution No. 93-11, entitled: 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 PARCELS DIVIDED INTO UNITS A AND B, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE WALNUT BUSINESS CENTER, AT 20418 WALNUT DRIVE, as amended. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride, Werner, M/ Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - MPT/Papen ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Werner announced that Pat Whelan would be resigning from the Parks & Recreation Commission and MARCH 2, 1993 PAGE 19 that he will accept applications or letters of interest from members of the community to fill this vacancy. He requested staff to prepare a certificate of recognition for Mr. Whelan. C/Forbing stated that the City of Industry would be signing a property agreement with the Pomona Unified School District on March 5, 1993. MPT/Papen stated that a letter had been received from the City of Alhambra indicating that their redevelopment agency had filed a written complaint with the California Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the State's diversion of property taxes from cities to replace the State's constitu- tional obligation to fund public education. She requested the Council send a letter to the Supreme Court urging them to hear this matter. The Council concurred. 10. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Miller adjourned the meeting at 10:39 p.m. ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, CMC/AAE City Clerk MINUTES OF THE CITY COMCTL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 1511ArT MARCH 16, 1993 1. CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 P.M. Litigation - Government Code 54956.9 Personnel - Government Code 54957.6 C/Werner was not in attendance for the Closed Session. No reportable action taken. 2. CALL TO ORDER: M/Miller called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by MPT/Papen. INVOCATION: The invocation was presented by Reverend Robert Clayton from Diamond Bar Worship Center. ROLL CALL: Mayor Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen Forbing, MacBride and Werner. Also present Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer; Bob Rose, Community Services Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., expressed concern for the proposed South Pointe Master Plan development and destruction of Sandstone Canyon. Clair Harmony, 24139 Afamado Ln., expressed concern for some of the fiscal liabilities that the City may be facing with the development of the South Pointe project. He stated that there needs to be due diligence on the part of the City to assure that the developers in the project can comply and complete their end of the project. Joyce Hill„ 1836 Shaded Wood Rd., expressed concern that the full ramifications of the South Pointe Master Plan have not been made clear to all of the citizens. It appears that one group of citizens is being pitted against another in order for the entire South Pointe Master Plan to be approved. She felt that the school project should be separated from the Master Plan, with direction from the City to have the*dirt removed and as much of Sandstone Canyon preserved. George Barrett, 1884 Shaded Wood Rd., suggested that development in Diamond Bar slow down so that the City has an opportunity to mitigate the traffic problems and air quality concerns. He then inquired if the City circulated a petition asking for help from the Little League to support the South Pointe Master Plan project. M/Miller indicated that he is not aware of anyone from the City asking for any help from the Little League. MARCH 16, 1993 PAGE 2 C/Werner requested a copy of the Little League petition and directed staff to investigate the issue. Darryll Fong, 20879 Missionary Ridge, stated that the vast majority of citizens do not support the South Pointe Master Plan development and that the general consensus is that the City is already over built. He expressed the following concerns: increase in noise, traffic and crime; more graffiti; already overcrowded elementary schools; mud slides; decline in property values and destruction of Sandstone Canyon. M/Miller, upon receiving the petition from the Little League from staff, stated that it appeared that the Little League asked for support on their position regarding the South Pointe Master Plan issue and the proposed MRF in the City of Industry, both of which affects the City. MPT/Papen stated that she attended a meeting with the sports group in which the Chairman of the Parks & Recreation Commission and staff were available to discuss the proposed project and answer any questions. At no time did any staff member approach the group or ask them to circulate a petition in favor of approving the South Pointe Master Plan., Michael Schneider, 1100 Pebblewood Dr., stated that the sign posted on Rolling Knoll at Grand Ave. is not clearly visible. The City did not offer any warning or notice to the citizens regarding the installation of this sign. It is not appro- priate for the City to deny use of a public street to the citizens. M/Miller explained that the signs have been installed for a 90 -day trial period and will be reviewed in June of 1993. Rick Pousard, 867 Deer Flats, San Dimas, Branch Manager for Security Pacific Bank located at 1196 S. Diamond Bar Blvd., stated that he did not receive notification from the City of any intention to change accounts from Security Pacific, soon to be Bank of America, to First Interstate. Bank of America has a commitment to the City and once the change over has occurred, the Bank will operate in a manner that will take care of the City accounts. He requested a six month trial period to demonstrate the type of service they can provide to the City. Barbara Beach Cushane, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., speaking on behalf of a member of the Pathfinder Community Assn., commented on remarks made by CDD/DeStefano in an article in the March 7, 1993 issue of the LA Times. She inquired how staff and the Planning Commission can consider the increase traffic, noise, pollution, crowded parks and recreational facilities as well as complete destruction of the few remain- ing open spaces, a benefit to the community. On her own behalf, Mrs. Cushane pointed out that the petition circulated MARCH 16, 1993 PAGE 3 by the Little League clearly states that the City is asking for the Little League's help. William Gross, 21637 High Bluff Rd., suggested that the Council create an opportunity in the EIR hearing for people to prepare non-technical questions and express their opinion regarding the direction the City should be spending its efforts and resources. If it is not done during the EIR hearings, then an opportunity should be provided during the Public Comment portion of the agenda. Martha Bruske, 600 S. Great Bend Dr., expressed her opinion that the City should consider remaining with Security Pacific/Bank of America. Ed Hilden, 24085 Willow Creek Rd., thanked the City Council for striving to make Diamond Bar a better place in which to live. 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: MPT/Papen reported that she went to Washington to discuss transportation needs of L.A. County and the President's Call for Projects, due March 31, 1993. It is hopeful that by June or July of 1993, the City will be funded from LACTC Prop C monies for the $50 million needed for the two HOV lanes. If freeway traffic would stay on the freeway and alternative routes for Chino Hills and San Bernardino County could be implemented, Diamond Bar's streets would not be congested. She then suggested that a Councilmember and staff become involved in the committee regarding the agreement signed by the SCAG with the San Gabriel Valley Assn. of Cities for development of the subregional elements of the Regional Comprehensive Plan because transportation and traffic is the number one issue in this community. In regard to the year-end report from the Sheriff's Department, she expressed "concern that 19% of the 14,718 calls responded to in 1992 were for false burglary calls. She suggested that the City Council develop an ordinance to recoup some of the costs when people's burglar alarms continue to go off without just cause. The Council concurred to place the matter on staff's agenda for development. She then suggested that the Council meeting be adjourned in memory of Diamond Bar resident Yung Sam Woo who was shot and killed last Thursday. C/MacBride reported that, because of the rainy season, the Southeast Mosquito Abatement District is concerned about the possible dangers of mosquitos proliferating and causing disease. If there is a concern regarding ponding, call (310) 927-6526. He then displayed the City's 46 -page formal response to the City of Industry's DEIR for the proposed MRF, which includes three petitions signed by 1,279 citizens of Diamond Bar and letters opposing the proposed MRF, for the record, from the Executive Director of Lanterman Development Center to the City of Industry's proposed MRF. He stated that it must be remembered that the City of Industry is our neighbor who has provided the land needed to build the MARCH 16, 1993 PAGE 4 long-awaited high school to be located in the Tres Hermanos property. C/Werner stated that Pat Whelan, of the Parks & Recreation Commission resigned on March 15, 1993 due to transfer of his employment. He requested staff to prepare a Certificate of Appreciation for the next meeting, as well as prepare a notice for the newspaper that he will accept applications for a Parks & Recreation Commissioner. M/Miller requested volunteers from the Council to serve on a subcommittee to work on developing an ordinance to deal with the problem of false burglary alarms. MPT/Papen and C/MacBride volunteered. CM/Belanger, in response to a comment made by Joyce Hill, explained that the agreement existing in regard to the earth located on the School property is between the Walnut Valiey Unified School District and the neighboring property owner. The court is the only body that has jurisdiction, at this point in time, to direct the removal of that earth. In regard to negotiations related to the Pomona Unified School District high school site, it is important not to minimize the efforts the Pomona Unified School District has made over the past several months with the City of Industry and the Industry Redevelopment Agency to negotiate the agreement that has affected the transfer of the land. C/Werner pointed out that the City had to prepare an EIR because it is toe intent of the WVUSD and the developer to move that earth to the adjoining property, which will effectively cover over the canyon. Since there are three other property owners that own adjoining parcels who have all expressed an interest in developing their property, it appeared to be good planning for the City to orchestrate the preparation of a Master Plan. In response to a comment made by Mr. Gross, C/Werner stated that he too feels that there is a need, at some point in the Council's deliberation, to allow the public to express their concerns. However, there is a concern that, if a dialogue ensues, a property owner may feel that he has been denied due process in his application for review and approval. M/Miller requested that the City Attorney clarify the issue of allowing citizens a right to express their viewpoint without denying a property owner due process in his application. He then pointed out that since the South Pointe Master Plan project is not before the Council, it would be inappropriate for the Council to respond to issues raised. Though the public has every right to -express concerns during the Public Comment portion of a meeting, it might be more appr©priate for the public to address the Council on those issues when the process is before the Council for consideration. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Werner requested that.Item 5.5 be MARCH 16, 1993 PAGE 5 pulled from the Consent Calendar. MPT/Papen moved, C/Forbing seconded to approve the Consent Calendar with the exclusion of Item 5.5. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Werner, Forbing, MacBride, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - None ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS - None 5.1 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1.1 Planning Commission - March 22, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.2 Parks & Recreation Commission - March 25, 1993 - AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.1.3 City Council Meeting - April 6, 1993 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 WARRANT REGISTER - Approved Warrant Register dated March 16, 1993 in the amount of $271,192.18. 5.3 TREASURERS REPORT - Received & Filed Treasurer's Report for the Month of February, 1993. 5.4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of January 28, 1993 - Received & filed. 5.6 BOND EXONERATION - STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS - PARCELS 2 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP 14319 AT 22344 AND 22364 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE - Approved release of security deposit posted for construction of Storm Drain P.D. 1747 on Parcels 2 and 4 of Parcel 14819 in the amount of $311,316 and directed the City Clerk to notify the principals. 5.7 AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES FOR SPECIAL LITIGATION - Approved the letter agreement for execution by the Mayor on behalf -of the City Council. MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.5 TRANSFER OF BANKING SERVICES FROM SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK/BANK OF AMERICA TO FIRST INTERSTATE BANK. C/Werner pointed out that the City has banked with Security Pacific since incorporation and perhaps there needs to be more tolerance with the small inconveniences occurring at this point. More of an effort may need to be made to attempt to work things out. Motion was made by C/Werner to hold the item over for six months to allow staff to work matters out with Bank of America. Motion died for lack of second. MPT/Papen, who serves on the Finance Committee, stated MARCH 16, 1993 PAGE 6 that the action before the Council has been considered for over a year and has nothing to do with the merger. MPT/Papen moved and C/Forbing to adopt Resolutions 93-12, 93-13 and 93-14. CM/Belanger, in response to C/Werner, explained that there has been ongoing concern for the effectiveness and efficiency of that particular branch for some time. There has been numerous turnovers of employees and management, making it difficult for staff to establish a relationship. Though the City received a proposal from First Interstate Bank a year ago, a decision was made to wait, understanding that Security Pacific had problems associated with the transition. However, the list of problems continued, and in some cases, the problems have exacerbated. First Interstate approached the City once again, prepared to respond to the needs of the City, and staff has made a recommendation that the City consider using First Interstate Bank for -our banking services. The Council voted on the motion made by MPT/Papen, seconded by C/Forbing to adopt Resolution No. 93-12, Resolution No. 93-13 and Resolution No. 93-14. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Forbing, MacBride, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS -.None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - None ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS - Werner 5.5.1 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-12: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR DEPOSIT OF MONIES WITH FIRST INTERSTATE BANK. 5.5.2 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-13: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING THE USE OF CITY CREDIT CARDS FOR DESIGNATED OFFICIALS. 5.5.3 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-14: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING THE DEPOSIT AND WITHDRAWAL OF MONIES IN AND FROM THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 16429.1 FOR THE PURPOSES OF INVESTMENT. 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC. 6.1 PROCLAIMING APRIL, 1993 AS "FAIR HOUSING MONTH" - M/Miller presented Ralph Lakin of the Housing Foundation with the Proclamation. MARCH 16, 1993 PAGE 7 6.2 PROCLAIMING PUBLIC HEALTH WEEK - APRIL 5 - 11, 1993 - M/Miller presented Leona Pang Woo, L.A. County Department of Health Services, San Gabriel Valley Network, with the Proclamation. Ms. Woo presented the Council with a schedule of activities related to public health week. 7. OLD BUSINESS: 7.1 COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS - C/MacBride recommended that the Council approve the appointment of Michael Li to the Planning Commission, David Schey, Parks & Recreation Commission and Diana Cheng as Traffic and Transportation Commissioner. Upon motion made by MPT/Papen, seconded by C/MacBride, and carried by a vote of 4 to 1 (C/Werner voting "no" on appointment of Michael Li to the Planning Commission), the following appointments were made: Michael Li - Planning Commission David Schey - Parks & Recreation Commission Diana Cheng - Traffic & Transportation Commission Diana Cheng thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve as a Traffic & Transportation Commissioner. Michael Li thanked the Council for his appointment as Planning Commissioner. 7.2 FEASIBILITY OF MEDIAN ISLANDS ON GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, BETWEEN BREA CANYON ROAD AND THE STATE ROUTE 57 OVERPASS - ICE/Wentz reported that, as directed by the City Council, staff conducted traffic counts and solicited comments from the businesses with respect to the proposed medians. The Traffic & Transportation Commission, upon review of the preliminary layout of the proposed medians, felt that it would not be prudent to install those medians through the business section of the roadway particularly, because it would restrict movement, prohibit parking, and there is no provision for u -turns. The merchants in the area expressed the same concerns. He recommended that the medians be limited to construction on Golden Springs Dr. between 260 ft. west of Adel Ave. and the State Route 57 Overpass and that striped/painted medians continue to be provided between Brea Canyon Rd. and 260 ft, west of Adel Ave. CM/Belanger, in response to MPT/Papen's inquiry, stated that a combination of gas tax and developer fees will be utilized to resurface Golden Springs, which includes the proposed medians. C/Werner suggested that staff also utilize the funds to MARCH 16, 1993 PAGE 8 begin the median project on the westerly City limit along Golden Springs back to Gona Court. CM/Belanger explained that the funds to be used for the medians between Gona Ct. and the westerly city limits are part of Landscape District #38, and the Public Works Department has been directed to begin design of a median program. This project was instituted as a result of resurfacing on Golden Spgs. C/Forbing asked if CalTrans would soon be removing the barriers under the freeway so that the bike lane along the northside of Golden Springs can be utilized. ICE/Wentz indicated that it is not anticipated that those barriers would remain beyond the construction period. Don Schad expressed his support of staff's recommend- ation. MPT/Papen moved to authorize installation of the fully landscaped medians on Golden Spgs Dr. between 260 ft. west of Adel Ave. and the State Route 57 overpass and that striped/painted medians continue to be provided between Brea Canyon Rd. and 260 ft. west of Adel Ave. C/Forbing pointed 'out the two long sections,of medians completely under the two freeway ramps should be river rock with the remainder fully landscaped, saving the City approximately $20,000 installation and $6,500 a year annual maintenance. MPT/Papen stated that she was told that there,is sufficient sunlight to landscape because the tamps are split. This is not just a traffic issue, but a beautification issue for the community. ICE/Wentz confirmed that because the ramps are split, there is some opportunity for light so that there could be some planting in that area. He requested that staff be allowed time to come back with a recommendation'on the types of planting that could go there, or if river rock should be used. C/Werner stated that, because the area may be -unsafe and the maintenance of a lawn costly, it may be appropriate to put in a landscaping plant that would not require as much maintenance. MPT/Papen restated her motion, as seconded by C/Werner, to authorize installation of fully landscaped medians, to the degree possible, at the discretion of staff, on Golden Springs Dr. between 260 feet west of Adel Ave. and the State Route 57 overpass and that striped/ MARCH 16, 1993 M PAGE 9 painted medians continue to be.provided between Brea Canyon Rd. and 260 feet west of Adel Ave. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - MPT/Papen, Forbing, MacBride, Werner, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 7.3 ORDINANCE NO. 01 (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 - CM/Belanger stated that it is recommended that Council approve second reading by title only, waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 01 (1993) pertaining to trip reduction and travel demand measures. Motion was made by C/Forbing, seconded by C/MacBride to approve second reading by title only, waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 01(1993) entitled: 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. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None NEW BUSINESS: 8.1 RESOLUTION NO. 93-15: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY_ OF DIAMOND BAR REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 92-44 - CM/Belanger reported that the Superior Court had directed the City Clerk to certify the petition entitled "Referendum Against Resolution No. 92-44 Passed by the City Council." C/Forbing moved, C/MacBride seconded to adopt Resolution No. 93-15 repealing Resolution No. 92-44., With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None CM/Belanger then reviewed the series of.recommendations made by staff, as outlined in the staff report, related to revision of the General Plan. He indicated that it was not possible to estimate costs for the General Plan MARCH 16, 1993 PAGE 10 revision; however, he believed that the cost would be approximately $30,000 to $40,000. C/Werner recommended that the cost be limited to an amount not to exceed $25,000, or some other figure that the Council believes to be workable to achieve the objectives. M/Miller stated that consultants would be used to supplement City staff and if the amount was to exceed the indicated cost, then staff would notify the Council immediately. C/Forbing recommended that staff bring back a complete outline and report, with cost figures, that could be approved by the Council at the next meeting, as well as a schedule of meetings and locations. CM/Belanger requested that a special meeting be held if staff completes a schedule and a specific estimate of the costs and the level of participation of the various consultants -before the April 6, 1993 meeting: The Council concurred. Furthermore, staff will bring back a proposal on accgmplishing the early beginnings of the public hearing process. Following discussion, Council concurred to schedule the first public hearing tentatively for March 30, 1993 at 7:00 p.m., in the AQMD Auditorium. Council also concurred to accept the three recommendations outlined in the staff report. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., recommended. - that the Council review each of the elements in the General Plan at various public hearings, that the meetings be held at a consistent location and that the public be properly noticed of the date and time of the scheduled meetings. He then requested clarification of the first four pages of the Council's packet regarding item 8.1 of the agenda. M/Miller suggested that Mr. Maxwell meet with staff so that they can review the documents with him. Barbara Beach Cushane, 2021 Peaceful dills Rd., expressed concern regarding escalating casts for consultants involved in the revision of the General Plan. In addition, she cautioned against utilizing U1traSystems Engineers as the environmental consultant because their EIR findings are significantly different than those of noted environmentalists and of other publicly appointed agencies, specifically the, Department of Fish and Game, and it is questionable if they would be objective in this matter.:. MPT/Papen recommended that, since U1traSystems is MARCH 16, 1993 PAGE 11 currently working on a major project before the Council, perhaps another environmental firm should be chosen as staff. She then explained that she prefers to have an outside third party's opinion'to obtain reference points for discussion on the General Plan so that the issues can be resolved quickly and appropriately. C/Werner recommended that Cotton/Beland Associates (CBA) be used for both Planning and Environmental. Don Schad suggested that the original GPAC be allowed to regroup to resolve the issues at hand and save the City the expense of hiring consultants and holding public hearings. MPT/Papen explained that the formation of GPAC, the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the public hearings before the Council were all part of the public process. Changes made to GPAC's recommendations were also part of the public process. CA/Arczynski, in response to MPT/Papen's request for clarification of the comment made by Mr. Makwell regarding violations of Ordinance No. 04, stated that no particular impediment is seen to Dr. Crowley's project as dealt with by the Planning Commission under Ordinance'No. 04, unless perhaps substantial modifications are made that may have an impaot,tb Ordinance.No. 04. CDD/DeStefano stated that, in his opinion, Dr. Crowley is not prohibited in processing his project under the guidelines of Ordinance No. 04 because the project is not within the sphere of influence, is not in a' significant ecological area, is not on hillside property and the application was submitted well before the General Plan process. ; It was iiioved by C/Forbing and seconded by V,/MacBride to adopt Resolution No. 93-15 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 92-44. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: 'COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 8.2 ORDINANCE NO. 02 (1993): AN ORDINANCE OF—THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RELATING TO THE PREVENTION AND REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI AND OTHER INSCRIBED MATERIAL AND ESTABLISHING THE PAYMENT QF A REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO THE CONVICTION OF GRAFFITI MARCH 16, 1993 PAGE 12 INSCRIBERS - Sheriff Capt. Lee McCown reported that 36 graffiti artists had been arrested in the City since the middle of December 1992, of which 30 are residents of Diamond Bar and 6 are from Walnut, but affiliated with those residing in the City, ranging in age from 12 to 24 years. The cost of graffiti removal has been reduced by 37% since December 1992 by a very proactive law enforcement staff who have worked closely with school districts and the District Attorney's office to develop a standardized approach to the sentencing aspect and put the word out that Diamond Bar is not a good place to be tagging. This is a good ordinance as far as the law enforcement view point. Further, Capt. McCown announced that Lt. I4uravez is retiring from the Department and that Lt. Ray Grant will replace him, continuing to give the City the level of service deserved. Lt. Muravez thanked the City and staff for helping to make his job easier in providing better service to the community. M/Miller thanked Lt. Muravez, on behalf of the community, for his efforts. Lt. Grant stated that he is looking forward to working with the City, staff and the community as a whole. CSD/Rose reviewed the following details of the'Graffiti Ordinance prepared by the City Council Subcommittee to respond to the recent significant increase in graffiti in the City:'it provides for the enforced, timely removal of graffiti on public and private property, with t%he City accepting financial responsibility for removing graffiti on any piece of property in the City up to four times per year; it requires businesses to secure devices used to create graffiti, making. them less accessible to potential taggers. The Ordinances also consolidates existing State law and provides for higher levels of punishment for those who engage in inscribing graffiti. Input on this proposed .ordinance. has been received by the LA County Sheriff's Department, and from several businesses who would be required to secure graffiti marking devices. He recommended, on behalf of the City Council SubQommittee, that the Ordinance be approved for first reading. Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., spoke in support of the ordinance .and suggested that the City* crack down on taggers by considering a curfew for minors under' 18 years of age, requiring merchants to secure the devices used to tag and placing the responsibility on the parents of those taggers. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., noticing that E1.Monte's graffiti problem has seemed to decrease, inquired if the Sheriff's Department had noticed that taggers seem to MARCH 16, 1993 PAGE 13 move from one city to the next. Capt. McCown explained that E1 Monte has a very active graffiti removal program and that some of the elements suggested in Diamond Bar's Ordinance came from some of the ordinances within E1 Monte. Most of the taggers in the City are local children and there has not been the massive influx of crews coming in as seen in some areas. MPT/Papen read the elements of the ordinance used to combat graffiti to the audience. The City's policy can be described as "zero tolerance" for vandalism that is seen on a daily basis in the community. CA/Arczynski reviewed the following specific modifica- tions to particular provisions of the ordinance: omit the last 'two words "or any" in the second line of subparagraph 9c., page 12, and the first four words of the next line; the word "a" should read "an"in the third line of subparagraph 9c., page 12, and theword "misdemeanor" replaced with the word "infraction"; the first three wordsk,.following the word "and" in the forth line of subparagraph 9c., page 12, should be -deleted; substitute "$500.00 " for "$1,000.00 in the fifth line of subparagraph 9c., page 12, with a period after the word "dollars" and deleting the rest of the sentencef. the inclusion of subparagraph 9d., on page 12, to read, "Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation previously convicted three times under this section 9 violating the provisions of section 3bh. hereof shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 14a hereof."; and the present section 19, on page 17, would become section 20, and a new section 19 would be inserted to read, "All provisions of the Los.Angeles County vode as heretofore adopted by the City of Diamond Bar which are in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance hereby are repealed." MPT/Papen requested staff to provide the Chamber of Commerce with a copy of the revised ordinance. d/Werner suggested that staff provide a press release for publication in all of the newspapers advising the public of the consequences as specified in the ordinance, as well as appropriate information for the.. next City newsletter. 1. C/MacBride pointed out that the ordinance is a basic legal foundation describing the attitude of the community, which is zero tolerance in Diamond Bar for graffiti 'producers, which will require community participation, as well as a creative alternative to remove graffiti impulse totally. C/Forbing directed staff to prepare an executive summary MARCH 16, 1993 PAGE 14 of the ordinance, particularly highlighting the penalties, and distribute it to every student in the school district within the City, following adoption of the ordinance by the Council. It was moved by C/Forbing, seconded by C/MacBride to waive further reading and approve first reading of Ordinance No. 02 (1993) entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RELATING TO THE PREVENTION AND REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI AND OTHER INSCRIBED MATERIAL AND ESTABLISHING THE PAYMENT OF A REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO THE CONVICTION OF GRAFFITI INSCRIBERS. Motion carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, MacBride, Werner, MPT/ Papen, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None RECESS: M/Miller recessed the meeting at 8:17 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Miller reconvened the meeting at 8:22 p.m. 9 PUBLIC HEARING: 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters can be heard. 9.1 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 50519, ZONING CHANGE NO. 91-1 and DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 91-2 - CDD/DeStefano reported that the applicant, Dr. Crowley, requested approval to subdivide a 2.3 acre site located on Torito Ln. into 34 individual ownership lots/units and three (3)' common lots, to change the zone classification from C-1 (Restricted Business) to Zone R -3-(15)U (Limited Multiple Residence) and to obtain design review of the architecture, exterior treatments and site plan of the proposed development. He recommended that the Council approve the project with the zone change and conditions listed on the proposed resolutions. At the request of C/Werner, CDD/DeStefano stated that the ratio of trash bins to dwelling units is a result of the design review process. Formulas used by some cities; however, the formulas may change depending upon the number of times the refuse disposal company visits the site and empties the bins. C/Werner stated that he perceives congregate trash to be used for..multiple family apartment* types with the individual trash collection for ownership types of development. Since the developer indicated condominiums for ownership, then perhaps trash facilities should be designed as such... However, this item can -be discussed at the time of deliberation on the project. ' MARCH 16, 1993 PAGE 15 MPT/Papen indicated that she does not see a problem with allowing the developer to have individual trash pickup for the development, if so desired, and to not be restricted by the Council. M/Miller expressed concern that the loop circulation system uses a tremendous amount of available open space on the 2.3 acre site. He also noticed that the units are designed without a bathroom on the first floor. M/Miller opened the Public Hearing. Max Maxwell., 3211 Bent Twig Ln., indicated that he felt that the project was not in accordance with Ordinance No. 04 and that perhaps a decision on the project should not be made tonight. Martha Bruske expressed concern for the 'density of the project. It is believed that crime increases as apartment dwellings increases. Dr. Ron Crowley, the applicant, stated that the original design did have individual trash pickup based upon the suggestion made by the trash disposal companies. However, upon the wishes of the Planning Commission, the plan was modified. The loop circulation system was also a consequence of the wishes of the Planning Commission because they desired the units to face inward instead of facing totaard thg perimeter of the property. As a further result, tyre style of the units had to be changed, omitting the bathroom. The following studies were conducted at the request of staff and the Planning Commission: a pricing study conducted by the Meyers Group which indicated that there is a need for more attached homes; a sewer area study, conducted by ACM Environmental Services, which indicated that all the facilities' either have adequate capacity to -dandle unexpected flow, or will be expanded in the future to meet the community's needs; a traffic study, conducted by Weston, Pringle and Associates, which indicated that the Torito Ln./Golden Springs Rd., intersection is primarily used by motorists to get into the Vons Shopping Center and this project made an insignificant traffic impact; a Geological and Soils Condition Study on site 'Indicated that it will be necessary to remove approximately 26 ft.' of soil, replace it, and recompact it in order to build this project or any project on this site; and a Fiscal Impact Analysis of Alternative Uses of the 2.3 acres for the site, conducted by Alfred Gobar and Associates, which indicated that retail development at the site, will generate a negligible net increase in retail -sales revenues received by the City and dilute current ievels of taxable sales for existing City based retail merchants. He then expressed concern that the City Engineer requested that he contribute $12',500 toward MARCH 16, 1993 PAGE 16 signal phasing requirements of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Golden Springs Rd., a bond for $40,000 toward resurfacing Torito Ln., a bond for $125,000 toward signalization of Golden Springs Rd. and Torito Ln. in the event that it is deemed necessary as well as requested by the Pomona Unified School District that, as a condition of approval, he be required to pay $254,457 to the District to help mitigate the cost of adding new students. Dr. Crowley, in response to C/Werner, indicated that he would be willing to have the Council review some of the previous plans submitted and determine which one is satisfactory. Through the process, the project seems to have become less attractive and operative. MPT/Papen inquired how the Planning Commission determined that this project would not be suitable for senior citizen heusing since it is within walking distance to shopping, banks, restaurants and public transportation. CDD/DeStefano stated that the concerns of. the Planning Commission .regarding the 80 -unit senior housing project was related'to the overall design, parking lot,layouts, the ability to maneuver within the subterranean,parking structure and the density. The'project was redesigned substantially to comply more with the 16 units per acre General Plan recommendation coming from GPAC, the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council. C/MacBride concurred that the earlier plan's submitted by Dr. Crowley, regarding senior housing, should be reviewed once again, especially considering the State mandates which encourage affordable housing for all elements of the community. f C/Werner expressed concern that the General Plan, at this point, is not in a position to tolerate -uch intensifi- cation of density and is being suggested. He stated that 'he thought that reviewing earlier plans meant reviewing plans with similar land use intensity with more green space. The applicant would have to express his willing- ness to extend the additional time in the process, 6articularly since an 80 unit project may be controversial and there are not guarantees. M•/Miller inquired if the applicant would be amenable if the Council carried the matter over to .the next Council meeting to allow 'for dialogue and review by the City Council's -Development Subcommittee of" earlier plans submitted. Dr. Crowley stated that he was willing to carry the matter over to the next meeting. MPT/Papen noted that there is a consensus of the Council MARCH 16, 1993 PAGE 17 that there should be more green space within the project. She then inquired if there are density bonuses offered in the General Plan for senior/low to moderate housing. CDD/DeStefano stated that there are provisions within the General Plan, particularly within the Housing Element, that allows for a density bonus, in accordance with a few additional State laws, which permits the City to allow for density increases when certain percentages of the project are set aside for very low/low/and moderate income families. MPT/Papen requested the Community Development Department to determine the exact density bonus allowed for a senior housing project. Though an 80 unit project may be too dense, the City should not rule out senior housing. M/Miller, in response to C/Werner, explained that the Development Subcommittee is to meet with Dr. Crowley to have his exact understanding, and to meet with staff to form and uiderstand the process that occurred regarding the project. MPT/Papen. explained to the applicant that the Council will make a•decision at the next Council meeting whether to go forward with the senior housing or go forward with another design. With no further teptimony offered, M/Miller closed the Public Hearing. t Dr. Crowley stated that he waives the provision of the. Permit Streamlining Act and the Subdivision Map Act to continue the matter to the next meeting. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Forbing announced that the City's Fourth Anniversety Party" -is scheduled for April 18, 1993. 11. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to -conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. in memory of Yong Sam Woo. ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: April 6, 1993 REPORT DATE: March 1$, 1993 FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer TITLE: Approval of Lot Line Adjustment Between Lots No. 72 and 73 of Tract Map No. 30578 located at 2846 and 2834 Wagon Train Lane. SUMMARY: This Lot Line Adjustment is between Lots 72 and 73 of Tract Map No. 30578 at 2846 and 2834 Wagon Train Lane. The Lot Line Adjustment has now been submitted to the City of Diamond Bar for approval. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council (1) approve the attached Lot Line Adjustment; (2) authorize signature of related documents; and (3) direct the City Clerk to process the Lot Line Adjustment for recordation. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report X Resolution Ordinances(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other: Certificate of Compliance _ Agreement: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 415 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? X. Yes _ No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? Yes X No , Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? —2LYes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: Planning Department REVIEWED BY: 4er—rence L. Belanger City Manager CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: April 6, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment Between Lot No.s 72 and 73 of Tract Map 30578. ISSUE STATEMENT Approve the Lot Line Adjustment Between Lot No.s 72 and 73 of Tract Map 30578 located at 2846 and 2834 Wagon Train Lane in the City of Diamond Bar. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council (1) approve the attached Lot Line Adjustment; (2) authorize signature of related documents; and (3) direct the City Clerk to certify and process the Lot Line Adjustment for recordation. FINANCIAL SUMMARY Approval of the Lot Line Adjustment will not have any impact on the City's Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION This Lot Line Adjustment was submitted in order to adjust the position of the lot line running east/west between Lot No.s 72 and 73 of Tract Map No. 30578. A swimming pool and associated pool house with rest room is being proposed for construction on the east side of Lot 72. An existing house and ornate driveway is presently located on Lot 72. In order to tie the future plumbing for the pool house into the existing house sewer lateral, it would have been necessary to excavate an extensive amount of the existing elaborate driveway which runs east/west along the northern property line of Lot 72. Therefore, the owner felt that it would be less expensive to reconfigure the lot line between his two lots, and move it 3' in a northerly direction, thereby allowing installation of the new sewer line parallel to the existing driveway. since the properties are under the same ownership, staff does not have any objection to the request. Community Development has also reviewed the request and has found that appropriate planning and zoning codes are met. Prepared by: Anne M.Garvey RESOLUTION NO. 93--- A 3 > A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LL -93-001 TO ADJUST THE LOT LINE BETWEEN LOT NO.S 72 8 73 OF TRACT 30578 AT 2846 AND 2834 WAGON TRAIN LANE, DIAMOND BAR. A. RECITALS. (i) Patrick Kelly has filed an application for a Lot Line Adjustment between Lots 72 and 73 of Tract 30578 for property located at 2846 and 2834 Wagon Train Lane, Diamond Bar, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. ("the application" hereinafter). (ii) The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, on April 6, 1993, approved the Lot Line Adjustment. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution 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. Based on substantial evidence presented to this Council regarding the application, this Council finds the Lot Line Adjustment to be in substantial conformance with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and of the City Subdivision Ordinance and this Council hereby specifically approves Lot Line Adjustment No. LL -93-001. 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution and, (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Patrick Kelly, 15268 Proctor Avenue, Suite "A", City of Industry, Califor- nia, 91647-1018. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 6th day of April, 1993. MAYOR I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, 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 6th day of April, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST• City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar Recording Requested by and after recording, mail to: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 21660 E.Copley Dr., Ste. 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I/WE, the undersigned owner(s) of record of the following described real properties within the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, hereby request the City of Diamond Bar to determine if said real property complies with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act (Section 66411 et seq., Government Code of the State of California), and the City of Diamond Bar Subdivision Ordinance. (See attached legal description, EXHIBIT "A") (SEE ATTACHED PLAT, EXHIBIT "B") ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED �r—� BY: may` BY: f PATRICK J. KELLY MARGARET A. KELLY NAME (Typed or Printed) NAME (Typed or Printed) DATE: :�Ia�1C1 DATE: ala��a3 BY: BY: NAME (Typed or Printed) NAME (Typed or Printed) DATE: DATE: DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WE hereby certify that the above-described parcel(s) complies with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and of the City Subdivision Ordinance, and may be sold, financed or transferred in full compliance with all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and of the City of Diamond Bar Subdivision Ordinance. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY OF DIAMOND BAR l BY: BY: C NGINEER VWIJ DATE : -r A 7 DATE: ATTACH NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURES No. 5193 ACKNOWLEDGMENT aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii OPTIONAL SECTION State of CALIFORNIA CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER Though statute does not require the Notary to County of LOS ANGELES fill in the data below, doing so may prove invaluable to persons re ging on the document. C] INDIVIDUAL On 3-1-93 before me NA , TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G., -JANE DOE, NOTA YMVe PUBLIC- ❑ CORPORATE OFFICER(S) DATE personally appeared JAMES DESTEFANOESIOFSIGNER(S) TITLE(S) PARTNER(S) ❑ LIMITED ❑ personally known to me - OR - ® proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence ❑ [—]GENERAL to be the person(s$: whose name(z) iskm ❑ ATTORNEY-IN-FACT subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that he/sbwftsyiexecuted ❑ TRUSTEE(s) the same in his/bBeftsit authorized ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR capacity0tw), and that by hisR>, i tfseir ❑OTHER: signature(m) on the instrument the person(sd, or the entity upon behalf of which the =Nowypublic TARY SEAL person(*acted, executed the instrument. NNE NICE SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: — Cahbrnla NAME OF PERSONS) OR ENTITV(IES) ES cAUNTv WITNESS my hand and official seal. res MAH 31,1995 lli`n J lam/ SIGNATURE OF NOTARY,. OPTIONAL SECTION THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT Though the data requested here is not required by law, SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE a N rrw,nrAVAnt fraudulent reattachment of this form. - - - CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of CALIFORNIA County of LOS ANGELES On 3-2-93 before me, Tommye Anne Nice Notary Public DATE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E, G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared GEORGE A WENTZ NAMES) OF SIGNER(S) ❑ personally known to me - OR - [2 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(x) whose name*34 is/me subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that he/shokboy executed the same in his/Noxfteir authorized capacity(ifms), and that by his/ftiof*x:lr signature(* on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the No. 5193 OPTIONAL SECTION t CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER Though statute does not require the Notary to fill in the data below, doing so may prove invaluable to persons relying on the document. ❑ INDIVIDUAL ❑ CORPORATE OFFICER(S) TITLE(S) ❑ PARTNER(S) ❑ LIMITED ❑ GENERAL ❑ ATTORNEY-IN-FACT ❑ TRUSTEE(S) ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR ❑ OTHER: OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL person(s) acted, executed the instrument. TOMMVE ANNE NICE SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: f NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES) - o Notary l�t,l�llc—caliarrwa WITNESS my hand and official seal. LOS ANGELES COUNTY W Comm. Expires AMR 31,1995 ` SIGNATURE OF NOTA OPTIONAL SECTION THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT Though the data requested here is not required by law, it could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. SIGNERS) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE 01992 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION - 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 • Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL A LOT 72 AND A PORTION OF LOT 73 OF TRACT NO. 30578, IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS FILED IN MAP BOOK 785, PAGES 1 THROUGH 25 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, BEING DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 72, BEING A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF WAGON TRAIN LANE (60 FEET WIDE PRIVATE STREET); THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINES OF SAID LOTS 72 AND 73, N. 19' 07' 36" E., 114.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE, S. 70' 52' 24" E., 407.28 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 73 DISTANT N. 37' 22 27 E., 13.69 FEET FROM THE MOST SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 73; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINES OF SAID LOTS 72 AND 73, S. 37' 22' 27" W., 13.69 FEET; THENCE S. 2' 56' 41" E., 108.99 FEET TO THE SOUTH CORNER OF SAID LOT 72; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 72, N. 70' 52' 24" W•, 443.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AREA OF SAID PARCEL A IS APPROXIMATELY 48,039 SQUARE FEET. TOGETHER WITH A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT TO BE USED IN COMMON WITH OTHERS FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER ALL THOSE AREAS SHOWN UPON THE MAP OF SAID TRACT 30578, AS "PRIVATE STREETS" AND OVER ALL THOSE AREAS SHOWN UPON THE MAP OF TRACT 30289. AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 743 PAGES 42 TO 50 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY AS "PRIVATE STREETS", SAID EASEMENT TO BE APPURTENANT TO AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE LOT DESCRIBED ABOVE IN PARCEL A. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE LINES OF PARCEL A ABOVE DESCRIBED. PARCEL B THAT PORTION OF LOT 73 OF TRACT NO. 30578, IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS FILED IN MAP BOOK 785, PAGES 1 THROUGH 25 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, BEING DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 72 OF SAID TRACT NO. 30578, BEING A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF WAGON TRAIN LANE (60 FEET WIDE PRIVATE STREET); THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINES OF LOTS 72 AND 73. N. 19' 07' 36" E., 114.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE, S. 70- 52' 24" E., 407.28 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 73, DISTANT NO. 37' 22 27 E., 13.69 FEET FROM THE MOST SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 73; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT N. 37' 22' 27" E., 112.67 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 73; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 73, N. 70' 52' 24" W., 442.56 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 73; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 73, S. 19' 07' 36" W., 107.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AREA OF SAID PARCEL B IS APPROXIMATELY 45.468 SQUARE FEET. TOGETHER WITH A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT TO BE USED IN COMMON WITH OTHERS FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER ALL THOSE AREAS SHOWN UPON THE MAP OF SAID TRACT 30578, AS "PRIVATE STREETS", AND OVER ALL THOSE AREAS SHOWN UPON THE MAP OF TRACT 30289, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 743 PAGES 42 TO 50 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY AS "PRIVATE STREETS", SAID EASEMENT TO BE APPURTENANT TO AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE LOT DESCRIBED ABOVE IN PARCEL B. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE LINES OF PARCEL B ABOVE- DESCRIBED. • EXH/.0 17- ',&" �F Z845G E?OJ4 I✓�Gcw ia.+...i L4.vE, wrx Qio. ro,.io 6n.e, GA. '40-7 ars 73 Al; 0 Ma �AW, P,'r,,CAf LLY VICINITY APAP LEGAL DESCRIPnON: A/O tuu tan " • 99 Or TROUT PD. ]o]'n mo wAi as IWr.GNI t -m DICUML 110T= • mroln 2opm: 2-1 I ��/NAtL pi/.4� dA1lt'� i0ll ii�ss i!! II I ,, L I wv++sccoc.rwsnw�.d�rri.�so'n �ecAt � Naw p5mi .t2.76 I - R L'OT�173-. .\ .s.sanaJ'.:v%s t �ILI W loo 1 -tea:.: i-- Q. o \ ♦orze' \ \ I .0 p a fi -.—, ;:� �.•..sro._ .i.'...,e z.r. ioz+ .c. Nt: , Vol \ 413 95 \ I.8 N 70']2'2.'• .N.f] � Lor 7t t1C1NtlR PFEILER k ASSOCIATES ENCINEERS 612 N. DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 (909) 595-4077 n LANDR. SU9 C / 9 .S.5343 Exp. 12-31-95 A TENTATIVE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MAP NUMBER "L1A-93-,Wl.. 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 Papen and Councilmember Forbing FROM: Linda G. MagnusonAccounting Manager SUBJECT: Voucher Register, April 6, 1993 DATE: April 1, 1993 Attached is the Voucher Register dated April 1, 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 April 6, 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 112 Prop A - Transit 118 Air Quality Imp. 138 LLAD #38 Fund 139 LLAD #39 Fund 141 LLAD #41 Fund 225 Grand Ave. Fund 250 CIP Fund APPROVED BY: $581,454.05 Fund 800.00 Fund 123.64 13,345.60 7,034.81 10,440.45 5,139.50 153,751.38 TOTAL ALL FUNDS Linda G. Mag u n Accounting Manager �V yr Terrence L. Belanger City Manager $772,089.43 Phyllis E. Papen Mayor Pro Tem J hn A. Forbing ouncilmember CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:14 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: Vice Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Li, Vice Chairman Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum. C/Plunk was absent. 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. CONSENT CALENDAR: VC/Meyer requested that the minutes be amended on page 1 to correctly indicate Commissioner Plunk. Minutes of Jan. 25, 93 Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes. of January 25, 1993, as amended. CONTINUED PT/Lungu reported that, per Commission's direction PUBLIC HEARING: at the last meeting, staff met with the applicant to resolve the issue regarding installation of Variance 92-3 & monument signs which exceed the height permitted by Planned Sign the Sign Ordinance. The applicant has requested Program 92-4 additional time, to March 10, 1993, to prepare an addendum to the application for a Planned Sign Program and Variance. Staff is recommending that the project be continued to March 22, 1993. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Hearing no testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the item to the meeting of March 22, 1993. General Plan CDD/-DeStefano reported that the project site, Amendment 92-2; approximately 171 acres, is located within the DA 92-1, 92-2, South Pointe Middle School/ Sandstone Canyon area, 92-3; Vesting generally north of Pathfinder, west of Brea Canyon TT Map 5140, Road, east of Morning Sun Drive, south of Larkstone CUP 92-8 & Dr., and south of Rapid View Drive. The purpose of Oak Tree Permit tonight's public hearing is to further the 92-8; Vesting presentations by the two consultants, hired by the TT 32400, CUP City, to review this project. The Planning 91-5, Zone Commission will not be taking any action on the Change 91-2 & merits of this project, but will be receiving Oak Tree Permit testimony, and providing comments and direction to 91-2; TT Map staff. There can be no final action on this February 8, 1993 Page 2 51253 & CUP proposed project :until the `issue of pending City'sGeneral 92-12; Oak Tree litigation ofhe then Per Lewendowski, Permit 92-9; the CDD/De firm of Ultra Systems, who has managed t e South Pointe Plan; from the & preparation of the EIR, and Hardy Strozier, of the P p independent analyst Master Planning Associates, who is the EIR 92-9. and the Project Manager. Hardy Strozier stated that, upon the conclusion of they will draw any additional public testimony, comments received fro the upon the questions and ief es t the Commission and present audience and Commission of the draft EIR. f is review determines that the information in the draft EIR the draft complete, and recommends certification of regarding the various EIR, discussion can begin The Commission can recommend entitlement issues. on of draft and take Comments certification Ai against the proposed proj CSR will be responded to in received this evening writing as part of the final EIR. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane, requested that the responses to the questions raised regarding the draft EIR be presented first to allow the audience an opportunity to respond to the consultant's responses. Sherry Rogers, residing at 2660 Broken Feather, ool President of the South Pointe Middle promised sed Community Club, stated that a school was p to the community four years ago. With the recent passing of Proposition H, the school should be under construction now. She submitted300 in pleading lettrs leading of parents and students who have South Pointe for the construction of the permanent Middle School as soon as possible. Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder Road, requested that the EIR address d e s the following to the residents issues: the change of air quality responsibility in and around this construction; p of the builder involved in the constructionof the Middle School to remove the 400,000 cubic yards dirt from the school site; can the city master plan a section of the community without hout having he General Plan for the City; and, - City be a partner in this project. CDD/DeStefano, noting that there are many in the audience that may appreciate a brief overview of February 8, 1993 Page 3 the project, and the EIR issues, recommended that the consultants provide a brief presentation. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. Hardy Strozier reviewed the eight specific elements that the project is composed of: the draft EIR, an information type document; the General Plan Amendment redesignating the existing water district property to Planned Development; three Development Agreements; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 - Arciero; Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 - Patel; Vesting Tentative Map No. 51407 - RNP three separate Hillside Management Ordinance CUP; and three Oak Tree. Removal Permit. The proposed project consists of the following: two hundred (200) dwelling units proposed within this project area, with lot sizes ranging from 6,500 square foot to 8,000 square foot; a 31 acre retail office/ commercial site; a 26 acre community park site proposed for dedication to the City; and the removal of 400,000 cubic yards of dirt from the South Pointe Middle School site to be deposited on part of the project area residing within Vesting Tentative Map No. 32400. The City has chosen to tie each one of these applications, both private and public, in one Master Plan. Mr. Lewendowski, Director of Planning with the consulting firm Ultra Systems, explained that the California Environmental Quality Act (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 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. It is also the intent of CEQA to insure public access to the decision makers so as to insure a full disclosure of the projects potential impacts, and potential alternatives that may be available to -the decision makers. The purpose of CEQA is 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 February 8, 1993 Page 4 brought forward through public testimony. The following is a brief summary of the topical issues identified in the draft EIR: Land Use Impacts The project, as o Land Use Compatibility: proposed, is consistent with the General Plan designation for the site. o Zoning: The project is consistent with the zoning designations of the site. o Hillside Management ordinance: ectTmare note be number of areas that the project but the consistent with the Ordinance, ordinance specifies that there are CUP mechanisms which allow site specific interpretation of the project Earth o Geotechnical Studies: Although unstable slope conditions on the site, there are no faults that have been identified. Geotechnical conditions that occur on the to in herare of other development properties California. Water o Surface Water and Ground Water Impacts: Three regional storm drain conduits exist. Two are sufficient to accommodate post development discharge. Those areas where deficiencies exist will be improved to accommodate future discharge that may occur from the site. Traffic t: There are 6 area wide o Traffic Assessmen intersection (Colima Rd./Brea Canyon Cut-off, Colima Rd./Lemon Ave., Colima Rd./eastbound 60 n Rd/westbound 60 freeway ramps, Brea Canyo freeway ramps, Brea Canyon Rd./Colima Rd., Pathfinder Rd. /northbound 57 ramps) which will be impacted both by the project and by cumulative development activities which will occur bet2012,ow nd the ear not ithst ndingOwhether through thee year the project is built. Air Quality Emissions o During Grading Operations: associated with heavy duty equipment and fugitive dust will create a short term air quality impact which is defined as exceeding existing SCAQMD adopted standards. o Upon Project Development: The emissions associated with the project generated traffic, and the consumption of natural gas and electricity associated with the on site uses will result in an exceedance of conditions. There are no available mechanisms or February 8, 1993 Page 5 technologies which will result in the reduction to those standards below significant levels. Biology o Existing Resources which are recognized by Sate & Federal agencies: Seven vegetation communities are identified on the property and are as follows: the riparian, coastal sage shrub, and the California Walnut Woodlands. In accordance with the. Tree.Ordinance, each Oak removed must be replaced at a 2:1 ratio in such a manner as to create a replacement habitat either on site or off site. It has been concluded that the impacts upon biological communities can be minimized to a level which is insignificant. Aesthetics o Existing Public Policy: The General Plan and Zoning indicates that the long term objective of this area is urban development. There is no clear cut direction, in other policies in the General Plan, which indicate that the change from rural to urban is a significant adverse change. However, there appears to be a need for additional mitigation measures that might reduce some of the perspectives of the site. Project Alternatives o Preservation Alternative o Higher Density Options o Lower Density Options o The Clustering of Development Peter Lewendowski explained that the final EIR contains all the information derived from dialogue, the draft EIR, and information that materializes through further analysis based upon the public testimony. The EIR is an independent document of the project, and it's intent is informational to insure that the decision makers has the environmental bases to make their decisions, and that the public has a vehicle to make their comments known through this decision making process. The EIR is not a policy document. It attempts to represent a nonbias professional, technical opinion of the projects impacts. To assist the decision makers to make a well balanced decision, public comments are needed that primarily focus upon whether or not the EIR provides a faithful and reasonable analysis of the project's impacts. Hardy Strozier pointed out that, in the CEQA process, experts, in their various fields, are asked to provide differing opinions on similar February 8, 1993 Page 6 topics so that the decision makers are exposed to all sides of the e environmental consultantwill ssue. Upon o nclusion f the review period, th return a document called a Response to Comments, to be presented at the February 22, 1993 meeting. Based upon all the written and oral comments received during this review period, formal detailed written replies will be provided on the various comments raised. Chair/Flamenbaum reopened the public hearing. Paul Bramonte, residing on Tam O'Shanter, the unincorporated part of Walnut, expressed his concern of the increase in traffic that will be created on Walnut Leaf Road and Tam O'Shanter. He requested that the EIR evaluate the need for more resi ndtherelarewelling units s ercial units many homesand businesses when currently wh vacant in the area. Elizabeth Hodges, residing at 1604 Morning Sun, Walnut, within the unincorporated area, requested that the EIR address how traffic will impact the g roject, streets in the Emerald Hills ho nd nColima/Lake specifically Colima/Walnut Leaf, Canyon. The roads in the area are steep, without stop signs, centerlines, or sidewalks. The Rowland Unified School District has written the City to express their concern for tin the safety of the children, with the increase in trafreg from the development of this proposed Prol7ect especially since there are nothey must walk in the street to get to the bus stop. Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shaded Wood Road, stated that the EIR in incomplete because it does not mention amphibians in the canyon, nor the process used to discover creatures within the canyon at night. He requested the dates and times of observation, and the names and qualifications of the individuals that conducted the observation. The removal of 97% of the vegetation in the canyon, as noted in the EIR, will annihilate everything living in that canyon. He made the following comments: the canyon contains one of the densest grove of oaks in the city; the canyon can provide studies in botany, herbitology, entomology, astronomy, and plant and tree propagation; the canyon is a cougar migration corridor; wildlife and bird lose will be horrendous; and the soil can be removed at a minimum expense (written suggestions were provided) and should be done so during t lg the the summer so that there is no audio imp o February 8, 1993 Page 7 chile1ren. Mr. Schad then presented two maps, submitted to the Commission for the record, illustrating alternative concept plans for the Sandstone Canyon area. The concept plans include such features as a children's museum, an observatory, trails, a school, as well as internal on site street configurations. Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder, requested that the EIR address the following items: the noise level, during and after construction will be greater than the noise level emitted from a home smoke detector; though air quality currently exceeds the SCAQMD standard, it need not go beyond that point, and something should be done to improve the condition, not worsen it; who will pay for further widen the Pathfinder Bridge to accommodate the increase in traffic from this development, as well as pay for maintaining all the streets in the area; since Oak Trees are very slow growing, and susceptible to dying if transplanted, they cannot be replaced in a similar manner; trees clean the air, and the removal of this many trees will affect the air quality for as long as 400 years. Jan C. Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, noting that many people are leaving after addressing their concerns, reminded the audience that since the consultant will answer questions raised following the public hearing, it may be beneficial to remain to hear some of their responses. John Anderson stated that EIR needs to address the "Country Living" atmosphere in Diamond Bar, the environmental aspects of driving down the 57 freeway and seeing cows, and the other aesthetics that this project will eliminate. The EIR should also evaluate the financial gains, of the project land holders, by building this development in our community. Joyce Hill, residing at 1836 Shaded Wood Road, requested that the EIR address the following: the current vacant commercial buildings in the City; the reduction of property values of those homes now overlooking Sandstone Canyon because the view will become that of buildings, rooftops, air conditioning equipment, etc.; what compensation will be provided in the event of landslides; the unique wilderness area -is being replaced by noise pollution, air pollution, and increased traffic, which is a problem the City has been working hard to mitigate; and consider an alternative concept February 8, 1993 Page 8 which builds the school, limits the dwelling units, and preserves Sandstone Canyon. Mike Collins, residing at 1612 Morning Sun, Walnut, submitted, to the Commission, written comments addressing concerns on the EIR. George Barrett, residing 1884 Shaded Wood Road, made the following comments: many centers, within the City are currently vacant, yet the City is proposing more commercial area; the elementary schools are overcrowded, and facilities for them are lacking; the Middle School should be built regardless of this development; the removal of the dirt should be the responsibility of the developer who put it there; alternatives to removing the dirt should be explored; and a sign on Brea Canyon Road indicates that it is a slide area. Norman Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, President of the Pathfinders Homeowners Association, requested that the EIR address the following: the California Burrowing cies in Orange County, may Owl, a threatened spe exist on the flat land to be developed by RnP; the possibility of moving the dirt to fill a hole elsewhere should be explored; 20 acres of open area is not a fair exchange for developing on this existing 139 acres of open area, excluding the school site; there will be a need for traffic signals for the future intersections on Brea Canyon; this construction will bring rattlesnakes, coyotes, and bobcats into the backyards of existing homes; and since the existing homes will be devalued, there should be a reduction in property tax. Bob Roberts, residing on Morning Sun, Walnut, opposed the opening of Morning Sun Avenue as the main residential access. Larkstone Dr. and/or Rapid View should be considered as secondary access roads regardless of the opinions of school officials, local residents, and local officials who do not find these alternatives acceptable,and w o may have a conflict of interest being in this project. Lee Doyle, residing at 20206 Evening Breeze Dr., Walnut, expressed the following concerns: the increase in noise from the freeway; the loss of wildlife; the cutting of the hillsides; and the increase in traffic. February 8, 1993 Page 9 Phil Duarte, residing on 1343 Red Bluff, expressed his concern that the size of the proposed lots, 6,000 to 8,000 square feet, is not consistent with the existing neighborhood which has an average lot size of 20,000 square feet. He submitted pictures to the Commission of deer and the canyon in it's natural setting. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing review of the EIR closed. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:03 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:25 p.m. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened to general comments. Marlene Tangeman, residing at .20671 Larkstone Dr., Principal of South Pointe Middle School, expressed her concern that the longer it takes to certify the EIR, the longer the Middle School is delayed. Carolyn Elfelt, residing at 21119 Silver Cloud, pointed out that the South Pointe Master Plan benefits the entire community, and gives our children a school they deserve. Overall, the good points, such as the school, the park, the community building, and the access road, far outweigh the bad points mentioned. Lauren Minck, residing at 2067 Tierra Loma, a teacher at South Pointe Middle School, stated that the permanent Middle School is needed immediately. Linda Bishop, residing at 1281 Rapid View Dr., expressed her opposition to accessing Rapid View to Brea Canyon Road. The area has already been impacted by traffic created from the Middle School. Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig, expressed his support that the Middle School should be built. However, the City should not conceive a Master Plan community against the wishes of a lot of people. The developer should remove the dirt at this own cost, and the City should separate the projects within the Master Plan, and stop using the school as an excuse to construct the dwelling units, and the commercial development. This project should not even be in the public hearing stages until the decision on the General Plan Referendum has been made. The proponents of the referendum have been called liars, and accused of being can artists, and the entire process has been delayed because of the City of Diamond Bar's action, including staff. February Sr 1993 Page 10 Chair/Flamenbaum requested Mr. Maxwell his cdmmentS., iF6- -h''WA issue at hand. Chair/ Flamenbaum'recessed the meeting at 9:40 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:41 p.m. to direct Chair/Flamenbaum apologized for calling a brief recess. He encouraged the audience to continue to direct comments to the issue at hand. Elizabeth Hodges, residing at 1604 Morning Sun Ave, Walnut, expressed her opposition to the attitude that the Middle School must be built at all costs, regardless of the change in quality of life of the existing community. Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder, expressed his concern that the Commission is not responding to the alternative concept plan to remove the dirt, at no cost to the City, as suggested by Mr. Beach Cushane. The Middle School should be built first, and the development at Sandstone Canyon considered separately. CDD/DeStefano stated that the City has announced this Master Plan to the community via three public study sessions, two public hearings, and the community newsletter, as a process of gathering information and reviewing this specific proposal. The Planning Commission is not the proponent of this project, but a quasi judicial body which will make a recommendation to the City Council. The City is a participant in this project because the City owns land in small pockets sthin this 171 planning acre area, and from a professional standpoint, it made sense that boundary lines of ownership be erased to look at the whole area comprehensively. The Planning Commission and staff are listening, collectively, to all the concerns that have been made. All concerns and suggestions will be responded to. John Anderson, a resident, stated that the City has a responsibility to begin holding thedeveloper elop accountable for cleaning up their project er development. The dirt should have been removed by the developer long ago. There can be no Master Plan in the City until the developer is held accountable. Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, made the following comments: if there are no significant impacts to the project, then why must there be variances, and CUP's to develop it; February 8, 1993 Page 11 these impacts cannot be satisfactory under the General Plan, as indicated, because there is no General Plan that can be implemented at this time; many people in the City are concerned with the flaws in the General Plan, specifically dealing with the situations planned in this project; there is slippage on the land bordering Brea Canyon; the EIR should be corrected to indicate that there are no "recognized" faults; is there a document of approval from the LA Flood Control; 2.0 acres of open area is not a fair exchange for the loss of over 100 acres of open area; the canyon maintains itself at no cost to the City; Brea Canyon and Pathfinder are adversely affected by this development; there is a conflict of interest because all the officials in Diamond Bar are a lead agency and developer; Mr. Arciero should fulfill his responsibility and remove the dirt, without affecting the canyon; though the permanent Middle School is needed, quality education comes from teachers and administrators, not brick and mortar, and the school can be built without the development of Sandstone Canyon; and the existing property owners were promised that the land would never be developed. Ms. Beach Cushane stated that the consultants should have responded tonight to the concerns made at the last meeting before opening the public hearing so that the audience could respond to them. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. VC/Meyer requested that the EIR address the following: address an alternative concept of constructing the South Pointe Middle School without the rest of the elements on the Master Plan; further elaborate on the items of unavoidable adverse impacts, which are air quality, traffic, and circulation, specifically in regards to mitigation measures that could be implemented to address those three areas; expand on the issue of opening Morning Sun Dr., to include empirical data that assesses the impacts of the potential traffic into that existing development, and include mitigation measures that would reduce the impact, as well as address the issue of no sidewalks, alternative designs of the intersection, and/or the elimination of the intersection; elaborate as to why Rapid View, a collector street,.is disregarded as an alternative, and is not put together in some sort of on site circulation system; the amount of dirt to be moved on site has not been adequately mitigated to a point of non significance, and February 8, 1993 Page 12 further information is needed `regarding some migration trails of wildlife; there should be further elaboration as to what the grading controls will be to insure incremental grading on the project site coordinating the three property owners; since the small wildlife, such as snakes and rodents, will move out of the canyon, during grading, and probably move into the habitat of the existing dwellings, the method to control this activity should be addressed; the circulation issues regarding the cross section for Brea Canyon should be examined by the traffic engineers; there is no provision for the cross section forBrea rea Canyon for sidewalks or any pedestrian of controls; the circulation analysis at Colima/Brea Canyon, which identified that the signals to the west, and the signals for the on and off ramps to the freeway need to work in tandem with the phasing for that intersection, should be expanded to address the various types of improvements; address the responsibility this project would have to the impacts on the various intersections and street sections; address the type of technical judgement, with respect to this project, being used to mitigate the issue of air quality to an acceptable level, understanding that it is impossible to mitigate to a level of nonsignificance; there should be more creativity in saving some of the provisions of the canyon; and effort should be expended between this project and the property owners to the south to develop a cooperative venture to save some of the significant natural environment. VC/Meyer stated that, first blush, the EIR identifies the issues arising from each elements needs and efforts to compromise, as well identifies a lot of the ways to mitigate the impacts, and impacts of urbanization. C/Li requested that the predevelopment and post development calculations, regarding water on site, be further examined in terms of public safety for further landslides, if the project is developed. C/Grothe requested that the EIR address the following: a traffic study that further addresses the on site circulation system, specifically the problem of cut -through traffic upon opening many of these streets; the area in the City's sphere of influence needs further analysis in regards to traffic impacts and needed signals; the project is similar to all the other past development in Diamond Bar, and there needs to be more creativity in it planning with effort expended to possible save the canyon; there could be more creativity in February 8, 1993 Page 13 grading alternatives of the Middle School site; and the Middle School project should be addressed as a separate element of the Master Plan. Chair/Flamenbaum requested that the EIR address the following; further discussion identifying the ways to minimize the impacts of moving 9.3 million cubic yards of dirt, as well as the actual moving of the dirt; address an alternative to removing 800 oak trees that would leave more of those trees in place; and further evaluate the impacts of removing the trees and the closing of the stream, which has been identified as mostly run off. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the comments and concerns raised tonight by the audience and the Commission will be responded to in a report, to be included in the EIR, and presented at the February 22, 1993 public hearing meeting. The Commission concurred to declare the public input portion of the meeting closed. The next meeting on the South Pointe Master Plan is scheduled for February 22, 1993. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 10:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:35 p.m. Vesting Tentative AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the Tract No. 50519, request, by Diamond Development Company, to DR No. 91-2, subdivide a 2.3 acre site into 34 individual ZCA No. 91-3, and ownership lots/ units and three (3) common lots, to DA No. 91-3 change the zone classification from C-1 (Restricted Business) to Zone R-3 (Limited Multiple Residence) and to enter into a Development Agreement with the City. The Planning Commission directed staff, at the December 14, 1992 meeting, to draft Resolutions and conditions of approval. Since the project has evolved into the present design, it is in compliance with the General Plan and the current development standards, and no specific exceptions are necessitated, therefore, the Development Agreement is no longer required. AP/Searcy then noted the following items in the Resolution that need further revision: a date change to November 21, 1993 on page 1, item A.(iv); an address correction to 23575 Golden Springs on page 2, item B.4(a); page 3 item 4.(g) indicates that notification was done in conformance to State Law; page 5, item(10) indicates the location of the air conditioning units; page 5, item(11) deals with the Quimby fees, and staff will indicate that it is the Diamond Bar code as adopted from the Los Angeles County Code section; page 5, item(14) deals with February 8, 1993 Page 14 the CC&R's and a third party mediation service, and _. staff will add the word "be" between the words "shall" and "created"; page 7, item (6) will-- the phragP, "to the r;ty's 7nf_4 4i_aL1on"; page 7, item (7) deals with on street parking; page 7, item (8) requires that written evidence of the approval from the County Sanitation be provided to the City; and page 7, item (9) will be rewritten with the concept that all standard conditions are in the separate attachment. Dr. Crowley, the applicant, stated that he accepts all conditions as stated. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Hearing no testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. AP/Searcy stated that staff recommends that the Commission approve the Development Review application, and recommend approval of the Vesting Tentative Map No. 50519 and ZC 91-1 to the City Council, as is so stated in the Resolutions. There is an additional condition that would null and void the Development Review application, if the tentative tract and zone change application are not approved by the City Council. . Motion was made by VC/Meyrove econResod tion by C/ XX Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to app for approve of DR 91-2. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve val Resolution s lu ion 93 -XX as amended, recommending app Motion was made by vC/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve Resolution 93 -XX, recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50519. PUBLIC HEARING: Chair/Flamenbaum noted that staff report, as presented, recommends that the item be continued. DR 92-6 & Variance 92-5 Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Hearing no testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. February 8, 1993 ANNOUNCEMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: Page 15 Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, -to continue the public hearing to February 22, 1993. C/Grothe requested that the South Pointe Master Plan item be placed on the agenda following any other items. CDD/DeStefano reported that he approved the following Administrative Development Review items earlier this evening: a minor exterior mod- ification to Chuck -E -Cheese; a 1,000 square foot addition to a 1,600 square foot home off of Top Court; and a new home within the Piermarini tract. CDD/DeStefano stated that Mr. Lewendowski, from Ultra Systems, has been retained by the City to review the City of Industry's EIR on the proposed MRF. The City has scheduled an informational public meeting on February 9, 1993. CDD/DeStefano stated that regarding the referendum lawsuit, the Judge has indicated that he will render his decision on February 9, 1993. He informed the Commission of the Planners Institute about a month from now, for those wishing to participate. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Li, stated that the City Council is moving toward establishing a Sewer Assessment District in "The Country Estate". Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:03 p.m. Res ctively r y U � J meDeStefano Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:12 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: Grothe, Plunk, Vice Chairman Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum. C/Li was absent. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, Interim City Engineer George Wentz, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MATTERS FROM Oscar Law, residing at 20511 Pathfinder, inquired THE AUDIENCE: what Proposition C funding entailed. ICE/Wentz explained that Proposition C funding relates to funding that is set aside for uses for street improvements to help offset increase traffic flow for cities. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the certification of Environmental Impact Report 91-4, DR & CUP 91-1 Development Review, and Conditional Use Permit No. and EIR 91-4 91-1 to develop a three phase 425,000 square foot medical plaza project that will include the following services: medical office buildings, acute care hospital, hospital support, out patient services, diagnostic and treatment center, and a Oscar Law then indicated that, through a Supreme Government has Court ruling, the Federal of improving air acknowledged the importance quality. CONSENT CALENDAR: aFi reported e General Plan CDD/DeSteconformity ing thehrelocation of the Conformity Finds g, of station located at General Plan sewer line for a future Arco gas on Road and of Brea Canyon Conformity the southwest corner Blvd., can be pulled off the Consent Finding Diamond Bar Calendar because, based upon the project's approval by the Planning Commission a couple of months ago, General Plan and the finding of conformity with the for that approval, action is not necessary. C/Plunk stated that, because she was not present at 11 be Minutes of the February 8, 1993 meeting, she w Feb. 8, 1993 abstaining from voting on the minutes. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe 8, and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of February 1993. C/Plunk abstained. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the certification of Environmental Impact Report 91-4, DR & CUP 91-1 Development Review, and Conditional Use Permit No. and EIR 91-4 91-1 to develop a three phase 425,000 square foot medical plaza project that will include the following services: medical office buildings, acute care hospital, hospital support, out patient services, diagnostic and treatment center, and a February 22, 1993 Page 2 community conference and education center to be located at 887 Grand Avenue. The agency and public review comment period concluded at the January 25, 199.3 Planning Commission meeting. The consultant is preparing the final EIR which will include all responses and acknowledgments to agency and public comments, and will be ready for review shortly. Marc Blodgett, the consultant, presented a brief overview of the environmental review process which included the following items: the submittal of the development application; the I preliminary environmental review; the Notice of Preparation; the scoping meeting for community input; the preparation of the DEIR; the Notice of Completion; Review of the DEIR; the preparation of the final EIR; and the certification of the EIR/Notice of Determination. The final EIR must consist of any revisions made to the DEIR, a Response to Comments document, a list of persons/ agencies that commented on the EIR, and any other information deemed relevant by the lead agency. The following agencies provided written comments: the Walnut Valley Water District; the governors Office of Planning Research; the LA County Fire Department; Southern California Gas Co.; the California Department of Transportation; the City of Chino Hills; Intercommunity Health Services; and a number of letters received that did not comment on the EIR specifically but stated their support of the project. He reviewed the concerns raised by residents that attended the January 25, 1993 public hearing: aesthetics impacts involving the views of the roof equipment, and the potential height of the building currently envisioned; traffic generation specifically the trip generation of Grand Ave., and the feasibility of access on Golden Springs; the noise impacts resulting from the helicopters; and the effects on property values. The DEIR has been revised to address these concerns and are reflected in the final EIR. He then reviewed the concerns identified by the Planning Commission: traffic impacts create a significant adverse impact on local streets; look at the feasibility of a secondary access to Golden Springs; air quality is a significant adverse impact; the projects potential for hazardous material spill and solid waste disposal; possibly focus the EIR on phase one, excluding phase two and three; the noise of the helicopters; contact the Highway Patrol and the Fire Department to assure that the impacts are clearly articulated in the EIR; and possible reflection impacts in the parking area. The DEIR has been revised to address these concerns and are February 22, 1993 Page 3 reflected in the final EIR. A third mitigation measure was added to the traffic set loi'upon to dicate completion of a threshold analysis, that the applicant would be responsible for providing a Golden Springs Road access prior to the completion of phase three. The City staff has identified the dedication of this easement in their draft conditions. There will be engineering o required in subsequent phases of planning establish the precise nature, contour, and use configuration of this road. Furthermo , becwill the EIR indicates that traffic and air quality be significantly impacted by this project, a Statement of overriding Considerations will be required as part of the project's certification. The guidelines developed by the SCAQMD for acceptable daily emission thresholds in terms of were used to determine the pounds per day definition of significance in regards to air quality. He displayed a chart showing the SCAQMD acceptable level of emissions compared to the project's emission level for phase one - which is one below the thresholds defined by SCAQMD; phase and two - which exceeds the thresholds defined; phase one, two, and three - which exceeds the thresholds defined; and at buildout - which exceeds the thresholds defined. He then displayed a table providing a traffic trip generation comparison of the Medical Plaza with other types of industrial uses that could conceivably be constructed on the project site. Though the project, following phase two or phase three, will generate substantially more traffic than other types of industrial or office types of uses, in phase one the Medical Plaza is not worse than any other type of use that could be seen on the site. Marc Blodgett then reviewed the following three revised mitigation measures recommended in the DEIR, which is in response to the applicants concerns: the reference to the mitigation fees for schools will be omitted; the mitigation measure No. 11, section 4.4, in Air Quality, referring to paid parking, will be omitted; mitigation measure No. 4 through 8, section 4.13, in Utilities, referring to solid waste, will be omitted because they are too is replaced by a mitigation specific, but it measure requiring the applicant to comply with all appropriate relevant provisions of the City's Waste Reduction and Recycling Element, also requiring the applicant to provide for on site separation of recyclables with nonmedical solid waste. C/Grothe inquired if the SCAQMD threshold numbers identified in the table for significant emissions February 22, 1993 Page 4 relates to the project size, the square footage of the building, the site, or to any project. Marc Blodgett explained that the thresholds are thresholds of significance typically used to gage all development. C/Grothe expressed his concern that not having a clear level of significance makes it difficult to determine if the mitigation measures are being properly addressed. Marc Blodgett stated that, clearly, phase two and phase three would exceed the thresholds for carbon monoxide and particulates, however, in the absence of such a facility, residents would have to drive to other facilities in the surrounding area, with the corresponding increase in vehicles miles traveled. It is very difficult to quantify that offset in an EIR. He pointed out that the project does work towards achieving the City's job housing balance. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the consultant use the AQMD facility as a point of reference of comparison to quantify the significance. Marc Blodgett, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, explained that, since the number of peak hour trips increases dramatically when phase three becomes operational, a secondary access to golden Springs isn't necessary until phase three. VC/Meyer inquired if the analysis, of the significance of the trips that are generated by the facility, included the cumulative affect on a circulation system that is already marginally impacted. Marc Blodgett stated that the EIR analysis did consider development in the vicinity of the project site, and it assumed the buildout of the entire Gateway Plaza area, and acknowledged the future development in the City of Industry and the City of Chino Hills. VC/Meyer, pointing out that Grand Ave., on a number of occasions, already reaches gridlock, particularly during the Christmas holidays and during traffic accidents on the freeways, stated that he derived a different conclusion from the numbers indicated in the report. February 22, 1993 Page 5 Marc Blodgett explained that staff and the consultant met with the applicant to discuss the need for the access road. Because the applicant of expressed concerns that hibitiveeforsthase the oneaccess phase would be very p p two to support the construction of the road, the preparers of the EIR determined that, given the peak hour trip generation, it would be acceptable to just have access to Grand Ave. for phases one and two. Marc Blodgett, in response to VC/Meyer, stated that most of the Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) and trip reduction mitigation measures are included under the Air Quality section. CDD/DeStefano stated that, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission and public discussion, it is recommended that the matter be continued to the meeting of March 8, 1993. Chair/Flamenbaum, noting that the third phase is not expected to be built for another 20 years, inquired if the final EIR is approved, would be another opportunity to review the project. there CA/Curley explained that there will be an opportunity to review the tiering of phases to see if there have been significant changes in the project itself, and the surrounding local. The EIR is intended to be a dynamic tool. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Lloyd Duncan, representative of Montefino Homeowners Association, made the following comments: eliminate the helipad from the development entirely, or, at least, restrict it's flight over the Montefino development or the other residential development on either side of the proposed hospital site; consider adding a lane to relieve the traffic that isal readybacked up on on the side of Grand Ave.; consider adding a the property, to provide access for emergency vehicles directly to the facility; and the air conditioning units on top of the building need to be addressed for aesthetic reasons. H then the requested assistance from the City to get hospital's soils engineer out to the site because an overflow developed onthe is slopeabove the applicant's property, February 22, 1993 Page 6 applicant, that has eroded away part of the slope holding up the Montefino development. Dick Jankowski, a resident of Montefino, expressed his concern that the height of the facility will be the same height of the condominiums, blocking all view of the residents. He also expressed his concern for the impacts to air quality. Nancy Jankowski, a resident of Montefino, made the following comments: there should not be any more development until the traffic problem is resolved; the proposed secondary access to Golden Springs will not sufficiently accommodate the traffic increase from the facility because the vehicles will continue to use the Grand Ave./Golden Springs intersection; contaminated waste removal needs to be addressed; air quality is a concern; and four stories are too high. Ed Hilden, in support of the project, pointed out the importance of having a medical facility nearby in case of an emergency. Furthermore, waste removal is not a concern because a hospital facility is very clean and subject to many regulations. Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove, in support of the project, stated that this project is part of a grander vision for the community. He suggested that the City work with the developer for use of their conference room as a possible senior center. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed, and continued to a later meeting. Chair/Flamenbaum reported that a petition with 110 signatures, in support of the hospital, was submitted to the City. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the March 8, 1993 meeting. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:28 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:53 p.m. DR 92-6 and PT/Lungu presented the staff report regarding the CUP 93-1 request, made by the applicant Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., to amend an existing Conditional Use Permit and process a Development Review in order to construct a children's play area with supervisory seating on an outdoor patio located on the northwest side of an existing one story February 221 1993 Page 7 building located at 141 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard. She then presented slides of the existing building, as well as a computer enhanced photograph of the proposed children play area addition. Though the design of the playground area is appropriate and compatible with the existing restaurant and the surrounding area, staff feels that the addition is not appropriate because there is not an adequate number of parking spaces for the potential occupancy load of the restaurant. It is recommended that the Commission deny Development Review No. 92-6, and Conditional Use Permit No. 93- 1. PT/Lungu, in response to a series of inquiries made by C/Meyer, made the following comments: the be traffic spill out into the street would probably manageable by the public; it would not be subject to the TDM because of their size, but it could be a mitigation measure; and with the proposed project, the applicant is deficient by 14 parking spaces using the City's occupancy load calculations. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum's concern for fire safety upon the elimination of the gate on the west side of the play area, PT/Lungu pointed out that there are currently two points of ingress/egress to the play area from the outside, therefore, one of them could be closed. The Building and Safety Department did not express any concerns upon reviewing this application. Mike Callahan, residing in orange, representing Carl Karcher Enterprises, made the following comments: there would still be fire egress from the building even if one of the gates are closed; the addition is not part of the building itself, but a fenced in landscaped patio area; a revised site plan will be provided showing 42 parking spaces; most cities do not use the Uniform Building Code to determine parking, but the gross floor area, therefore the parking space requirement should be under 40 spaces; most of the 11 employees the original CUP issued by park off site, legally; the County required only 42 spaces; and the size of the stalls meet City standards. C/Meyer inquired if the applicant would be willing to formalize an incentive program for the employees to encourage them to use alternative transportation modes as a way to decrease the demand for parking. Mike Callahan stated that he would be willing to suggest such a program to management. February 22, 1993 Page 8 ,Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing Y opened. Tom Ortiz, residing at 3308 Hawkwood, supported the project for the following reasons: Carls Jr. is a long time member of the City's Chamber of Commerce; they donate to the community, and sports organizations; they create jobs for the youth and senior citizens; and they generate revenue for the City. Fred Scalzo, President of the Chamber of Commerce, expressed his support of the project. The playground area would be good for their business, and in turn, for the City. Don Gravdahl, residing at 23988 Minnequa, pointed out that the private street along side of the building is in poor condition, and perhaps the owners of the properties responsible for that street should be asked to contribute to it's improvement at the time that any improvements to their properties are proposed. In response to C/Meyer, he stated that the discrepancies in the parking area may stem from the remodeling done a few years ago. However, in his judgement, there does not appear to be a parking problem at that location at this time. PT/Lungu stated that the addition, of the solarium/dining area done a fews years ago, and the play area proposed now, brings up the occupancy load, thereby increasing their need of parking spaces by code. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Plunk to approve the project subject to the following list of conditions: there should be a sidewalk to get around the play area to enter the building; mount two locking bicycle facilities in the back of the building; stripe the property for 42 spaces, attempting to meet minimum standards; street maintenance on the private street is irrelevant at this time; all of the properties on Palomino should contribute their fair share toward the signal on that intersection; and there should be direct access, such as a sidewalk, into the building from the back. February 22, 1993 Page 9 Chair/Flamenbaum indicated that he feels that the request for a sidewalk may not be appropriate, and that 39 parking spaces may be adequate. C/Meyer expressed his concern with establishing a n the precedent by granting the modlois a well standards just because the applicant ested that known, well operated restaurant. He suggested staff and the applicant meet to discussplanning a y to the p test design the parking area to meet g and legal test. He noted that 3 is better than 42 spaces that no one cwill apaces use C/Plunk noted that the addition of the play area may not necessarily attract new customers, but rather encourage regular customers to stay longer and buy more food. She concurred that the applicant should be encouraged to formalize an employee off site parking program, to locking bicycle rack, and to meet with staff to discuss an alternative using the suggestions expressed by the Commission. strategy that would be beneficial to everyone.n concurred to meet staff to a strategy C/Grothe withdrew his motion made earlier, and C/Plunk withdrew her second to the motion. Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to meet with the applicant to draft conditions of approval taking all comments made by the Commission for consideration. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:50 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:03 p.m- ZCA 93-1 C/Meyer stated that the City Engineer did an excellent job in revising the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (TDM) response review the comments made by the Commission during process. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public hearing closed. ICE/Wentz pointed out that the Monitoring Section, on page 13 on, has been amended significantly, and the entire section related to the monitoring has been eliminated giving the City the latitude to February 22, 1993 Page 10 prepare it's own monitoring program later in the process. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public hearing closed. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to recommend adoption of the TDM Ordinance. General Plan Chair/Flamenbaum submitted, for the record, a Amendment 92-2; petition with 59 signatures regarding the South DA 92-1, 92-2, Pointe Master Plan. 92-3; Vesting TT Map 5140, Hardy Strozier, the Special Project Consultant, CUP 92-8 & reviewed the following options available to the Oak Tree Permit Planning Commission: 1. Determine that the DEIR 92-8; Vesting and supporting documents do not adequately address TT 32400, CUP the environmental impacts of the project, and 91-5, Zone recommend that the City Council not certify the Change 91-2 & DEIR and direct staff to prepare the appropriate Oak Tree Permit Resolution; 2. Request additional information from 91-2; TT Map staff relative to the range of environmental topic 51253 & CUP covered in the DEIR, and continue consideration of 92-12; Oak Tree the DEIR until the additional information is Permit 92-9; the available; and 3. Determine that the DEIR and South Pointe supporting documents do adequately address the Master Plan; & environmental impacts of the DEIR, and recommend EIR 92-9. that the City Council certify the DEIR as adequate and direct staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution. He suggested that, given the lateness of the hour, that the Planning Commission just consider the EIR tonight, following the presentation to be made by Peter Lewendowski regarding the DEIR and Response to Comments, and continue the discussion on the project to another night this week. Peter Lewendowski, Director of Planning with the consulting firm Ultra Systems, explained that the California Environmental Quality Act (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 purpose of CEQA is to identify potential environmental impacts associated with that project, to identify mitigation measures that would reduce, minimize, or avoid those impacts, and bring forward, for public review and discussion, project alternatives that might minimize or avoid the environmental February 22, 1993 Page it implications identified in the envir ria ental analysis. The EIR, before the Commission, with been prepared pursuant to, and in full accordance, the procedures established by the California ro edure that Code of Regulations, which establishes a p must be followed to satisfy the intent of CEQA. There are two documents before the whimhs contains the DEIR, dated November of 1992, identification of those environmental wimpacas identified in the initial study, additional information brought forwardand rough tts analysis conducted by Ultra Systems, and received pursuant to the Notice of Preparation; 2. the Response to Comments, dated February of 1993, containing revisions, changes, amendments to the DEIR, comments received by government agencies and the public, pursuant to the Notice of Completion, as well as the minutes from the Planning Commission, Traffic and Transportation Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Commission, of the meetings that addressed this topic. The Response to Comments, and the DEIR, in conjunction with other additional information the City might include, constitutes the final Environmental Impact Report. Prior to taking action on the project, the City is required to certify the final EIR, concluding that the EIR adequately addresses the environmental implications of the project, and provides a reasonable analysis to foster informed decision. The tolannine Commission, as another alternative provide the options summarized by Mr. Strozier, can p City Council with a recommendation that differ lfrom ch may the conclusions presented in the DEIR, specific include additions or deletions to project mitigation measures, further elaboration,r n hanges impcts or project alternatives, resented regarding conclusions on significance, as presented in the DEIR. The f irm of Ultra systems, in in preparation of this document, was to provide a clear independent and objective analysis of the projects impacts, based upon scientific empirical data. It is not the function of the environmental consultant, nor the EIR itself,toestablishment ublithe policy. The EIR is an independent nd it's intent is informational, to project, a insure that the decision makers have the environmental bases to make their decisions, and that the public has a vehicle to make their comments known through this decision making It attempts to represent a ron bias process. ical opinion of the projects professional, techn impacts, and is subject to change and revisions February 22, 1993 Page 12 based upon the direction provided to staff by the Commission. Peter Lewendowski then reviewed the following additional mitigation measures to the DEIR, which is a result from the public testimony received over the last 6 week period, as identified in the February of 1993 Response to Comments document: additional mitigations concerning traffic impacts, including the widening of Brea Canyon Road to it's full width, and improvements along the property frontage; alternative solutions to mitigate post development hydrology impacts to public drain #1467, in the vicinity of Fair Lance Drive, which included three separate additional options which are on site retention, phase development, and alternative drainage solutions; based upon comments received from LA County, additional mitigation measures were brought forward which included the annexation of the project area into the consolidated sewer maintenance district; additional mitigation measures directed towards source reduction and recycling; and additional mitigation measures that are designed to facilitate the implementation of the Oak Tree Ordinance, not only in the context of the number of trees replaced, but to ensure the placement of those trees to facilitate the development of a replacement oak tree habitat. He then reviewed the following clarifications made to the EIR, in addition to the mitigation measures: it clearly demonstrates that the impacts to air quality are significant during the grading phase of the project, the operational phase of the project, and from a cumulative perspective; it indicates that Larkstone Drive is not intended as a through street, but only to facilitate emergency access in the event that additional access is required; reference to the Master Plan as a Specific Plan has been amended; and it identifies Tentative Tract #32400 as a vesting Tentative Tract. In response to C/Plunk's inquiry if there is adequate water available to wildlife, Mr. Lewendowski stated that, based upon field inspection of the property, there is standing water in the creek in Sandstone Canyon representing an opportunity for wildlife in the area to obtain water and other nutrients, as well as brush to provide foliage and ground cover. However, based upon the biological analysis of the site as a potential conduit as part of a wildlife corridor, it was concluded that, based upon the surrounding development, the site does not practically February 221 1993 Page 13 represent a linkage between this area and other open space areas, and that there are not any rare, threatened, or endangered species in the area. The loss of the water can be compensated thmight include development of the park plan, such things as guzzlers, which would ensure that there would to be water available shoulresent after developmentwildlife . continue p Hardy strozier stated that the mitigationbmeasure if in the Resource Management Plan, presented the project is approved, will be clarified to or h as include necessary facilities sucboth guzzlers, off other watering sources, to beproject site. Peter Lewendowski stated that theE R Ghat n may tee that, in addition to any p also be required from the City, permits may required from the California Department f Fish and Game and the U.S. Army CorpEngineers. In response to C/Meyer's inquiry, Mr. Lewendowski stated that, in his judgement, the changes made as a result of the Response to Comments are not significant enough to warrant a recirculation of the DEIR. The Commission does have the lfoption to add additional mitigation measures, ed necessary. The conclusions in the EIR represent Ultra Systems independent analysis of the project, and it is felt that the mitigation measures adequately mitigate the many impacts associated with the project, with the exception of air q Y and traffic. C/Meyer inquired if additional conditions could be added reflecting these mitigation measures, if the project goes forward, without redoing the EIR. Hardy Strozier explained that he 105 mitigation hen the Resolution measures will be translated, w comes back to the Commission, in the form of conditions, and those conditions will be allocated amongst the various entitlements. It is felt that there are adequate mitigation measures to von the er all aspects of potential environmental impacts project. Furthermore, staff will be adding recommended conditions in addition to the current 105 mitigation measures Additional conditions could be added regarding future review of the project, and any design modifications that may be necessary. The certification of the EIR verifies that it is an adequate informational document prepared in compliance with State law. The project February 22, 1993 Page 14 can be approved or denied regardless of what action is taken on the EIR. C/Grothe inquired if the EIR would be impacted if the project changes significantly. Hardy Strozier stated that a broad range of alternatives have been covered in the EIR, anticipating a broad range of potentialities from the Planning Commission. If there are significant changes made to the project later, there is a tiering effect where only those items relative to the modification of the project would be reviewed. Peter Lewendowki explained that CEQA establishes a basis whereby a future change in the project can be addressed after an EIR is certified. If the changes are insignificant, an addendum is included, or, if the changes are substantial, a new EIR is prepared. As long as the project does not exceed the base limits, it is believed that the environmental analysis clearly represent the projects impacts. If a much larger project is considered, then the changes of the project would have to be reviewed, focusing exclusively on how those changes differ from the information presented in the environmental documentation. C/Meyer stated that he feels that the environmental document has been adequately prepared as a foundation document, and that it adequately addresses the issues. Motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Plunk to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if the motion is to recommend certification, with the proviso that any further mitigation measures necessary be attached to the document. C/Meyer pointed out that the document includes the potential impacts, as well as 105 mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a level of nonsignificance, except air quality and traffic. The EIR addresses the issues and it should be passed on to the City Council for certification. Any other changes would include a new environmental tiering process. Chair/Flamenbaum, in response to Oscar Law, explained that discussion of the EIR is no longer open to the public for comment, however, the public February 221 1993 Page 15 will get an opportunity to comment on the EIR before the City Council. CA/Curley explained to the Commission that the they would only be recommending certification the he EIR to the City Council, and not taking final action. The Commission was presented with theth three options, which included recommending City Council certify the DEIR, recommending that the City Council not certify the DEIR, or requesting additional information and continue consideration of the DEIR. Since there was a question concerning guzzlers, perhaps, since this is not a final action, it would be appropriate if the Commission requested more information on the project determine if the mitigation measures, the monitoring program, or any other elements, are appropriate, so as to give the Commission the assurance that all the information needed has been received. However, if the Commission provided Veis feels that all the information r ate for the adequate, then it would be app p Commission to proceed. C/Meyer indicated that, to his understanding from Mr. Strozier's and Mr. Lewendowski's comments, the mitigation measures include all the information to reduce the potential impacts of the project down to a level of nonsignificance, as we understand beond those now, and that the Commission could g beyond t or particular measuresas the ditions of individual approval, or bases for denial, components of the project. Even if the Commission recommends certification of the EIR, determining that the document has been prepared in accordance with the State law, the Commission could then deny the project. CA/Curley confirmed that the Commission recommend certification of the EIR, and still deny the project. C/Meyer, indicating that he was under the impression that the Commission could not act on the rest of the project until a recommendation on the environmental document was given, inquired if a recommendation could be made at the conclusion of all the hearings. CA/Curley explained that the City typically has processed the elements of a development, the environmental finding, project approval or denial, etc., all inclusively in one Resolution. However, February 22, 1993 Page 16 this procedure is not cast in stone, and is a decision of the Commission. CDD/DeStefano noted that the Commission appears. ready to certify the adequacy of the information contained within the EIR, but not necessarily prepared to certify the adequacy of the mitigation measures presented. It is staff's recommendation that the Commission conclude the discussion on the environmental document, set aside the environmental document and the 105 mitigation measures outlined, and direct staff to begin to incorporate certification of the EIR into the appropriate resolutions. The specific mitigation measures can be put aside until the Commission is prepared to reach a decision on the project. C/Grothe indicated that he feels that the information has been adequately presented, even though he does not concur with some of the conclusions made. It is time now to begin discussion of the project. Chair/Flamenbaum expressed his concern that the 105 mitigation measures outlined in the EIR document are final, and any other mitigation measure that the Commission comes up with becomes a condition, which may not have the same force and effect. Hardy Strozier pointed out that the EIR is just a starting point. The Commission has the authority to add as many conditions to the project as desired, whether it be with a conditional use permit, a tentative tract map, or the development agreement. In fact, some mitigation measures may no longer be applicable because of modifications made by the Commission. If the Commission modifies the project in such a manner that has not been analyzed in the EIR, then an addendum or a subsequent EIR may be needed. Chair/Flamenbaum requested an explanation of the difference between the "condition" and "mitigation", and their respected impacts. Hardy Strozier explained that State law requires that we turn the environmental impact report and mitigation measures, through the mitigation monitoring program, into some force of authority, and that is done through the application of conditions. Peter Lewendowski explained that there is nothing in the document which is locked in concrete. The February 221 1993 page 17• mitigation measures represent recommendations for subsequent conditions of approval until such time as the document is certified, the project is approved, or modified in some way. Those mitigation measures are ultimately incorporated as conditions of approval. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that he is somewhat confused because he was under the impression that once the EIR is certified, additional mitigation measures may not be added. However, now Mr. Lewendowski has indicated that those mitigation measures become conditions upon certificationof the EIR. If they're called something else, there is a reason for it. CA/Curley explained that the mitigation measures, the mitigation monitoring program, are the broad definitions that can be fine tuned to respond to individual circumstance for entitlement specific approval. C/Meyer, concerned that it appears that the direction from staff is not in total agreement, withdrew his Motion recommending that the City Council,certify the EIR. C/Grothe inquired if the mitigation measures in the environmental review document can be changed or left out from the project. Hardy Strozier explained that, upon certification of the EIR by the City Council, staff must demonstrate legally that each one of these mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project, or a statement of overriding consideration must be submitted. Furthermore, there is a mitigation monitoring program in the DEIR that identifies where all the mitigation measures the found, such as the CUP, the tentative map, development agreement. C/Meyer expressed his concern that the Commission may not be allowed to make a condition because it wasn't in the EIR. He suggested that the meeting be continued to a date certain, allowing staff time to go through the legal ramifications, and come back with a recommendation. CDD/DeStefano pointed out that the Commission is only directing staff, and no official action is being taken at this time. Changes can be made at a later date if deemed necessary. February 22, 1993 Page 18 Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 11:06 p.m. to allow time for staff to confer on their recommendation to the Planning Commission. The meeting was reconvened -at 11:24 p.m. CA/Curley stated that it is recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to begin preparation of a .Resolution that would indicate that the Commission is recommending that the City Council certify the environmental document. This would not be a final action by this Commission, and it will be brought back to the Commission to make any appropriate changes is so desired. C/Grothe requested that the full set of motions and resolutions be brought back to the Commission a minimum of a week prior to the meeting. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to prepare a Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the EIR document. The Planning Commission -concurred to continue the public hearing to Thursday, February 25, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Respectively, Jbhes DeStefano Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:13 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: Chair/Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Li, Plunk, Vice Chairman Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum. C/Grothe was absent. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, City Attorney Bill Curley, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. CA/Curley reported that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to present, to the Commission, the substantive project of the South Pointe Master Plan. The Planning Commission directed staff, at the meeting of February 22, 1993, to prepare a Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the environmental document. It was not a final action, and the document will be back before the Commission, subject to further review, or recommendation. C/Li, in response to CA/Curley, stated that he will be listening to the tape of the meeting of February 22, 1993 prior to the next Commission meeting. MATTERS FROM Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane, THE AUDIENCE: requested that the public hearing portion of the Environmental Impact Review (EIR) be reopened to allow more opportunity for the concerns raised to be addressed, and to assure that the public and the Commission are fully informed of all the issues in the document. He also stated that, because he did not get a copy of the EIR until two hours prior to the February 22, 1993 meeting, he felt that he did not have sufficient time to review the document. Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, stated that she was offended that the South Pointe Master Plan item was placed last on the agenda of the February 22, 1993 meeting, obliging the majority of the audience to wait late into the evening, and then announcing that, in consideration of time, the consultant's detailed report would not be given that evening, but at a continued public hearing meeting. She stated that the consultant, Hardy Strozier, continually conferred with the developers, yet failed to confer with the public, and that the public has not been justly represented. She stated that Jan Dabney had February 25, 1993 Page 2 indicated to her that he too felt unrepresented at the February 22nd meeting. Evan Shanaught, residing at 1820 Peaceful Hills Road, expressed her concern that the Commission is not listening to the concerns raised by the public. It appears that the interests of the residents are not being served. Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder Road, inquired why the consultant is paid for by the City, yet recommended by the developers. He too complained of the process by which the February 22, 1993 meeting was abruptly ended, and then continued to tonight, without further notification to the public. He stated that he feels that the EIR is neither complete nor accurate, and that the South Pointe Middle School is being held hostage by the City so that this project could be railroaded through. Gerald Fong, residing at 20879 Missionary Ridge, reviewed the following concerns outlined in a letter he sent to the City: noise level; traffic ercial site in an area that impacts; a 30 acre comm • currently has many vacant business centers, a 26arks acre park is not needed especially when most p are usually unoccupied; the children of these developments will heavily impact the elementary schools that are presently overcrowded; the stability of the hillsides; a decrease in the existing property values; and Sandstone Canyon should be preserved. Eileen Ansari, residing at 1823 S. Cliff Branch Dr., concurred that the EIR should be further studied and discussed. Since Sandstone Canyon is part of a cougar corridor connecting with Chino Hills and Whittier Hills, the City should preserve the area, and investigate alternatives twin funding to preserve it. It appears that the project is being pushed through, and forced upon the citizens of Diamond Bar. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that, based upon the Commission's review of the project, the mitigation measures outlined in the EIR may be modified. Everyone's comments will be taken into 200 consideration, including the approximately letters received in favor of the project. The Commission will not be taking any position regarding the project until the entire project has been presented, and all public testimony and February 25, 1993 Page 3 comments from other public agencies have been received. C/Plunk inquired if Mr. Dabney was indeed offended by the process that occurred at the February 22, 1993 meeting. Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, explained that he, like the developers and the public, was somewhat offended by what appeared to be a breakdown of communication by staff during that meeting. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Plunk, explained that the City's fee for service policy requires developers to pay the costs of the services to be provided by staff. The developer, in this particular case, has paid application fees to the City in order to process the entitlement requests. Additionally, the developer is paying the City for the costs associated with the City's hiring of two independent contractors, the environmental expert, and the project manager. C/Plunk, in response to a comment made by Mr. Fong, pointed out that the parks, at times, are heavily utilized, even though at certain times of the day it appears that they are never used. VC/Meyer noted that the review of the EIR, and the entire project, will be duplicated before the City Council, which includes additional public hearings. CDD/DeStefano stated that, unlike most cities, it is Diamond Bar's policy to require projects, such as this one, to come before the Planning Commission for it's review and consideration, at the tentative stages, before coming to the City Council in which the process is then duplicated. CA/Curley stated that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines have been fully met at the Commission level. Since public hearings are not required at the CEQA level, the public hearings given already exceed legal requirement. The statutes are quite clear that there must be a circulation period, a review and a comment period, as well a period of finality to the EIR document. In response to a series of inquiries made by VC/Meyer, CA/Curley made the following comments: the Commission may recommend certification of the EIR and then recommend denial of the entire project; the Commission can recommend certification of the EIR, then recommend modification of the February 25, 1993 Page 4 project less than what is proposed; the Commission can recommend certification of the EIR, and recommend conditions which exceed the range of the mitigation measures outlined in the EIR, within the legal premise of the. entitlements; and the Council's final certification involves finding that and the EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA, that the final EIR was utilized in assessing the project and coming to a conclusion. VC/Meyer stated that specific issues regarding the EIR can be addressed during the process of review and consideration of the Master Plan, the tentative tract maps, and so forth. There is ample opportunity for the public to offer their comments for the conclusions drawn in the EIR. Tom Van Winkle, a resident, pointed out the reason there is a referendum on the General Plan, and a law suit against the City, is because there have been projects, in the past, that have been packaged poorly, sent on to the Council from the Commission level, and then made worse at the Council level. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:02 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:16 p.m- . CONTINUED Hardy Strozier reported that the review period for tentatively completed, and the PUBLIC HEARINGS: the EIR has been Commission has directed staff to begin preparation Resolution recommending certification of the General Plan of a EIR. The next process is to begin consideration of Amendment 92-2; entitlement actions presented by the DA 92-1, 92-2, the various proponents. These entitlements include the 92-3; Vesting project following: a General Plan Amendment involving a to TT Map 5140, CUP 92-8 & redesignation of the Water District parcel tentative tract Oak Tree Permit planned development; two vesting tentative tract map; lsde 92-8; Vesting maps; one Management Ordinance; three CUP's; and three Oak TT 32400, CUP Removal Permits. The three CUP's and Oak Tree 91-5, Zone Tree Wra te Permits will be incorporated into iPl Change 91-2 & Oak Tree Permit draft Development Agreements, whi h e be future date. 91-2; TT Map presented to the Commission on a then directed the remainder of his 51253 & CUP Hardy Strozier to the slides exhibited before the 92-12; Oak Tree presentation and the audience. The 78 slides to be Permit 92-9; the Commission is outlined in the staff report, entitled the South Pointe presented "Slide Presentation", which was submitted to Master Plan; & MIR 92-9. Commission by Mr. Strozier. The following is a presentation, brief summary of Hardy Strozier's the points mentioned: highlighting some of Slide 2 February 25, 1993 Page 5 o Demonstrates the location of the two blue line streams within the project site area found in the Sandstone Canyon Water Shed and the Sasek Corporation property. Slide 3 o An aerial view of the site, highlighting Sandstone Canyon, Rapid View Dr., the Arciero property, existing building pads, the large pad site for the water tank, Larkstone Dr., the location of an ample stand of pristine areas on of the location of the two the Arciero Tract h Sandstone Canyon, the two Homeowner Association ownerships, property, the Patel property, the school site, the 400,000 cubic yards of dirt, and Morning Sun Ave. Mr. Strozier, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry regarding the open space parcel located in the middle of the residential tract onPeaceful be ceful Hills Road, suggested that the quest held until the end of the presentation. slide 6 o The view south to north, standing t above n the northern part of the Arciero Tract, just Rapid View lookingmajorityofthe Oak gtOthnd area contains woodland. slide 7 to south, standing just above O The view north Rapid View, looking southerly, anionviewing the school site and the graded port site. Slide 8 o The view just above Larks looking east. The area contains ample stands of the Oak woodlands. Slide 10 ° Viewing the east side of the site, which was previously graded, as well as viewing the remnant stands of Oaks. The Arciero's 44 acre ownership identifies 333 Oaks on the site, in which 156 Oaks are identified in good condition, 110 Oaks in fair condition, and 67 Oaks in poor condition. Slide 11 o There are 449 Oaks located on the RnP site. The condition of the Oaks will be provided in later staff reports. The large heritage Oaks are located primarily in this area. Slide 12 February 251 1993 Page 6 O The Patel property has 53 Oaks on site. He pointed out Morning Sun and the blue line stream. Slide 13 O He reviewed the enclave areas: the Arciero tract taking it's access off of Brea Canyon Road; the 31 acre commercial area that has an emergency access from the Arciero tract; two to three points of access off of Brea Canyon Road from new Street A; and the school site providing a drop off point access for school buses and cars off of Larkstone. Slide 14 o There is a large open space corridor moving up through the park site and into the school site, in which there is 75 to 90 acres of open space that would be renaturalized active open space area upon the Master Plan approval. vC/Meyer inquired if the developer has submitted an alternative that would provide either no access, or emergency access only, to Morning Sun, as was requested. Hardy Strozier stated that the developer has not submitted such an alternative, however, it will be analyzed. If the Commission desires to restrict access to Morning Sun, it can be restricted the same way it was recommended on Larkstone. vC/Meyer stated that he wants to be sure that staff has that type of information available to analyze such an alternative. Slide 15 o There is access for emergency vehicles to the school site through Larkstone Drive. Slide 16 o There is ample composition of active areas on the school site with large play fields, track, baseball fields, tennis, volleyball, and so forth. Slide 17 o There has been discussion with the School district about taking the gymnasium and moving it to provide a better relationship to the proposed City Park. Slide 18 o There is a total of 28 acres that would be dedicated to the City, if the Master Plan is approved, of which 10 to 12 acres would be active play area. The illustrative plan is in the EIR to illustrate the holding capacity of February 25, 1993 Page 7 this park, and it demonstrates that there could be three full size adult softball fields, and one regulation soccer fields, as well as an amphitheater, utilizing parking access along Street A as well as the commercial area. Slide 21 o The Arciero tract takes it's major access on the collector road from Brea Canyon Road. He stated. that there is a gas valve in the area that is noisy, however, there are mitigation measures that can attenuate that noise. Slide 22 o There are 91 dwelling units on 44 acres proposed on the Arciero tract, with a lot minimum of 7,200 square feet with a pad minimum of 6,000 square feet, which is consistent with the adjacent tracts. Slide 23 o It is possible to have through access from the Arciero tract on to Rapid View, and upon Commission direction, that alternative will looked at in more detail. Slide 24 o Most of the noise attenuation from the freeway, in the Arciero tract area, accomplished by the natural terrain, however, there are 6 homes identified in the DEIR that may need some noise attenuation. That noise attenuation can be accomplished by a six foot block wall, and it is suggested in the DEIR that a site specific noise study be included with the final maps determining the height of the wall, if it is needed at all. There are a variety of lot sizes beyond the 7,200 square foot lot sizes in Arcierothe tract. There are a lot of grade breaks, employing a lot of the contour grading concepts from the Hillside Gradingordinance. Furthermore, it was also suggested that the Oak woodland composition contain a variety of trees other than just Oaks. Slide 25 o The commercial layout of 31 acres does not represent any type of plan presented, but rather a model of the type of intensity of development that could occur, and the type of traffic impact that could occur in the area. Slide 26 o The lot minimum is set at 8,000 square feet, with a pad minimum size of 6,900 square feet. All the lots have a lot depth recommendation of 100 feet minimum, and a foot width of 60 feet, side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet, February 25, 1993 Page 8 with a 20 foot front yard setback from the back of right-of-way. There are three to five different tract alternatives, for the Patel property, in the DEIR. Slide 27 o There is an existing easement located in this area. It is suggested that the access point be kept in that easement, enlargening it for transportation purposes. Slide 28 o The original plan submitted by the applicants shows a through access into Larkstone. Slide 34 o It also illustrates possible trail systems that could occur. Slide 37 o It illustrates the original submittal by Sasek in this location. Planning and Engineering staff have reviewed this submittal and identified the following problems with the technical engineering of this tract design: it doesn't take into account the large hill; and 27 lots will not work. Slide 38 o The City Traffic Engineer has indicated that _ this configuration is not a desirable situation. Slide 39 o The Master Plan is trying to ensure that each developer can develop both together and/or independently, without adversely affect one another, and maintaining some vintages of a Master Plan in terms of a circulation system, and consistent design standards when it comes to the lotting and grading arrangement. Slide 40 o This concept plan illustrates Street A teeing into Morning Sun, with a cul-de-sac coming from the RnP property, with 18 lots proposed. Slide 41 o This concept plan shows Street A teeing into Morning Sun, with a different variation of the cul-de-sac, with about 20 lots proposed. This concept plan, at this point in time,s staff's preference, and it more closely fits a better traffic engineering relationship in the Master Plan guidelines. Slide 43 o Concept Plan B would require little reciprocal grading between the RnP tract and the Patel tract. Meyer noting ere attempts, of the other proposals, to salvage some natural February 25, 1993 Page 9 areas, yet it does not appear that the Concept B proposal attempts to salvage any of the existing oak trees. Hardy strozier explained that none of the proposals, on the west side of the Master Plan, have ever proposed preservation of the Oaks. Slide 44 o It shows a better view of the homes that.. exist off of Morning Sun. All these homes that would be built in this area would not take access off of Morning Sun, and there would be internal cul-de-sacs. Therefore, the homes along Morning Sun would maintain a high degree of privacy, and the only impact they would see is an additional amount of traffic moving on to Morning Sun. Slide 45 o It will be our recommendation that we bring some of the mitigation required into this existing permanent open space area to try to re-establish the property owned by the Homeowners Association. VC/Meyer directed staff to approach the Homeowners Association regarding the open space area. Slide 47 o There does appear to be an existing corridor located in this area that could allow, in the future, some animal activity moving to and from other open space areas that occur off site. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:36 p.m- The meeting was reconvened at 9:50 p.m. C/Plunk suggested that the slide presentation be continued to the next meeting to allow the Commission time to digest what has already been presented. The Commission concurred. Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, the Engineer and Planner representing Arciero, RnP, and, when appropriate, Mr. Patel, stated that his presentation will be lengthy, and he will defer his comments until all the information has been presented to the public and the Commission. Jim Butkey, the Engineer representing Mr. Patel, with the firm Butkey Design, 5 Wrigley, Irvine, pointed out that the 3 or 4 alternatives shown on Mr. Patel's 7 acres was informational in nature. February 25, 1993 Page 10 He then presented another alternative layout on Mr. Patel's property, confined strictly to his site, which addresses some of the traffic concerns going out into Morning Sun, keeping the lot size at an 8,000 square foot minimum, the pad size at a 6,000 square foot minimum, and with the same constraints as indicated in the Master Plan. The following are some of the elements in the proposal: there is no direct through traffic access from the RnP property out to Morning Sun; the RnP street is cul-de-saced; the lots are located around the cul-de-sac; there is a 20 foot emergency access/ easement, with a sewer connection; there is an existing storm drain inlet; there are 23 lots around Mr. Patel's site; there is a cul-de-sac on the south, with a little longer cul-de-sac on the north that are lined up; the layout is all within the tract property line, with the exception of about 10 feet; the entire site is utilized, with no intent to preserve the trees, or the canyon; the lots do not take frontage off of Morning Sun, and are all within the tract development; there is a slope bank that is fairly insignificant; and there is a considerable slope by the ridge that is unavoidable given the physical constraints that exist on this site. Hardy Strozier stated that this alternative plan was just submitted, and staff has not had the opportunity to review it. Mr. Butkey's staff will be presenting a more thorough review for the next Commission meeting. Because the EIR evaluated 27 lots in that area, the plan is within the environmental parameters of the document. Armed Patel indicated that he did not have an opportunity to review the slides presented tonight regarding his property. Hardy.Strozier stated that the 3 slides presented tonight for Mr. Patel's property were three of the seven alternatives taken from the EIR. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. C/Plunk excused herself from the meeting at 10:20 p.m. due to poor health. Don Schad requested that the public comment portion of the EIR be reopened because the comments made by the Department of Fish and Game were not made available to the public until late in the process. He pointed out that since the Tree Ordinance does not address all trees, the EIR is incomplete. The February 25, 1993 Page 11 EIR should be as thorough as possible. Furthermore, the Soath Pointe Middle School should be separated from the project. Hardy Strozier pointed out that the DEIR does acknowledge that the destruction of the Oak trees are significant, however, staff feels that the Tree Ordinance mitigates this by requiring a replacement ration of 2:1. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff has received correspondence daily, regarding the EIR and the Master Plan, and has immediately presented them to the Commission and the consultants. All letters have been, and will be, made part of the public record, and is available to the public. Hardy Strozier pointed out that there have been two additional mitigation measures added to the EIR upon review of the letter from the Department of Fish and Game by the Planning Commission. All comments made have been researched and responded to in the Response to Comment document. For example, on page 4-60 of the Response to Comment document, it responds to a concern, made by Mr. Schad and regarding the Monterey Blue Butterfly, indicates that the Department of Fish and Game has confirmed that there is no record of this species of insect found in the California Natural Diversity Data Base, nor is it listed in the Endangered Species Act. Staff has gone to every extent to respond to technical concerns. Oscar Law, residing at 20511 Pathfinder, stated that he feels that Mr. Schad's suggestion to preserve Sandstone Canyon, making a childrens museum and an observatory, should be acted upon by the Commission. If the project is to be built, then it should be built with the minimum amount of effect to the canyon, protecting the wildlife, nurturing the flora and the fauna in the area, and maintaining the balance of nature. Air quality is a significant issue and vegetation is needed to keep the air clean. He also stated that the City's building inspector, as well as the School District, should have insisted that the developer move the dirt. In response to VC/Meyer's inquiry, he stated that he would support a bond to acquire the property to preserve it. Hardy Strozier, correcting a statement made by Mr. Law, pointed out that the environmental consultant did find that there was significant, unavoidable effects, and that the project should not move February 25, 1993 Page 12 forward due to the adverse effects on the region. A Statement of Overriding Considerations would have to be made to that environmental finding in order to approve the project. CDD/DeStefano, in response to a comment made by Mr. Law, explained that the Walnut Unified School District is an autonomous agency that does not need, nor are they required, to come to the for as City for building inspection, construction, plan check. Furthermore, the City was not incorporated at the time of the construction of the. school. All of the remaining dirt is on the School District property. Hardy Strozier explained that the school was and developed prior to the City incorporating, therefore, prior to the City's grading ordinance. The School District's EIR indicates that the 400,000 cubic yards of dirt must be moved either down Larkstone Drive or put into the Canyon. The School District is required by law to conform to the City's grading plan. Jan Dabney, representing Arciero, explained that there was an agreement made between the School District and Arciero to move an ,X" amount of dirt, as agreed to by the County. However, when the City incorporated, the City did not concur with the grading plan as stipulated in that contract, thus the issue existing today. Max Maxwell made the following comments: the Planning Commission should not be discussing this project until the General plan issue is resolved; the City and the School is holding the construction of the Middle School hostage; no one is willing to consider some of the other alternatives mentioned regarding preservation, or an alternative haul road for removing the dirt; the consultant, Hardy Strozier, appears to be defensive on the comments presented; there appears to be internal conflicts occurring among the developers and the consultants; a Response to Comment document was not given to him upon his request; the School EIR was finalized approximately 5 years ago; and the EIR should be tabled until all questions and comments have been adequately answered. CDD/DeStefano stated thatth to document ide wasvariety noticed within the newspaper, of people, and made available at the City offices and the library, and made available for loan for those individuals that did not wish to purchase the February 25, 1993 Page 13 document. This is the 7th time, since october of 1992, that the Commission has discussed this project in a public setting. There are going to be more hearings before the Planning Commission, and this whole process will be repeated at the City Council level in terms of reviewing the entitlement request and the EIR. Therefore, this is not a project that is being fast tracked. The Response to Comment document was presented in it's final form to the City staff last week, immediately presented to the Commission in their agenda packet, and made available to the public at the City Hall and the library, as is all agenda material. In response to Mr. Maxwell's comment regarding internal conflicts, CDD/DeStefano explained that amendments to the project are part of the process because it is intended to be a dynamic document. It is part of the City's responsibility to resolve any conflict that may exist between independent developers, and independent proposals. Part of the intent of this Master Plan is to erase the property lines and look at this area as if it is one lot of 170 acres. Hardy Strozier pointed out that the questioned raised regarding alternatives of the exportation of dirt from the project site is responded to on page D-19 of the Response to Comment document. Elizabeth Hodges, residing at 1604 Morning Sun, referring to the response made in the Response to Comment document, on page 5-56, regarding t he impact of putting Street A through into Morning Sun, stated that the response made seems poorly researched, with not a lot of thought put into it. She pointed out that because of the steep nature of the streets, cars tend to travel faster, and because there are many curves without stop signs or centerlines, cars tend to cut the corners. In response to VC/Meyer, she stated that she opposes the total project, both in the destruction of the canyon and the configuration of the houses proposed on the Patel property. The proposal will put a row of block wall fences along the street. If homes were to be developed, then they should be the same size as the existing a bond lot sissue if She sheindicated partthat of she would supe the City. Hardy Strozier p P ted out equivalent hat the tov what eis proposed by Mr. currently existing. February 25, 1993 Page 14 VC/Meyer requested staff` to determine what the financial obligation would be to the tax payer to buy the site, if the answer to the entire project is to leave this site in it's existing state. Chuck Dowler, residing on Morning Sun, stated that the majority of the lots in the area are a minimum of a third of an acre. He expressed the following concerns: the block wall fence attracts graffiti; though he would prefer no development, if the homes are developed, they should face Morning Sun; and eliminating the street on Morning Sun, and cul-de- sacing the street assists in successful robberies. Hardy Strozier indicated that he has asked Mr. Butkey to provide staff with a design of homes fronting Morning Sun, for the Commission's review. In response to VC/Meyer, Mr. Dowler stated that he too would support a bond issue, but if that does not occur, then he would support a maximum of 14 homes on Mr. Patel's property. Tom Van Winkle stated that the Commission needs to also consider the idea of a conservancy as well as a bond issue. Max Maxwell stated that there is money available for a conservancy and the City needs to research the possibility. Ron Beachen, residing at 1565 Black Hawk, stated that he too supports complete preservation, and he would support a bond issue or a conservancy. Mike Holmes, residing at 1612 Morning Sun, made the following comments: his lot is about 13,000 square feet; there should be no access onto Morning Sun; it would be preferable if the area stayed in it's natural state; and if it is to be developed, then it should be done responsibly, preserving some of the trees and some of the canyon. Norman Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, the President of the Pathfinder Homeowners Association, made the following comments: a conservancy can be a good tax write off; the City should investigate dirt brokers willing to buy the dirt on the School property; there is grading occurring now on Mr. Patel's property; a wall will not sufficiently mitigate the noise that will effect the properties in the Pathfinder Homeowners Association; the proposed amphitheater will effect their property as well; February 25, 1993 Page 15 and originally, Mr. Patel was to build only three homes on the 6.77 acres. VC/Meyer inquired if the Homeowners Association would be amenable to discuss with the developers alternatives to improve and enhance the open space area for natural habitat. Norman Beach Cushane explained that the reason that open space area is left in it's present state is because the Homeowners Association was told thattif any improvement was done to the property, he Homeowners Association would become responsible for maintaining the property from then on. He then explained that, according to the original County plan, the empty lot on Peaceful Hills Road, as noted by Chair/Flamenbaum during the slide presentation, is an access, to where the amphitheater is now being proposed, in which two homes were to be built in that area. e in stated that they are also concerned that a path he easement area, to the proposed park will also encourage robberies in their tract. In response to the question made by VC/Meyer, Mr. Cushane stated that if there were to be discussion with the developers regarding alternatives to the open space area, a lot of trading would have to occur because their plans infringe on a lot of our Theproperty, n and they would be represented legally. rs Association are amenable to raising money to buy this land. Jan Dabney, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry regarding possible grading occurring on Mr. Patel's property, explained that the heavy rainfall eroded the brow drain, constructed to protect the homes in tract 27141, and the slope had failed. Since the uphill part of the slope is on RnP's property, and the downhill part of the slope is on Mr. Patel's property, there was an agreement, as a good neighbor, to restore the slope, and patch the damaged drain to protect the adjacent homeowners back yards, even though there is no legal obligation for Mr. Patel or Mr. Arciero to maintain that homeowners tract drain. Norman Beach Cushane, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry regarding dirt brokers, stated that he has only had an opportunity to contact one dirt broker, attemptnd he was to contact referred dirt C/Plunk. He will pt brokers. February 25, 1993 ADJOURNMENT: Page 16 Barbara Beach Cushane,11 residing at 2021 Peaceful Hill Road, inquired if the approximate 200 letters received by the City in support of the project are directly affected by the development. She explained that the existing lots in the Pathfinder tract are that size was because there was an agreement that there would be spacious open space. If Mr. Patel's development occurs, then most of the open space would be taken away, increasing noise and traffic. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that he has not actually counted all the signatures in support of the project, however, the petitions are part of the public record and are available for review. Jennifer Chism, residing at 1570 S. Black Hawk, expressed her support for total preservation. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing was declared closed, to be continued to a date yet to be determined. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the meeting of March 22, 1993. VC/Meyer suggested that the Commission, at the next meeting, if time permits, begin review of the elements of the Master Plan to establish design standards and determine policy issues that should be dealt with. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 p.m. Respectively, Ines DeStef ano cretary Attes i Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 1993 CALL TO ORDERS Chairman Chavers called the meeting to order at 6:30 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 Ury. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Ury, Cheng, Beke, Vice Chairman Gravdahl, and Chairman Chavers. Also present were Senior Engineer David Liu, Administrative Analyst Tseday Aberra, Sergeant Rawlings, and City Recorder Liz Myers. MINUTES: Jan. 14, 1993 C/Ury requested the following changes to the Minutes of January 14, 1993: change the word "their" to "this" in the second paragraph, page 2; amend the first sentence, in paragraph three, page 3, to indicate that the signs are posted between the first and second house; amend the first paragraph, page 5, to indicated that C/Ury suggested that the "No Parking from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m." should be on the east and west sides, with painted curbs so that there is visibility; include a discussion on the "No U-turns" that were proposed to page 9; and delete the second paragraph on page 9. Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by VC/Gravdahl and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of January 14, 1993, as amended. C/Ury stated that, because he had excused himself from the meeting for a possible conflict of interest, he is abstaining from voting on the portion of the minutes from the South Pointe Master Plan discussion to the adjournment. COMMISSION C/Ury read a statement pertaining to the City COMMENTS: Council's action, taken at the February 2, 1993 meeting, to approve the "No Right Turn between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m Monday through Friday" signs on Rolling Knoll Road and Country View Drive at Grand Avenue, and the Council's action; at the same time, to table the recommendation of the Traffic and Transportation Commission for the right turn signal from northbound Diamond Bar Boulevard to eastbound Grand Avenue. He requested staff to complete it's review and recommendations, as quickly as possible, for the intersection of Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard, and reschedule the matter before the City Council to include the following items: the no right turn onto Grand Ave. will add to the congestion on Diamond Bar Boulevard; most of the February 11, 1993 Page 2 questions posed by the Council were addressed by the TTC on the January 14, 1993 meeting; the efficient movement of traffic in the City will benefit everyone; and improving major roadways will diminish the desire to use local streets. C/Ury then suggested that the following improvements be considered which will decrease the congestion in the City during peak traffic periods: a road through Tonner Canyon; additional lanes on the 60 freeway; and the development of an efficient traffic plan in the City designed to permit the passage of traffic through the City. C/Ury submitted his statement for the record. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder Road, expressed his concern regarding the need for an emergency access lane on Pathfinder Bridge. He suggested that the Bridge be widened to have a shoulder for emergency vehicles, or build a separate bridge dedicated to emergency vehicles. Mr. Law also expressed his concern that the gutters in his area are never properly cleaned because cars are always parked when the street cleaners come through. He suggested that signs be installed prohibiting parking during street cleaning hours. SE/Liu stated that it has been the City's position that it is not feasible and cost effective to establish a policy for a parking schedule, or a parking permit system, at this point in time. In regards to the concern regarding the emergency access lane, SE/Liu explained, that as presently designed, the new structure will accomodate two through lanes in each direction with approximately 10 feet remaining on each side as an open area in which no parking will be permitted and that the construction date for the Pathfinder Bridge has been set for February 22, 1993. Upon discussion with the County, it was indicated that one lane of traffic, each way, will be maintained during the construction period. The striping plan will be discussed some time next week. Furthermore, a three way stop sign at the Pathfinder Road/Brea Canyon Road intersection will be implemented as soon as possible. There was also discussion with the County regarding the traffic projected for the Pathfinder Bridge, and they indicated that the Bridge was designed for capacity to the year 2005. February 11, 1993 Page 3 CONSENT CALENDAR: The Commission concurred to pull all the items off of the Consent Calendar for discussion. 3 -way stop sign SE/Liu presented the staff report regarding the at the request, made by residents, for the installation of intersection of 3 -way stop signs at the intersection of Summitridge Summitridge Dr./ Drive and Breckenridge Court to decrease the speed Breckenridge Ct. of vehicles on Summitridge Drive. Stop Sign and Multi -Way Stop Warrant Analysis were conducted by the traffic consultants, and since it was determined that no minimum requirements were met for either a stop sign or a multi -stop, it is not recommended that stop signs be installed at the present time. However, to reduce the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit on Summitridge Drive, staff recommended that the Commission consider implementing the following: post speed limit signs 500 feet before both approaches on Summitridge Drive at Breckenridge Court; increase police enforcement in the area including portable radar units to inform motorists of their actual travel speed and post "Watch Down Hill Speed" signs on Summitridge Drive. C/Bake stated that the intersection is wide open, and the "Watch Down Hill Speed" signs are not necessary. Chair/Chavers noted that if too many signs are posted, they begin, at some point, to lose their influence on people. The signs are not really needed at this location, particularly the "Watch Down Hill Speed" signs. Motion was made by C/Ury to accept staff's recommendation in regards to posting speed limit signs 500 feet before both approaches on Summitridge Drive and Breckenridge Court. The Motion died for lack of a second. Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by VC/Gravdahl and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommendation to deny the request to install stop signs at Summitridge and Breckenridge Court, to request staff to post speed limit signs 500 feet in advance of Breckenridge Court on Summitridge Drive, to increase police enforcement in the area including portable radar units, and to deny staff's recommendation to post "Watch Down Hill Speed" signs. February 11, 1993 Page 4 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng, VC/Gravdahl, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder Road , inquired where the fees, collected from traffic tickets, go. Sgt. Rawlings explained that currently the City receives approximately 30% of base fines amount only, excluding the penalty assessments, which go to areas such as a special jail construction fund. The amount of funds raised by traffic enforcement in the community does not come close to paying for the cost of that traffic enforcement. The intent of issuing citations is not to raise funds for the City, but to curb people's driving habits. Stop signs at SE/Liu presented the staff report regarding the the intersection request, made by the residents, for the -of Deer Crossing installation of stop signs to reduce the speed of Drive & vehicles in the vicinity of Deer Crossing Drive and Country View Dr. Country View Drive. A Stop Sign Warrant Analysis was conducted by the traffic consultants, and it was determined that this intersection currently does not meet the minimum requirements as set forth in the Caltrans Traffic manual. However, the Yield Sign Warrant Analysis conducted indicated that warrant numbers 1 and 5, as indicated in the staff report, were met. A yield sign could be installed on Deer Crossing Drive to reinforce the vehicles entering onto Country View Drive to yield the right of way. It is recommended that the Commission deny the request to install stop signs at the intersection of Deer Crossing Drive and Country View Drive, but consider the installation of the following: install a yield sign on Deer Crossing Drive; paint a double yellow centerline striping on County View Drive (entire length); post speed limit signs 500 feet before both approaches on Country View Drive at Deer Crossing Drive ; and post "Watch Down Hill Speed" sign on the uphill side of Country View Drive. Wanda Tanaka, residing at 23805 Country View Drive, stated that there is a problem with commuter cut - through traffic in the area. A stop sign on Country View Drive would curtail the excessive speed. She then inquired of the purpose of the double yellow center line. February 11, 1993 Page 5 SE/Liu explained that the double yellow line is used for channelization to keep vehicles within their own lane. Chair/Chavers, pointing out that the City Council approved the "No Right Turn 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m." signs in the neighborhood, suggested that the affects of those signs first be monitored before taking any action. C/Beke stated that the yield sign on Deer Crossing Drive has some merit because there is a tendency to come down the street faster than the other streets, and visibility is not as good either. C/Ury suggested that all action wait until such time that the results from the "No Right Turn" signs are determined. Chair/Chavers, concurring with C/Ury, suggested that the matter be tabled until the traffic patterns on Country View Drive are monitored and the cut -through traffic observed, as well as the traffic patterns and the motorists behavior on this link as well. Since the matter is to be brought back to the City Council in 90 days, Chair/Chavers requested staff to bring back any information to the Commission, prior to it going before the Council, for informational purposes. Motion was made by C/Ury, seconded by Chair/Chavers and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommendation to deny the request to install stop signs at the intersection of Deer Crossing Drive and Country View Drive, and to table the balance of the other items recommended by staff until a progress report pertaining to the Country View Drive cut -through traffic is brought back to the Commission in about 60 days. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERSt ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERSt Ury, Beke, Cheng, VC/Gravdahl, and Chair/Chavers. None. None. SE/Liu, in response to C/Beke, stated that staff has requested that the County inform the City of the exact date when the signs will be installed. Installation has been running about two weeks from submittal of the work order. Staff will notify Sgt. Rawlings when the signs are to be posted. February 11, 1993 Page 6 Chair/Chavers questioned why the pedestrian crossing warning signs would be posted on High Country Drive when it appears that the activity occurs with people crossing Peaceful Hills Road, from the High Country Drive area, to get to Ronald Reagan Park. Perhaps the item should be tabled until the location of the signs have been clarified. SE/Liu stated that staff will clarify from the consultants if the intent is to post the pedestrian warning signs on High Country Drive, or Peaceful Hills Drive, and then install them administratively, if the Commission so desires. C/Ury stated that there is enough information to take action tonight. Motion was made by C/Heke, seconded by VC/Gravdahl and CARRIED to table the item to the next meeting, and direct staff to clarify the recommendation. Sgt. Rawlings stated that the Walnut Sheriff Department has received a computerized message trailer that can be used prior to the installation of the signs to inform motorists of the restriction, and the date it will go into effect. Stop signs at AA/Aberra presented the staff report regarding the the intersection request to install stop signs at the intersection of High Country of High Country Drive and Peaceful Hills Road. Drive and None of the Stop Sign Warrant Analysis requirements Peaceful Hills Rd. were met based on the existing conditions, therefore, it is recommended that the Commission deny the request to install stop signs at the intersection of Peaceful Hills Road and High Country Drive. However, a yield sign is warranted at this location, and it is recommended that the Commission consider installing a yield sign on High Country Drive to reinforce that vehicles entering onto Peaceful Hills Road must yield the right-of- way. Furthermore, to potentially reduce excessive speed and promote safety for both traffic and pedestrians at the intersection of Peaceful Hills Road and High Country Drive, it is recommended that the following be implemented: post speed limit signs, 500 feet before both approaches on Peaceful Hills Road; and post pedestrian crossing warning signs 400 feet before the intersection on High Country Drive (W -54A). Chair/Chavers questioned why the pedestrian crossing warning signs would be posted on High Country Drive when it appears that the activity occurs with people crossing Peaceful Hills Road, from the High Country Drive area, to get to Ronald Reagan Park. Perhaps the item should be tabled until the location of the signs have been clarified. SE/Liu stated that staff will clarify from the consultants if the intent is to post the pedestrian warning signs on High Country Drive, or Peaceful Hills Drive, and then install them administratively, if the Commission so desires. C/Ury stated that there is enough information to take action tonight. Motion was made by C/Heke, seconded by VC/Gravdahl and CARRIED to table the item to the next meeting, and direct staff to clarify the recommendation. February 11, 1993 Page 7 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, VC/Gravdahl, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Ury and Cheng. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. STATUS OF SE/Liu informed the Commission that the bidding PREVIOUS date, for the installation of metal beam guard ACTION ITEMS: railing along the north side of Grand Ave. at Rolling Knoll, has been scheduled for February 18, 1993. There are four alternatives presently being proposed. He also informed the Commission that the City Council approved the installation of "Loading and Unloading Only" signs on Colima Road, east of Lemon Avenue. The owner of Charlie's Sandwich Shoppe has indicated that the sign were sufficient. C/Beke, referring to item VII(B), pointed out that the intersection of Grand Ave. and Diamond Bar Blvd. has been thoroughly studied for the last three years. Chair/Chavers informed the Commission that a meeting is being arranged by ICE/Wentz, with a member of the Council and the City Manager to discuss the concerns regarding the Grand Avenue/Diamond Bar Blvd. intersection, and one of the Commissioners can attend that meeting as well. C/Ury expressed his concern that the City Council was not kept abreast of the discussions that ensued at the Traffic and Transportation Commission level regarding that intersection. The information to the City Council should have been supplemented with what was discussed by the Commission. ITEMS FROK Chair/Chavers requested staff to provide the CONKISSIOXZRS: Commission, at the next meeting, an update, for informational purposes, on the Planning Commissions efforts involving the proposed Diamond Bar Medical Plaza, the Bramalea proposal, and the status of the South Pointe Master Plan. AA/Aberra, in response to C/Bake, stated that the letter, from Diamond Bar High School via the Walnut Valley Unified School District, requesting a pedestrian crossing at Brea Canyon Road , as well as the response made by staff, was included in the Commission's packet for informational purposes, and to solicit any further comments from the Commission. February ll, 1993 Page 8 C/Ury pointed out that the letter from Clyde Evans, the Director of Transportation from WVUSD, is requesting speed reduction and pedestrian warning signs as well. C/Beke indicated that the City should address the issue of pedestrians crossing at that point because staff has been advised of a potential problem. Chair/Chavers stated that if the pedestrians are jay walking then perhaps there should be some added enforcement in that area. Sgt. Rawlings explained that jay walking is defined as walking across the street between two controlled intersections. However, Fountain Springs is not a controlled intersection. SE/Liu, in response to Chair/Chavers, stated that the Commission will be notified when staff receives any updated information from CalTrans regarding the completion date for the left turn phase at the westbound 60 from southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard. Sgt. Rawlings made the following comments: the restrictive signs on Fallowfield seem to be effective; there is a "Traffic Safety Cities Program" seminar scheduled in March encouraging cities to work together to help solve some of their traffic problems; and AB408 was passed decriminalizing parking citations, effective July 1, 1993, which must now be addressed by the City or local agency responsible for law enforcement in that area. Chair/Chavers requested staff to provide the Commission with further information regarding AB408 for the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Ury and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 8:03 p.m. Respectively, /s/ GEORGE WENTZ George A. Wentz Secretary Attest: /s/ TODD CHAVERS Todd Chavers Chairman ����CARL WARREN & CO. Insurance Adjusters Claims Administrators P.O. Box 25180 Santa Ana, CA 92799-5180 (714) 740.7999 FAX: (714) 740-7992 Date: March 19, 1993 TO: City of Diamond Bar Attention: L. Burgess Re: Claim: Gonzales vs Diamond Bar Claimant: Leoncio Gonzales D/Event: 10-17-92 Rec'd Y/Office: 7-12-93 Our File: S 74810 RAQ We have reviewed the above captioned claim and request that you take the action indicated below: 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 OF 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. b 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. L] 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 WP,RREN & COMPANY �'A 7LAIM FOR DAMAGES I TO PERSON OR PROPERTY 'F INSTRUCTIONS 1. Claims for death, Injury to person or to personal property must be filed not later than,6 inpi. 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 Clergy. (Gov. Code Sec. 915x) CLAIM No- ------------- -- -- --- To: The City of Diamond Bar II Name of Claimant l Age of Claimant (if natural person) LEONCIO S. GONZALEZ 33 years old Home Address of Claimant City and State Home Telephone Number 1230 E. Madison St. #D, Santa Ana, California (714) 972-8$25 Business Address of Claimant City and State Business Telephone Number Give address to which you desire notices or communications to be sent regardin# this claim: LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM E. PARKER, 2320 S. Fairview Street, Santa Ana, California, 92704 (714) 557-1818 How did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full particulars. WHILE CLAIMANT WAS TRIMMING A LARGE TREE IN PRIVATE HOUSE, HE WAS ELECTROCUTED BY A HIGH TENSION WIRE, SUSTAINING MULTIPLE AND SERIOUS INTERNAL INJURIES. (When claimant released himself from belt band he fell on stone wall then to ground injuring his left hip and back). When did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full particulars, date, time of day: October 17, 1992 at approximately 2:30 p.m. Where did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Describe fully, and locate on diagram on reverse side of this sheet, where appropriate, give street names and addresses and measurements from landmarks: 1922 Chestnut Creek Diamond Bar, California What particular ACT or OMISSION do you claim caused the injury or damage? Give names of City employees causing the injury or damage, if known: FAILURE TO SUPERVISE EXCESS GROWTH OF TREES, ALLOWING BRANCHES TO GROW BETWEEN THE HIGH TENSION WIRES, FAILURE TO ABATE DANGEROUS SITUATION, FAILURE TO WARN OF DANGEROUS SI'POATI6DT`, FAILURE TO SUPERVISE MAINTENANCE, FAILURE TO ENFORCE LAW RE: MAINTENANCE OF TREES. What DAM-6,GE or INJURIES do you claim resulted? Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed: MULTIPLE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL PERSONAL INJURIES. % hat 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. UNDETERMINED AT THE PRESENT TIME. Give ESTIMATED AMOUNT as far as known you claim on account of each item of prospective injury or damage, giving basis of computation. UNDETERMINED AT THE PRESENT TIME. SEE PAGE 2 (OVER) THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON REVERSE SIDE Insurance payments received, if any, anT- -nes of Insurance Company: Expenditures made on account of accident or injury: (Date —Item) (Amount) Loss of earnings to be determined; Medical treatment unascertained at the present time. Name and address of Witnesses, Doctors and Hospitals: Anaheim General Hospital Stat Care , 3340 West Ball Rd., Suite I, Anaheim, California 92804 READ CAREFULLY 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 -I" and the point of impact by "X." [MOTE: If diagrams below do not fit the situation, attach hereto a proper diagram signed by claimant. FOR AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS i FOR OTHER ACCIDENTS Signature of Claimant or person filing on his behalf giving Typed Name. relationship to Claimant: CLAP"IS MUST BE FILED WITH CITY CLERK (GOV. CODE SDC. 915x). Date CARL WARREN 81: CO. Insurance Adiuscers Claims Administrators P.O. Baa 25180 Santa Ana. CA 92799.5180 (714) 740.7999 FAX: (714) 740-7992 Date: March 26, 1993 mr TO: City of Diamond Bar Attention: L. Burgess Re: Claim: Rosier vs Diamond Bar Claimant: Donald Jacob Rosier D/Event: 9-13-92 Rec'd Y/Office: 3-12-93 Our File: S 74843 SWQ We have reviewed the above captioned claim and request that you take the ac ion indicated below: 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 0 DAYS OF RECEIPTOF 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. d 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, a vising 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. r7 APPLICATION REJECTION: Reject claimant's "Application for Leave to Present a Late C aim". 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, ,AALIMIT, 00;8z CLAIM AGAINST DEPAtRTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION/FOR 1��VIOi��{?'S $1,000 OR CESS LD - 0274 (AEV 6;91) Pago 1 of Front PERSONAL INFORMATION NOTICE Purs"'M"'the Federal Pmraer Act (P.L 9}579) and IM WlornWion Praetiem Ad d 1077 ociw Cods Seetiane t07B. t:t uq.I. notice j, he, q~ Ne request d pMsprel inlamtlron by nve ton". The requested personal nlorr..alwn n voluntary. The pnmipie purposed tel vokaes M prowde ad o. a" pan d the requesW senlrrta6on ma ry ennatwn e w leatsa4 the Pmansinp of this fomite The talkNe to Y delay Proosssinp d the loon. No dedoswe d pme" WwAs on VA be made Wd"a Prnwable umm Amels a. Sedan 1798.24 of the PA of 1977. ENA WdiW wa has the n9m upon r"ueel and proper WWWAicalian' W WaPW W Personal idor ideM4ym0 02"= U: Dad any Wgwrs an Wlormatlon "moVenance to tel DepannrM d Transportation. L el U tis M peY woanl winlairrd an the Wdivdwl b/ an Legal M. IPA oma Ogier. This brm is b De used What/ f&V a claim apairtst ells OeparbnaH d Tiarlspormbon as Provided in G&ArrimeM Cope Sectlwl A/5.7. PLEASE: . prim or Use typewriter when lMng out form. CAUTION: Claims for road repair (Chip Seal) damage • sign and date claim form. must be received within 30 days of the (UNSIGNED AND UNDATED FORMS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED.) incident. All others within 6 months. 1. NAME: LAST FIRST ROSIER DONALD HOME ADDRESS CITY Diamond Bar, 2. PUT A SPECIFIC TIME AND DATE WHEN THE DAMAGE FIRST OCCUPIED 3. STATE THE LOCATION OF THE INCIDENT WITHIN ONE-HALF MILE (CITY, COUNTY .I.IIG)4W IY, NEAREST CFF-AAMP, CRASS STREET OR POSTADLE). 250 feet south of Cold S rin s Road Diamond Bar-, California 4. EXPLAIN HOW THE INJURY OR DA)v!ASE OCCURRED. Was driving southbound on Brea Canyon Road WHAT PARTICULAR ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF CALTRANS OR ITS CONTRACTOR CAUSED THE INJURY On DAMAGE? Tree planted oo c-1 nca t., .+�.� . y planted d n �.e,.�'�no.31g?'1 for th _ ondi ti oats Also wronq_of tree which had Mary shallow roo s .:'I.: f I -JUfIY OR DAMAGE DO YOU CLAIM fir SUL; LLQ^ Damacxe to fendersb , Cost of a rental car. Qer hood gri11P roof etc _Car was sev-rly damaged_ Clajured as a result of the a_cc;�3gnt. WHAT IS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF yQUq CLAIM FOR DAMAGC S? (SUDMIT TWO CS71f..( TES O: PAD RECC;PP7) e S 1.000 + l S. INSURANCE INFORMATION IS REOUIRiD NAME OF INSUnER Allstate Insurance Comnanv AAE YOU THE REGISTERED OVVNFR? YES [V' NO HAVE YOU SUBMITTED A CLAIM TO YOUR INSURANCE CARRIER? IF YES, WEREYOUPAID-, YES 17 NO 1I FOR WHAT AMOUNT? S VEHICLE INFORMATION MAK_ E OF VEHICLE Chevrolet Blazer YEAR IIiERESYCERTIFYUNDER PENAL TYOFPEjWRY. TbfA7- SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT DONALD JACOB ROSIER V t_or 1988 I LICENSE NO. 2KNB724 YES U NO FACTS ARE TRUE AND COR)iF. CT TO THE BEST 0FAIY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. — DATE J. H. Burt -Fe - 3/12/93 STATE USE ONLY FILE NUMBER u1DDL� JACOB 8USINESS PHONE L 1595-9445.(909 HOME PHONE 1595-7967 STATE CA iflue: pr IN;}L,eNf 9:15 xxxxPMl �:P CODE 91765 DATE OF INCIDENT 9/13/92 3. STATE THE LOCATION OF THE INCIDENT WITHIN ONE-HALF MILE (CITY, COUNTY .I.IIG)4W IY, NEAREST CFF-AAMP, CRASS STREET OR POSTADLE). 250 feet south of Cold S rin s Road Diamond Bar-, California 4. EXPLAIN HOW THE INJURY OR DA)v!ASE OCCURRED. Was driving southbound on Brea Canyon Road WHAT PARTICULAR ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF CALTRANS OR ITS CONTRACTOR CAUSED THE INJURY On DAMAGE? Tree planted oo c-1 nca t., .+�.� . y planted d n �.e,.�'�no.31g?'1 for th _ ondi ti oats Also wronq_of tree which had Mary shallow roo s .:'I.: f I -JUfIY OR DAMAGE DO YOU CLAIM fir SUL; LLQ^ Damacxe to fendersb , Cost of a rental car. Qer hood gri11P roof etc _Car was sev-rly damaged_ Clajured as a result of the a_cc;�3gnt. WHAT IS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF yQUq CLAIM FOR DAMAGC S? (SUDMIT TWO CS71f..( TES O: PAD RECC;PP7) e S 1.000 + l S. INSURANCE INFORMATION IS REOUIRiD NAME OF INSUnER Allstate Insurance Comnanv AAE YOU THE REGISTERED OVVNFR? YES [V' NO HAVE YOU SUBMITTED A CLAIM TO YOUR INSURANCE CARRIER? IF YES, WEREYOUPAID-, YES 17 NO 1I FOR WHAT AMOUNT? S VEHICLE INFORMATION MAK_ E OF VEHICLE Chevrolet Blazer YEAR IIiERESYCERTIFYUNDER PENAL TYOFPEjWRY. TbfA7- SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT DONALD JACOB ROSIER V t_or 1988 I LICENSE NO. 2KNB724 YES U NO FACTS ARE TRUE AND COR)iF. CT TO THE BEST 0FAIY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. — DATE J. H. Burt -Fe - 3/12/93 ENTERPRiS. RENT-A.,CAR F -1, :�i F T-1Fc F T! aQA- 6:00F -d J 7 c; 3255 EF: '7:3r1-:f- S -4 _�: SU CLOSE- EAl 14 E N TA. SOURCE ID I TAPE 7, F.- " —TE R MILES S I HOME I"ONE t7. c ORIGIt­,L VE CLE STATE�;p 0FC,CE P�ONF N S ONE 7—. S'-,F E xciRES AILS IE fW WE15HT ElEl "A,P NGE T E TY DRIVEN NI) 'ION o T IN BILL TO DRIFDP .- DR/FDP L ;�R!FOR 77' STA-E L -'-0rRJFDR El' DDIGLAS: 7 1,, IN K,'SPA P 4EN'EP ACCEPTS REN* DAMAGEE - ' S NSIGI, X'.rN S-0— CO. SEE -EvERSE 1-15 Is kc lksjp&Ncf `,N --L COVER 17E'4;7EPDEC-IVES RENTER RE.TE- KWESIS PEIIISO—, &CCIDEW NW. '--4TEN7ER F )UT 1/6 4 A L E 1IRSON 4"INSURANCIE X 'C VOEN' ­_D'.oA­ -EE S-�,-N -_D�.- � "AD "i Pouc c, L x 5L E N E 1/1 41' 34 A F REQUEST FOR PERMISSION 'HER THAN REN T(tTP'DRIVE. NOT VAMC; LN-ESS APPROVED EN'EqPq,SE S REPRESENTATIVE —EY REPLACEMENT VEHICLE 57A'E f I. ­RGE 77i .1 AUTH By X PENT EP ENTERPRISERS REP FOR VEHICLE TO LEAVE THE STATE. L E ;-QE __P2PMIS9(aNGRANTED STATES AUTI, BY ENTERPRISE S RED TOTAL CHARGES '7 DRIVEN I j N 6A ')I W [)A� MIN'MJMLESS: CONDITION OLI- IN REFUNDABLE EXPENSESI 11 . A NET AMOUNTU DR'PDR L DR ';DR DR'FPR Z;r j "E#4*`F%mISE REP X IL/ EMPL N + c'-L COVER: E'u DED -_ CLOSED lll� —JUT E '/$ '/4 3A M2 4 3/4 7/s F IN E 1/s 1, 4 3A 1/2 &A V4 ?A F EXT. ADIT PAID CAS. CHECK -CHCACHARGE M DFDEPct BY EMT ADIT L RECEIPT FOR CASH REFUND J15 DATE —AMOUNT EXT. ADDI L 7- TO _DEP ECEIVED BRY x EXT.I ADWT Ll CLAIM INFORMATION TO Ep ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 011 POI. OR C{ '"SD- SAME LOSS DATE ,%14i L7` TNEEf_UlCC10ENT__� PHONE NAME REPAIR SHO- TYPE CAR INVOICE ; NVI cat Description Parts Tabor Ref Mat - Sub His 38 SUB DETAIL GLASS CLEAN UP 40.00 39 REAP, GATE NIC 40 NO CHARGE 41 PRT PARTS DISCOUNT -111.06 SUPPZE14ENT No 1 42 PRT ANTENNA MAST 43 PRT ANTENNA MAST BZL 44 PRT ANTENNA MAST CABLE 45 PRT WIPER BLADE RT 46 PRT WIPER BLADE LEFT 47 PRT R FRONT DOOM MUM 48 PRT L FRONT DOOM MIRROR 49 SUB SUBLET FOR QUARTER GLASSES 50 PRT ROOF PANEL CARRIER ASSY 51 PRT QUARTER GLASS FITS SUPPLE14ENr No 2 52 FT WINDSHEILD MLDG 53 PRT ANTENNA BZL NUT 54 SUB R&R WINDSHIELD -1.00 ** price decrease ** 0.61 ** price increase ** -0.35 ** price decrease ** 1.02 ** price increase ** 1.02 ** price increase ** 49.00 ** price increase ** 49.00 ** price increase ** 72.00 ** price increase ** 21.95 ** price increase ** 9.05 ** price increase ** 1.65 54.00 Copyright AUTO -QUOTE 1984-92 v6.38U WALNUT VALLEY AUTO BODY AND TOYING Page NO 2 Omer JA0OBSZROSIER, DONAID Address 21000 OOSTIILA DR City/SIP DIAMkID BAR, CA 91756 Phone S 7/595/7967 Phone B 7/595/9445 Fax DAVE Ins Co ALLSTATE INSURANCE Cat Descrivti,on Vehicle (SET 88 !Model BLAZER Lic go 2KNB724 Mileage 62338 VIN 1GNCS18ROJ8230762 Claim No 2720993381 Date Out 10/21/92 ORIGINAL DAVE 1 SUB WALNUT VALLEY TOWING 79247 2 R&R FRONT BUMPER IlMPACr STRIP 3 R&R FT FOG LAMPS (AFTMT) 4 R&R GR= 5 MIS AIM LAMPS 6 R&R HOOD PANEL 7 R&R R FRONT FENDER 8 PRT ANMD A MAST 9 PRT ANIMA MAST BZL 10 R&R AN E*a MAST CABLE 11 REF L FRONT FENDER 12 PRT FT WINDSHEILD SEAL 13 R&R FT WIPER ARM RT 14 PRT FT WIPER ARM LEFT 15 PRT WIPER BLADE RT 16 PRT WIPER BLADE LEFT 17 REF COWL VENT SCREEN 18 R&A RT WINDSHEIID PILLAR 19 R&A RT DOOR JAMB 20 R&A R FRONr DOOR 21 R&R R FRONT DOOR MIRROR 22 R&I HANDIE AMID TRIM 23 REF L FRONT DOOR 24 R&R. L FRONT DOOR MIRROR 25 R&I HANDIE AND TRIM 26 R&A RT QEV1R'IER 27 RT QIIlo,RTER W/O FLARE 28 R&R ROOF PANEL 29 SUB SUBLET Fat QUARTER GLASSES 30 R&A INNER ROOF REINEX CEMEVTS 31 R&R ROOF PANEL CARRIER ASSY 32 PRS gMRIER GLASS KITS 33 REF LEFT QUARTER. WELD DAMAGE 34 REF IM TQC 35 REF CLEAR COAT 36 MIS BUFF AND SAND 37 SUB HAZERDOUS WASTE DISOPSAL Copyright AUTO -QUOTE 1994-92 v6.38U Ref Est By DAVE AdjustAw Phone Date Adj 0.80 Own Glom 10/.14-10/21/ Deduct: 0.00 RD No 25380 Mat Sub His 53.00 44.00 1.70 56.50 0.80 46.00 0.50 0.50 133.00 1.00 4.40 61.60 98.67 2.80 2.50 35.00 7.50 0.81 9.10 0.30 2.00 28.00 12.25 17.55 0.20 17.55 13.40 13.40 41.50 1.80 25.20 6.00 1.20 16.80 2.00 1.00 14.00 5.00 2.70 37.80 28.75 0.50 1.00 2.00 28.00 28.75 0.50 1.00 1.00 2,80 39.20 272.00 14.90 3.60 50.40 2.00 108.00 1.80 30.00 1.50 21.00 1.00 14.00 4.50 63.00 1.00 WALNUT VALLEY AUTO BODY AND TONING t 84.00 7.50 Pope No 1 RESOLUTION NO. 93 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE ELSMERE CANYON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY IF PERMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS INCLUDING CEQA AND NEPA WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles and cities within the County are required by State law (AB 939) to prepare solid waste management plans, including plans to assure sufficient landfill capacity for a minimum of fifteen (15) years to serve the future solid waste disposal needs of our residents and businesses, and WHEREAS, the State also requires local governments to undertake aggressive solid waste reduction and recycling programs by 1995, and WHEREAS, the California Integrated Waste Management Board has concluded that even if the source reduction goals are met, there will remain an urgent need for additional landfill disposal capacity in the County, and WHEREAS, the proposed Elsmere Canyon Solid Waste Management facility could greatly assist in meeting the need for additional recycling and landfill disposal capacity if it is determined to meet all applicable permit requirements, including compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policies Act (NEPA), and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to encourage and foster all recycling and new landfill alternatives that are duly permitted in accordance with the environmental safeguards contained in CEQA and NEPA, in order to promote free competition, better solid waste management service for County residents, and compliance with AB 939; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar supports the Elsmere Canyon Solid waste Management facility if permitted in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws including CEQA and NEPA. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the Los Angeles County Regional Planning U.Nes 6,—Uri'i. Maid of Siip i"v oain ', c$'rd Pfz". Xljbs n -o- rw, Forest Supervisor, Angeles National Forest. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 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 the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: , 1993 by Lynda Burgess, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar i RESOLUTION NO. 93 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE ELSHERE CANYON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY IF PERMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL LANS INCLUDING CEQA AND NEPA WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles and cities within the County are required by State law (AB 939) to prepare solid waste management plans, including plans to assure sufficient landfill capacity for a minimum of fifteen (15) years to serve the future solid waste disposal needs of our residents and businesses, and WHEREAS, the State also requires local governments to undertake aggressive solid waste reduction and recycling programs by 1995, and WHEREAS, the California Integrated Waste Management Board has concluded that even if the source reduction goals are met, there will remain an urgent need for additional landfill disposal capacity in the County, and WHEREAS, the proposed Elsmere Canyon Solid Waste Management facility could greatly assist in meeting the need for additional recycling and landfill disposal capacity if it is determined to meet all applicable permit requirements, including compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policies Act (NEPA), and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to encourage and foster all recycling and new landfill alternatives that are duly permitted in accordance with the environmental safeguards contained in CEQA and NEPA, in order to promote free DRA,' i' competition, better solid waste management service for County residents, and compliance with AB 939; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar supports the Elsmere Canyon Solid Waste Management facility if permitted in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws including CEQA and NEPA. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission, the County Board of Supervisors, and Mr. Mike Rogers, Forest Supervisor, Angeles National Forest. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 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 the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: , 1993 by Lynda Burgess, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar RESOLUTION V -M T h e Cour %j of i N-�C11.1ked by-oa Anl!@wos aand &t v�'Th�n t"C- Co"Ji'Ity g State iaW (AB 939't to prepare solid -Nasto �4e',)L pans, inck.idinP101115 to 31. ' fifin 05) year.5 ict $(�rve fire Capacity to,, a oninimum o� ee ss,I;d Yeasts 41SPosal reeds cf ou, res dews al -d WHEREAS, th+- S.IWO alsO requires i0ca: gove.rnmc;nts 'to soM wps.Le reductior, anj racycilnU programs by 1995, 6110 ha+ Integrate] Waste %let): oncluded t, t LREAS, V'�o C;�,­f0r"Jia w,/en if the goL-,!Cry , cidwction racycling goal5 are vv;l1 Ter'lalfl dr, W'gerit need disposalfc,t additional landf;J WHERE -AS, The proposed Elsry-,erq Canyon Saila 1#N!Pjhte Mb'61,44 -refa fi;sCmv could in r 'Y0119 �)?�d iandflil disposal 'ry assist me.,�,tjng the need for additional IV(- Capaoily if It is clejui,mlmnd to miew all applicoll.,!c� pero-k revut'iremer)TS., 'iticluding crllrriphnnce vvItn the California Environmental A-1 (CEQA) arici the NatloASI Environeneri4i Polioius Act (NEPA;, and - ir. The best intere=sts ()f the City Ce' 5MC()U1'k)tj6 nv�d fo, ter ail ULCycling a,, tort) ative s tt,.at are cluy Perl"n'tte" io ;�wcoiciatsQe with the - :H -i CECA sr,.d NILPA, in order to prGriote free 01v�ro!�ml�n*NDI safeguards coltair4d (-,uLj!lty res!dents, and L0r-mpi.,t',*,jr,jn, bettter solid waste C:oMpjarc.e vv,th AS 939; N&W 1HEREFORE BE iT RESOLVED That The City supports tie Elswtere CarYO') 3Ojifj woste facility ,., f -errn'itted i17 0000ance Witt) all appiicab,e SIZite, -nd federal lawstn CEPA and NEPA. BF lI , e FuR-THhR RESOLVED _) r.v�� - -the t- A -g Jes CQurtY # no, a copy of this Aesollut!01) 15lkali be Ic ijed to 0S f) f, Region al pian~ iiimV. CjOmrnissicln, the County Hoar(] Cjj' SUpervisols, and Mr. Mike Roger.1i, ForeSt eur , 67visor, AnSeles National Forest. CIT:' Or DIAMOM BAR AGENDA REPORT r i AGENDA NO. n TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: April 6, 1993 REPORT DATE: March 31, 1993 FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer TITLE: Annexation of street lights to the Los Angeles County Lighting Maintenance District (LMD) 10006 and County Lighting District LLA -1 SUMMARY: In order to provide funds for operation and maintenance of street lights which are bounded by Pathfinder Road, Canyon Ridge Road, Brea Canyon Cut-off Road, and Peaceful Hills Road, it is necessary to incorporate said street lights into the County LMD 10006 and County Lighting District LLA -1. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 93 -XX granting consent and jurisdiction to the County of Los Angeles to annex street lights within said territory, as shown on the attached map, within the City of Diamond Bar. Further, it is recommended that the City Clerk be directed to provide two (2) executed copies of the Resolution of the City Council action to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. 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: Vicinity Map 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes X No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No Report discussed with the following affected departments: N/A R�YIEWED B Terrence L. Belanger City Manager oNt4� G rge A. n Interim City gineer CITY COUNCIL RErURT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: April 6, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Annexation of street lights to the Los Angeles County Lighting Maintenance District (LMD) 10006 and County Lighting District LLA -1 ISSUE STATEMENT To annex street lights within the City of Diamond Bar to the Los Angeles County Lighting Maintenance District (LMD) 10006 and County Lighting District LLA -1. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 93 -XX granting consent and jurisdiction to the County of Los Angeles to annex street lights within said territory, as shown on the attached map, within the City of Diamond Bar. Further, it is recommended that the City Clerk be directed to provide two (2) executed copies of the Resolution of the City Council action to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. FINANCIAL SUMMARY The proposed recommendation has no impact on the City's Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget. BACKGROUND The public interest, convenience and necessity requires the maintenance of a street lighting system encompassed within Pathfinder Road, Canyon Ridge Road, Brea Canyon Cut-off Road, and Peaceful Hills Road. since, operation and maintenance of street lights are accomplished through lighting districts, the County of Los Angeles has requested to include subject street lights into LMD 10006 and Lighting District LLA -1. DISCUSSION To provide funds for operation and maintenance of street lights, the area as shown on the attached map, needs to be annexed into the County LMD 10006 and County Lighting District LLA -1. Prior to annexation procedures can be consummated, however, the County of Los Angeles needs to be granted permission from the City of Diamond Bar. The cost per residence as provided by the County is $48.00. PREPARED BY: David G. Liu Tseday Aberra _Pt c i,cur mouun�o Ian'a Cay A P , � �?ARMSTTVG P 00 Q�� 4> N ON P ELEM y,y4 d.. o PA F :p SCH� n p _Oc < \ o m tJ GSW - _G o PZP O 54 ��'��vFraT i E DD i r-CLOVERAYm- — O O 2. CLOVERDALE LN ELEMENTARY s Ea DR _u R m Pp S. EVERGREENCIR� 'ABpNA DR\ v LORBEER SCHOOL nC O 1. FOKCAOFTLN a O P DISTRICT s. JAONWDDDCw e ao� fi. JOHN IflWIN DR t>/ TUi SCMDOL CHERYL aI- O C. =FILES MAGNOLIA CIA < q° $V 8_ UERION LN i m r '90 Tb0 KLDO o 3-s EJ� pP 9J�a - Cr PRPDO 'qlF 9. MOCKINGBIRD LN 10. MONTECITOST 1. PARNRIDGE fM !'l Po1Q% - �ANDEIEf /F, 12. PINE14URST WY 13. PRESTWICK WY f/ 71. SENECA OR a D "UON7 Bm i m _ V 15. SPYGLASS LN GOLF c ot)P Y9 rflF Q2 p 16. VIEWPOINTE LN _ S=AN15H 17. WRDWOOD WY 5 2 - / �1 16. WINDEMERE LN OEL PAX 19. WINDSONG CIE I HIGHSCHOOL RD ZD. WOODCREST YJVOR AY_ 4� RvrAAPaAE o WASHINGTON CANYON DR AINVJCR F I 1H , PARK $TE 9 CAV02- I ON P �yT� w pg 6� I tAY'EDWP m plM D D FC o m o - a>3 j RIO DID R <O 3 5% C I .iOEOS NJ ��SCO v $l3 I YCOMING ST j $UNVJpJ J �Q tiS M T 11 PL rCY C 90 av IJ CRfFWG m�a DTA 'i`Tsr DqY � GOLDEN v y 6B _); KDR Z'" F Aa,G0.TE ; �SFS j�F 0 WALEM ST 9 �p r �b QTQ S� SCHOCE6 1A SS LAK'c o MpONLAKE Si _ ,Ly m \Y�"1 I iT:(N <T,Cfn I y9 ALBARLA GENtEP�• O v J7, INBTYfK A`I EJ „ a PL i ENSIDE I-'^ fi F O O MAR CS— FC` OQ¢' PJ FST 44 $ O FLWT Pt o RD PEP 9E �mDR I- 1 NWO m d� OP` W OFFP �" OPQ.= 3cE..9 1,44--,_4 Y Po LN y N F Y3<^Ab 4yF WALLA K r'�yy SLWWT O� 4y Oy 9 SPLFAT p' Z n riot 09 r y GSQ. _ S ___ 4_ 1fAP CEII m ly �ySt :2 O En 2 NOBIN N l� 4 AV .y F0.0 OAC S\O.,NG ?50Py l OP TfG.Lh9R00K^'DR O9 ,P S OPtE-__-. Bf1D5p PARK E1EII SCH s �E d PJ q/(ISCH \S MMIT l IDR xf r Zm �� ALUD!N r � cGTN �br � r�ag11'�R���\JJ 3swo 2 xl - FOARpu 04 a¢,>Q o¢ IR$INIERMEDU7E �00� OR nA i m pP c _ F, aF� Std Cq., ? FAL ONBURN oR SGiKp1 A, 2 ANY PAUL SLcGROh¢ QQ,iN05 ./p KgWA RO PAA O Qg4i- 11 NO O P z yQ ,� EST \ iso r50UTN POINTEDP ¢ j w¢ 2 M� NTA:N LNJfl y 2 F Di, SAND MIODLE�. f � �c� o � f0 � PP\A OR � ty RIDGE RD � 4n, IVq,A✓] TaJOSHANTE NG RAVER <PIYE N/PyF.� SUNL'= 7 PA STARfi�WE N4' O S7AR HI 4 DANYDN OQe a NE RD Js v, NA (( tit '^� RIDGE AO i9O�� PIWE RD o PL NMR Fp M OP O� Nx� �5 ppTHFINDER RD m ( d(pAA $ cQeQQ a 7Ff PTElL9 \. 9\ SA QUAIL RUN// l ° 1 OR AG G D DR TRY DR OCRlgNO BAR N �F KN H 0/ Q,0^EN( EOUE57RIAIJ HIGH !OS k<[ Z CENTER ;9 R E SCHOOL RD ] ` ' DA OQ MILL ( � Z K �VFR H (m % P — 1 ADZ w W �p 57 �Mr Wy ? \ rH EL I�'M SCH,�'y �Tm 'si%STEEP r LN F Ili Im 1- eFRLINE uS O H 9 O O p5, /�a' �ISFG _ W _cREsn/aF PL b Off• `B N(N 2 (S \ 3 �� �O�SZ� 1�9 OLS!( QVLSIEA LIS BNADDi1 PtK15 ROCKIRRY DRUDGE Q Lis aU DADA K11 R I 9O Cr�O ELEM C Vyh, /� PGQ ToV U ROCKRDGE IN GIT SIMDOW K(IIMf�AN pL NI (/ '��`� nor.AvER AAERDR M P SHAVICELMTER us I N� i RCcxrroww 6D Bwwxosaff SKADY HILLS DR KK6 /y P 7 \ ROGAVTHALRD u6 SEWDYA ( ROCSY%V/RD MIS D AM QO YUCATAN i RODEDWY SAADYRIDG EN NIT 6IN ADCT SHALEFIDLLDWw Pt. L0R aT Sm NJw LIS P1. b D\PNDN� 94 s� P �� ROIgERoe D6 LuxNOR oRos NEYDR HIS NKS �� z m q,VB RD A.SmrE PL G SHE�MANDWRommELLN IDS AINERDHELSM f co' IAr RAeowoR 116 ROUND ROCK DR J17 SOT" p PS SAAB/ LN Cl N PEAK I IMOG�OR FS ROUDTABTE OT v SHOT" 61. cg P"� ST COVE Alaam L $41 AOUDI CA ns SLVfl1SULETGI LTD .f 4P 2 y F< RANWATww J6 SLVEAGDID NII nl OOe I DA " y Al _ PAFRNOCO DR Ht2 RpAEE�Cf E SIYEA CREA NN F 5, RALEOAV B1.,B!5,816,BIT gGRNOfl le SLVERfl1AD HIE PENAM CT RIG RALPNST B1P SIVEA HANK GT KlF TEPPEA5IAIE OR D16DtS RUDE DII F16 Kim p E16 SLYEARANOR W. PEPPERNTEECT Et6 RVOERLAAID NVNCHRO Ia6 SLYERSRUrDR n,o OOP? $ppRPO PERGERGJ OR NS RANG1GUBIRLADR RS RUMNINGSIROOKUN NaSRVDGR CI SLVERSARINUw ou <' p� /bp_ W ppP PERAE AD E7JS RANGIG AGNATO AS RGMa MEHCT JIS SLVERTIP DR All 5% 6 LNM- 4P NN 7Np PILES CT P6 RAAGHWOODR All SIVERVALEEYTR A7 SILVER BULLET DR IN BROOK PLARDST A16.B1fiD16D16 RANDY ST D2 ' Rl. SMGI CT W IN PNEFALLSAVE H12.EI3 RANGECT RI PIAiAD Pts SMSR Pt] Rll RDSTYSRIARD NIS SINGNDA"Hem Mt, PNEFAILS OR CII AANGETON DR GIS FMTGERSCT Fs LODGE PoIF RD 015 MEH4 LN Jt5 RAPDSgOG(Rp P12 PoITHCi Ell STAIR GR D1] MARUBETTE'A GS SKY Ci R10 LOMBARD ST OT MARY ANN LN MCNREWiI Jt6 NOWMNA% FB PAORNOAVE Et. PNEHumTWY K11 RAPDVIEWDR GIS S 1=V A[tE RD FI EH M3NIECRDST KtP HURTNAMPTON ST G13 PANTBRIISHIu PNETIEECT EIJ RAOUET CLUB TD utt S(YINE OR E. �..�... _ WRYVLLE DR ..�.�......_... _ ... �.e..�...., ..._ - EXN1 BST Ali !kr ' H n 1 TRACT x3760 MB 1067-17-27 /58 � \-�, ROPOSED ANNEXA ON BDRY� / I / 57 C) .ZZ lZi !ZO /}6 ¢' l ny ' pc 9 /. 5 r/8 na R/ G5:' L \ bs ' OPOSED ANNEXATION TO CO Z,140- 10006 13DRY IGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT x10006 AND COUNTY LIGHTING : p ciT�'fHTC� LLA 1 •i« r PROD 1 � - k '� 4 � y"�, "� � -ria � af�'3,- - ,� •� i- 3�-ti3t - .. oy 97 Q 2 O 70 99 0 94 7 ID � � I'-� '2g / � : til` S•. '12 Z PEAL, B FOA 0 SID ION TO COUNTyi - - IIiG MAINTENANCE `DISTRICT �y+��- - AND CNrnrrt...,...__. _ _ Jlii �� �o5 •vre/F<conwry !�w CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO, J TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: April 6, 1993 REPORT DATE: March 31, 1993 FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer TITLE: Red curbing of the east side of Sunset Crossing Road north of Bower Cascade Place SUMMARY: To enhance visibility for motorists attempting to turn onto Sunset Crossing Road from Bower Cascade Place, the Traffic and Transportation Commission to the City Council the Cascade for approximately feet Of red curb along the east side of Sunset Crossing Road north of Bower commencing from the northeast curb return. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve laces for approximatlution No. ely 100 feet commencing from the for the red curbing of the east side of Sunset Crossing Road north of Bower Cas northeast curb return. LIST OF ATTACHMENTSA Staff Report 2L Resolution(s) _ Ordinances(s) — Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other: Tra fir & Trancnortatlon Miffl s Viciniiy Man 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed — Yes X No by the City Attorney? Majority 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Yes X No 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? — No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? 2L Yes _ Which Commission? "'-"`'`'" nRd ion Commissi Yes No 5. Are other departments affected by the report? — X Report discussed with the following affected departments: N/A WED BY: fit Terrence L. Belanger Geor A. We tz City Manager Inte m City i eeL CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: April 6, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Red curbing of the east side of Sunset Crossing Road north of Bower Cascade Place ISSOE STATEMENT ing Road north of Red curb the east sideof Sunset Crosscing from the northeast Bcurb returnower e Place for approximately 100 RECOMMENDATION the That the City Council approve esoo northof X Bowerfor h e red Cascade bPlacef for east side of Sunset Crsing Road approximately 100 feet commencing from the northeast curb return. FINANCIAL SUMMARY red curbing The cost associated with t of maintenance account. ted to be $500.00, and will account be funded by traffic contr BACKGROUND/DISCOSSION On March 11, 1993, the Traffic and Transportation Commission considered the request to restrict parkingis request ssin was oreceivedafrom residents of d at the intersection Bower Cascade Place. Th Q Cascade Place who were concerned with visibility restriction during attempts to make turns onto Sunset Crossing Road from Bower Cascade Place. Bower Cascade Place, a residential street, approaches Sunset Crossing Road as a Tintersection. Sunsets uthb and d rect onrossing Road is a m exhib tsleca tdowngrade as or with a eit limit of 30 MPH and the approaches Bower Cascade Place. According to the Walnut Sheriff Station, in 1992, one accident , where a motorist backed into s moving ovnin 1990 vehicle, was reported. No accidents were reported with the Department curbg the est side of Cross ng Road Field observation verifies ed lnenhancea visibility Sunset t Bower 1CascaAe north of Bower Cascade Place will Place. Staff has notified and received subject o comea whotmight utilize this s from the five sportion in the immediate vicinity of the street for parking. PREPARED BY: David G. Liu Tseday Aberra CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIICCCAND1TRA1N9S9ORTATION C / CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Chavers called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Beke. Commissioners: Ury, Cheng, Beke, Vice Chairman ROLL CALL: Gravdahl, and Chairman Chavers. Also present were Senior Engineer David SergeantLiu, Administrative Analyst Tseday Aberra, City Recorder Liz Myers. Rawlings, and Contract MINUTES: C/Beke requested that the second paragraph be amended 11, 3 of the Minutes of February Jan. 14, 1993 into two sentences. C/Ury requested that theminutes t he phrase amended' attitude 4, first paragraph, towards". Motion was made by C/Ury, seconded by C/Beke and the Minutes of CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve February 11, 1993, as amended. COMMISSION VC/Gravdahl commended Chair/Chavers on his the City Council, during the COMMENTS: presentation before March 2, 1993 meeting, regarding Tonner Canyon. Chair/Chavers, in response to C/Beke's concern for the Pathfinder/Brea regarding the striping plan explained that there will be Canyon Road stop sign, two through lanes and a right turn lane for west through bound Pathfinder, and a left turn lane, a east bound lane, and a right turn lane on The traffic on the right turn lane, Pathfinder. sthat for the ramp, will be brought to a stop so they do not interfere with south bound Brea Canyon Road. SE/Liu, in response to VC/Gravdahl's inquiry, Medical Plaza on stated that if the Diamond Bar is proposed to be subdivided into Grand Avenue smaller parcels, then it is suggested that those additional parcels be included in Landscape Assessment District 138. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Cheng stated that she will be abstaining from the Consent Calendar, voting on item A, of regarding the installation of stops signs on Rapidview Blenarm Drive and Kelfield Drive at conflict of interest. Drive, because of a possible March 11, 1993 Page 2 Motion was made by VC/Gravdahl, seconded by C/Ury to the isent and CARRIEDhe abstention of UNANUSLY C/Cheng ontem Calendar, noting A. OLD BUSINESS: presented the staff Department regarding AA/Aberr1Public request, by request, to install a stop sign at the int lin Stop signs at High Country Works, of Peaceful Hills Road and High Country Drive Commission directed Dr./Peaceful order to reduce speeding. The to bring this item back with clarification to Hills Rd. staff the recommendation made at the February 11, 1993 Commission meeting. It is recommended that the install stop signs at the deny the request to intersection of Peaceful Hills Road and High Country Drive, but implement the following: High Country Drive; post install a yield sign on speed limit signs, 500 feet before the intersection High on both approaches of Peaceful Hills Road at pedestrian crossing warning Country Drive; and post signs (W -54A), 400 feet before the intersection on High both approaches of Peaceful Hills Road at Country Drive. Motion was made by C/Ury, seconded by C/Beke and accept staff's CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to recommendation as presented. COMMISSIONERS: Ury, Beke, Cheng, AYES: VC/Gravdahl, and Chair Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. STATUS OF Sgt. Rawlings, upon the request of Chair/Chavers, the deputies did provide warnings to PREVIOUS reported that in regards to the signs posted on ACTION ITEMS: motorists, Rolling Knoll and Grand Avenue prohibiting right five days turns from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 p.m., for notification that the signs had been upon installed. The deputies have been instructed to large number begin the enforcement program, and a been issued. Many of those cited of citations have indicated that they should be exempt since they indicated were residents of Diamond Bar, and many the signs. Sgt_ that they had not even seen Rawlings inquired if the City could install something, for the next week or two, that would -draw more attention to that sign. Chair/Chavers directed staff to post the exact intersection of Grand signs on the far side of the Rolling Knoll, perhaps on the mast arm Avenue and pole, to reinforce the signs currently installed. RESOLUTION NO. 93 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING A RED CURB ON THE EAST IE OF SUNSET NG ROAD NORTH OF BOWER CASCADE PLACE CROSSING A. REQ=ALS. (i) The Traffic and Transportation Commission considered this matter at a public meeting on March 11, 1993. (ii) At the meeting of March 11, 1993, the Traffic and Transportation Commission determined that the installation of red curb on the east side of Sunset Crossing Road north of Bower Cascade Place identified in this resolution are appropriate. (iii) The Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends installation of said red curb. B. RESOLUTION. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Pursuant to Section 15.20.010 of the Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted, by reference by the City Council, provides for the installation of red curb on the east side of Sunset Crossing Road north of Bower Cascade Place upon approval of the City Council. The City Council hereby finds that the public health, safety, and welfare will be best protected by establishing a red curb zone on the east side of Sunset Crossing Road north of Bower Cascade Place. 2. This resolution shall not become effective until the red curbing on the east side of Sunset Crossing Road north of Bower Cascade Place have been posted as required in Section 1 of this resolution. 3. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby authorize and direct the Mayor to cause the red curbing to be painted indicating where the red curb is to be required. PASSED, APPROVED and APPROVED this day of 1993 MAYOR I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City , of Diamond Bar held on day of 1993 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar A , v' C> - 2 - 7 �11111711110, 9 o A I— £8r 16 �3G y0 O J Ai �ohO9 �*S 42 YINNEQ�/A N RESOLUTION NO. 93 - RESOLUTION REGARDING THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA) PROPOSED FOR CONSIDERATION AND ENDORSEMENT BY FORMAL RESOLUTION OF THE CALIFORNIA SINESS CONTRACT CITIES ASSOCIATiNNPAA ILK SPRINGUS, CAUAL LIFORNIA SESSION MAY 20-23, 1993, WHEREAS, leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States convened October 7, 1992, in San Antonio, Texas, to announce formal completion of negotiations for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); and WHEREAS, NAFTA proposes to strengthen the continuation of expanding trade in North America initiated in 1987 by the Canada - U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and given impetus by Market forces in the three regions; and WHEREAS, U.S. leadership supporting NAFTA includes both the prior Republican Administration and the current Democrat Administration, and both Administrations have publicly advocated creation of "Supplemental Accords" or "Agreement"; and WHEREAS, such Accords or Agreements should address (a) Environmental Rehabilitation, (b) Wages Reconciliation, (c) Worker Assistance, and (d) Dispute Resolution; and WHEREAS, Environmental Rehabtation must address infrastructure needs along the long Mexico -U.S. border, i.e., $15 billion needed on the Mexico side (E1 Colegio de la Frontera Norte Study) and $5.7 billion on the U.S. side (Border Trade Alliance Study); and WHEREAS, Waaes Standardization must address the fact that Mexico's labor compensation (hourly) is approximately one-seventh that of the U.S.; and WHEREAS, Worker Assistance assurances must focus upon dislocation, job -search, retraining, relocation; and WHEREAS, DisAute Resolution, proposed by NAFTA, incorporates a five -person Trade Settlement Panels System, authorized to act without permitting direct public participation or scrutiny. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Contract Cities Association does herewith propose that no further action be taken to approve the North American Free Trade Agreement until four Supplemental Accords, or Agreements, are consummated in the hereinbefore described areas of Environmental Rehabilitation, Wages Reconciliation, Worker Assistance, and Dispute Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 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 Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS - city Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.1 NO DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.2 NO DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE TtiE VOLUNTEER CENTER OF THEv GREATER !` POMONA VALLEY March 24, 1993 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Cart Herho d City of Diamond Bar P,e,idr i' City Hall Dr. Brian oNe n Vice Preside It 21660 E. Copley Dr. Suite 100 Mary Am, M: % r Diamond Bar, CA 91765 s' O"t'l , Ed E1ieomc o rrcr„ir^r Dear Mayor: Sam Armstroi g Debbie C.Iimmo April is National Volunteer Month and April S - 24 Larr) Con,ca % 1993, is National Volunteer Week. Laura El, k Nancy Ener, n Jack Futrt „ We are once again asking your city to join with us ci.Worth(oe„r,e and others in saluting Volunteerism by proclaiming Joh„ 11,1111 .) National Volunteer Week as BLUE RIBBON week. By the Fatima Harm, n proclamation and the wearing of a Blue Ribbon we will be Bette Hut n Jahr! Marcell honoring all of those citizens who give their time and WinifrcdNlauris abilities to make our communities a better place to live. Pat Mill,r Janice Molt) it A sample proclamation is enclosed along with f arricm Ne„ i, r Jr,d, Quin.d ) some Blue Ribbons. Kath) Rod e Jomi Str°"`r` h Your consideration and support is greatly Nanc, Stu, e appreciated. J„ rlwr, e Ocorgul Wel h Norman is Rckina hi 1',ir . Sin— ly EXECUTIVE STAIF Ron Alexand )r Ron Alexan er, L4ecutia�e Direeur Audrey Ermakovi� h Executive Director Communire �crtI -e Proernm 1)irecur Sue Keiih RA/mm specialProje(ts enclosures Direct )r 436 West Fourth Street • Suite 201 • Pomona • C'alifornia 91766 ( 714) 629-1187 • FAX (714) 623-2568 Member Agen, .SLR\NG rHf. (IIID., ()I ... :I:. _ _. � . �.I �: 1. _-!.1 \I,'. ':3 '.I; FI � � I F��\. ��'\ 6!FM) i The United Wcv WHEREAS, EACH YEAR 100 MILLION AMERICANS HELP THEIR NEIGHBORS THROUGH VOLUNTEER SERVICE, CARRYING ON A TRADITION ESTABLISHED IN THE EARLIEST DAYS OF OUR REPUBLIC; AND WHEREAS, THE GREATER POMONA VALLEY IS FORTUNATE TO HAVE A WELL ORGANIZED AND PRODUCTIVE VOLUNTEER CENTER THAT RECRUITED AND PLACED MORE THAN 6,000 VOLUNTEERS LAST YEAR; AND WHEREAS, THE VOLUNTEER CENTER PROVIDES SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE TO NONPROFIT AGENCIES BY OFFERING EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO STAFF AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON MANAGEMENT, GRANTSMANSHIP, FUND RAISING, AND VOLUNTEER RECRUITMENT AND MANAGEMENT; AND WHEREAS, THE VOLUNTEER CENTER OF THE GREATER POMONA VALLEY IS RECOGN122NG AND THANKING THE VOLUNTEERS OF OUR COMMUNITIES FOR THEIR OUTSTANDING EFFORTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL AND CELEBRATING VOLUNTEERS WITH BLUE RIBBONS DURING THE WEEK OF APRIL 18 - 24,1993; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF TTrKE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO THAT APRIL 18 - 24,1993, IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED AS "VOLUNTEER BLUE RIBBON WEEK" AND THE VOLUNTEER CENTER OF THE GREATER POMONA VALLEY IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED FOR ITS EFFORTS. rToclam ,APRIL IS NATIONAL, VO Ii UN TIEER MO "VOLUNTEER BLUE 'RIBBON WEEK APRIL 8 241 1993 each year 100 million americans neighbors through 'volunteer xerv4icem, corr ylngi;on, 161 ou established in the'eailla"Ait Airs r rap#klo) and MWA=S, the Greater Pomona Valley Is forte a a well organised and productive volunteer center that 41 placed more than 6,000 volunteers last pear; and NNERMS, 'the volunteer, center provides O' assistance to non profit agencies by offering duc4 opportunities to staff and board of directors' 041 n84 grantsmanship, fund raising, volunteer recruitment a and WHEREAS, the volunteer center of the ted Valley Is recognizing and thanking the volun communities for their outstanding efforts and cont the month of April and celebrating volunteers wit during the week of April 18-24, 1993; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Vto1"W Bar, proclaims the week of April 18-24, 1993, as VdFunt Ribbon Week" and the Volunteer Center of the Greatomo V. -AF n l dFir is highly recommended for Its efforts. DATED: t find lue Jay CITY OF DIAMOND Bax AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. 7 i TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: April 6, 1993 REPORT DATE: March 30, 1993 FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer TITLE: Policy for Funding Traffic Signals at Private and Public Street Intersections. SUMMARY: The Traffic and Transportation Commission has recommended that a policy be established for private and public street intersections within the City of Diamond Bar. As the result, a proposed policy is being presented to the City Council, based on the recommendations of the Traffic and Transportation Commission and comments by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: That the attached policy be established for determining participation in funding traffic signal installations at public/private intersections. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report _ Resolution(s) _ Ordinances(s) _ Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other T/T Commission Minutes 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 & Transportation Commission 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: Community Development REVIEWED BY: errence L. Belanger City Manager -ta4-� Geor e A. W n Interim City Engineer CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: April 6, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Policy for Funding Traffic Signals at Private and Public Street Intersections ISSUE STATEMENT Should a policy for funding traffic signals at private/public street intersections be developed? RECOMMENDATION That the attached policy be established for determining participation in funding traffic signal installations at public/private intersections. The Traffic and Transportation Commission considered this matter and originally recommended the following policy: 1. New Develooment(s): The cost associated with the traffic signal be borne 100% by the developer of the private street or driveway. signals shall be installed at no cost to the City. 2. Existing_ Commercial Development: Cost participation shall be shared based upon the number of legs at the intersection. If it is a T - intersection and one leg is private, it would be split on a 1/3 private contribution, 2/3 public. If it is a four -legged intersection, one leg private, it would be a 3/4 public, 1/4 private sharing of the costs, etc. 3. Existing Residential Subdivision: If intersecting a public street, the cost shall be borne 100% by the City of Diamond Bar. Staff was asked to bring back a policy statement based on the input received by the City Council. FINANCIAL SUMMARY The City's fiscal impact will be evaluated on a case-by-case based on the traffic signal installation priority. 1 Funding of Traffic Signals April 6, 1993 Page Two ANALYSIS City of Diamond Bar's Traffic and Transportation Commission has recommended the following priorities for traffic signal installations: 1. Pathfinder Road/Brea Canyon Road 2. Diamond Bar Boulevard/Shadow Canyon Road 3. Golden Springs Drive/Prospectors Road 4. Golden Springs Drive/Golden Prados Drive 5. Golden Springs Drive/Carpio Drive 6. Diamond Bar Boulevard/Northbound State Route 57 7. Brea Canyon Cut-off Road/Fallowfield Drive Staff has prepared the attached policy based on the Traffic and Transportation and previous comments received from City Council. Funding of these signals will be based on availability of monies from the various sources. Staff will bring these funding recommendations forward at the City Council meeting of April 20, 1993. Prepared By: George A. Wentz 2 DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING NUMBER: 93-001 ITEM: FUNDING OF NEW TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREET INTERSECTIONS DATE ESTABLISHED: THE CITY WILL CONSIDER AND IDENTIFY QUALIFYING TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONSTRUCTION/INSTALLATION PROJECTS GENERALLY BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: COMPLETION OF APPROPRIATE TRAFFIC AND WARRANT STUDIES; RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MITIGATIONS; CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS; OR OTHER FINDINGS OR RECOMMENDATIONS AS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CITY STAFF. ONCE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION HAS BEEN DEEMED WARRANTED, THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES SHALL BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF COST SHARING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW TRAFFIC SIGNALS. NEW DEVELOPMENTS: THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH INSTALLATION OF A NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL SHALL BE BORNE 100% BY THE DEVELOPERS PROPOSING PROJECTS. COST CONTRIBUTIONS SHALL BE BASED ON A PRORATED SHARE OF THE UNFUNDED PORTION OF THE TOTAL ANTICIPATED COST OF A SIGNAL. THE CITY MAY ALSO IMPOSE COST SHARING OF THE FIRST YEAR OF ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS. NOTE: THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM BEING INCLUDED TO UPGRADE OTHER EXISTING SIGNAL LOCATIONS BASED ON THE IMPACTS DETERMINED FOR ANY PROJECT. EXISTING; RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT A PRIVATE STREET WHERE NO NEW DEVELOPMENT IS ANTICIPATED WILL BE BORNE 100% BY THE CITY. EXISTINGi COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS: THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL REQUESTED BY THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LEGS AT THE PROPOSED INTERSECTION. FOR EXAMPLE, IF ONE LEG OF A THREE WAY INTERSECTION IS PRIVATE, THE PARTICIPATION WOULD BE ONE-THIRD. THE CITY' CONTRIBUTIONS AND TIMING OF INSTALLATION WILL BE BASED ON THE OVERALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY LIST, WHICH IS UPDATED ANNUALLY. IF FUNDING IS THE ONLY RESTRICTION FROM PRECLUDING A PROJECT FROM PROCEEDING AS REQUESTED BY A DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT MAY FUND 100% OF THE PROJECT TO FACILITATE ITS CONSTRUCTION IF APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE CITY MAY ALSO IMPOSE A SIMILAR PARTICIPATION FOR THE FIRST YEAR OF MAINTENANCE COSTS. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR " To be funded by City and reimbursed by developer. TRAFFIC SIG AL PRIORITY LIST 1992 - 1993 PRIORITYI LOCATION CITY DEVELOPER TOTAL CONTRIBUTION FEES 1 Pathfinder Rd./ $10,000 $150,000' $160,000 Brea Cyn. Rd. 2 Diamond Bar Blvd./ $115,000 $60,000 $175,000 Shadow Cyn. Dr. 3 Golden Springs Dr./ $125,000 -0- $125,000 Prospectors Rd. 4 Golden Springs Dr./ $125,000 -0- $125,000 Golden Prados Dr. 5 Golden Springs Dr./ $125,000 -0- $125,000 Carpio Dr. 6 Diamond Bar Blvd./ $72,605 $102,395 $175,000 SR 57 Freeway Ramps 7 Brea Cyn. Cut-off Rd./ -0- $125,000 $125,000 Fallowfield Dr. TOTALS $572,605 $437,395 $1,010,000 " To be funded by City and reimbursed by developer. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: April 6, 1993 REPORT DATE: March 31, 1993 FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer TITLE: Golden Springs Drive Median Islands SUMMARY: At the March 16, 1993 City Council meeting, the Council approved the layout of the proposed medians along Golden Springs Drive between Brea Canyon Road and 260 feet west of Adel Avenue. This has necessitated additional design and survey work in order to incorporate into the Golden Springs Drive Rehabilitation plans. Dwight French and Associates has submitted a proposal of $7,200 for the additional work. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with Dwight French and Associates, Inc. to increase the contract amount from $57,340 to $64,540. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: --X Staff Report _ Resolution(s) Ordinances(s) _ Agreement(s) _ Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other: DFA's proposal and amendment no. 1 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? _ Yes X No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? _Yes X No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: i Terrence L. Belanger Gear a A. Wentz City Manager Interim City Engineer CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: April 6, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Golden Springs Drive Median Islands. ISSUE STATEMENT To increase the contract amount from $57,340 to $64,540. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with Dwight French and Associates, Inc. to increase the contract amount from $57,340 to $64,540. FINANCIAL SUMMARY The increased amount of $7,200 will be funded by Gas Tax Funds. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On March 3, 1992, the City Council awarded a design and construction administration services contract to Dwight French and Associates (DFA) for the reconstruction/rehabilitation of Golden Springs Drive in the amount of $52,830.00 and authorized the City Manager to execute amendments to the contract agreement up to $10,000. In light of the recently approved median islands along Golden Springs Drive, additional design and survey would be necessary. The scope of work will include construction administration, preparation of median island construction plan, and landscape and irrigation plans. To incorporate these plans into the Golden Springs Drive'Rehabilitation Plans, DFA has submitted a proposal for $7,200. Of the original authorized amendment of $10,000, $5,685 has been expended for the median island feasibility study, traffic counts and analysis, etc. As shown on the attached amendment no. 1, the authorized contract amount was amended to $57,340.00 on May 18, 1992. Prepared by: David G. Liu 1 ::5--� i AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CITY'S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR RECONSTRUCTION/REHABILITATION OF GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE FROM BREA CANYON ROAD TO GRAND AVENUE This Amendment No. 1 to the City's Professional Services Agreement is made and entered into this 191 —day 1992, between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a Municipal Cor ration (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and DWIGHT FRENCH & ASSOCIATES (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT". A. Recitals:. (i) The CITY has heretofore entered into an agreement, with Dwight French & Associates to provide professional engineering services with respect to reconstruction/rehabilitation of Golden Springs Drive from Brea Canyon Road to Grand Avenue for Fiscal Year 1991-92, dated March 3, 1992 ("SAID AGREEMENT" hereinafter). (ii) The CITY has requested that a feasibility study for median island construction on Golden Springs Drive and field survey for Golden Springs Drive from 57/60 Overpass to Brea Canyon Road and northside of Grand Avenue be included into the AGREEMENT. (iii) CONSULTANT has submitted a proposal ("PROJECT" hereinafter), a full, true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" to prepare feasibility study for median island construction on Golden Springs Drive at a cost of $600.00 and perform field survey for Golden Springs Drive Reconstruction Project at a cost of $3,910.00. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and CONSULTANT: B. Amendment to Agreement: Section B: Subsection 2(a) is hereby amended to read in words and figures, as follows: "2(a) CONSULTANT shall forthwith undertake and complete the project in accordance with Exhibits "A" and "B" hereto and all in accordance with applicable Federal, State and CITY statutes, regulations, ordinances and guidelines, all to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY and in accordance with the standard of care normally provided by practitioners of the engineering profession." Section B: Subsection 3(a) of the original agreement is hereby amended as follows: "3(a) To pay consultant a maximum sum of Fifty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Forty dollars and no cents ($57,340.00) for Fiscal year 1991-92 for the performance of the services required by the original agreement- and the supplemental agreement." x Section 3: This Amendment No. 1 Agreement supersedes any and all Sections in the Original Agreement and all other agreements, either oral in writing, between the parties with respect to the subject or matter herein. Each party to this Supplemental Agreement acknowledges that no representation by any party which is not embodied herein nor any other agreement, statement, or promise not contained in this Supplemental Agreement shall be valid and binding. Any modification of this Supplemental Agreement shall be effective only if it is in writing signed by the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Supplemental Agreement as of the day and year first set forth above: MzEDAP ORM: City A torne CONSULTANT: D GH , FRENffCH I& ASSOCIATES �� J Whitman ident C 44�— D AR City Manager DATE: M4 I O' January 28, 1993 Mr. David Liu Assistant City Engineer 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 Subject: Proposal to Add Median Island and Prepare Landscaping/ Irrigation Plans for Median Island for Golden Springs Drive, Between the 60 and 57 Freeway Overpass and Brea Canyon Road Dear Mr. Liu: Dwight French & Associates, Inc. (DFA) is pleased to present this proposal for the subject project. This proposal is based on recent discussions between myself and Mr. George Wentz. Attached are the scope of work and proposed fee. We can complete this design work in 30 days from Notice -to -Proceed. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this proposal, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, C J C. Whitman President JCW:drb Attachments \prop\b380.jow ■ 1470 South Valley Meta Drive, Suite 225, Diamond Dar, Calirornia 91765 ■ ■ (714) 8fi0.Wk Fax No. (714) 860.3476 ■ ■ Apple Valley (6 19) 240-X34M r DWIGHT FRENCH & ASSOCIATES SCOPE OF WORK TASK 1 PREPARE MEDIAN ISLAND CONSTRUCTION PLAN Based on the study report prepared by Dwight French & Associates, Inc. and the City's comments, revise Golden Springs Drive Reconstruction Project roadway plans to include the proposed median island. TASK 2 PREPARE LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION PLANS Develop landscaping and irrigation plans for the proposed median island. Use street improvement plans as a base sheet. The irrigation system plan will also include an electric wiring layout for an automatic sprinkler system. Before plans are developed, DFA will meet with the City Parks and Recreation staff to discuss the concept. TASK 3 PREPARE SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE The specifications and construction cost estimate will be developed and incorporated into the Golden Springs Drive Reconstruction Project to make one bid package. \pr0p\b380.jcw DWIGHT FRENCH & ASSOCIATES PROPOSED FEE TASK 1 TASK 2 TASK 3 \prop\b380.jcw TOTAL $4,800 $2,000 $ 400 $7,200 nDnTMAMOP Mn Al (1993) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RELATING TO THE PREVENTION AND REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI AND OTHER INSCRIBED MATERIAL AND ESTABLISHING THE PAYMENT OF A REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO THE CONVICTION OF GRAFFITI INSCRIBERS. A. Recitals. (i) The City Council finds and declares that graffiti on public and private property is a blighting factor which not only depreciates the value of the property which has been the target of such malicious vandalism, but which also depreciates the value of the adjacent and surrounding properties and thereby negatively impacts the entire community. (ii) The City Council further finds and determines that the inscription of graffiti may be associated with criminal activity and delinquency and unless graffiti and other inscribed material is removed from property it tends to remain and other properties are then the target of graffiti with the result that entire neighborhoods, and the City in general, are made a less desirable place to be. (iii) Section 53069.3 of the California Government Code authorizes the City to enact ordinances to provide for the use of City funds to remove graffiti from public places and privately owned structures located within the City. (iv) In the past, the City of Diamond Bar has provided unlimited, free, graffiti removal services. While this public service benefits the entire community, it provides no incentive to private property owners to deal directly with the problem and formulate their own ideas, solutions, and mitigation measures to avoid being victimized time and time again. (v) With the current economic recession and resulting reduction in public resources, the perpetual provision of free and unlimited graffiti removal services, as the City's sole response to this kind of malicious behavior, is no longer an effective deterrent to the escalation in graffiti vandalism and is not a cost effective use of public funds. (vi) The Council finds and determines that the adoption of an ordinance making the presence of graffiti unlawful on any property will: (1) assist and encourage property owners to cooperatively engage in measures to prevent graffiti, as well as to remove graffiti from their property in a timely and beneficial manner; (2) alert parents and legal guardians to their involvement in, and responsibility for, payment of civil damages, in an amount not to exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), resulting from the willful misconduct of a minor in their charge; (3) notify any person who willfully damages property by inscribing graffiti that their acts will have direct personal consequences which may include fines, imprisonment, court mandated community service, suspension and/or delay of driving privileges; (4) notify retailers within the City that it is unlawful to sell or give to any individual under the age of eighteen (18) years a graffiti implement as defined by this Ordinance and that they must keep, store and maintain any implement capable of being used to deface property in a secure location, and otherwise inaccessible except by special request; (5) advise any person, firm or corporation engaged in the retail sale of any graffiti implement of their responsibilities under this Ordinance and to the potential consequences, including the imposition of a fine, imprisonment or both, for failure to take proper precautions to keep, store and maintain in an inaccessible location any implement regulated by this Ordinance; and (6) secure the cooperation of residents, businesses, and contractors of services in the arrest of individuals responsible for inscribing graffiti on property by providing for the payment of a reward for information leading to the apprehension and conviction of any person who willfully places graffiti or other inscribed material upon public or privately owned property within the City. (vii) All legal prerequisites to the 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. Section 2. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words and phrases are defined and shall be construed'as hereinafter set out, unless it is apparent from the context that a different meaning was intended: "A. 'Aerosol Container' means any aerosol based container, bottle, spray device or other mechanism, six (6) ounces or less, which is adapted or made for the purpose of spraying paint, ink, dye or other similar substance. "B. 'Bona fide evidence of majority and identity' means any document evidencing the age and identity of an individual which has been issues by a federal, state or local government entity, and includes, but is not limited to, a motor vehicle operator's license, a registration certificate issued under the Federal Selective Service Act, or an identification card issued by a member of the armed forces. 3 "C. 'City' means the City of Diamond Bar, California. "D. 'City Manager' means the City Manager of the City of Diamond Bar or his or her designee. "E. 'Felt Tip Marker' means any indelible marker, pen or similar implement which contains a fluid which is not soluble in water and has a flat, pointed or angled tip which at its broadest width is greater than one-eighth (1/8th) inch. 'F. 'Graffiti' means the unauthorized application of paint, ink, chalk, dye or the use of any other instrument capable of defacing, damaging or destroying public and private buildings, structures, or any portion thereof. "G. 'Graffiti Implement' means an aerosol container, a felt tip marker, nail polish, shoe polish, paint stick, etching instrument, or any other device containing paint, ink, chalk, dye or similar substance which when used or applied is capable of defacing glass, metal, concrete or wood. "H. 'Obnoxious Graffiti' means graffiti which, in the determination of the City Manager, has any of the following characteristics: (1) Insults or incites hatred or contempt of any racial, religious or ethnic group; (2 ) Refers to the name of a gang or includes words or symbols associated with a gang or individual; (3) Insults or threatens any identifiable individual or group; (4) Includes obscene or indecent language or depictions; (5) Constitutes an aesthetic blight or eyesore to a neighborhood; 4 (6) Tends to attract more graffiti; and (7) Promotes criminal activity or promotes retaliatory action by an individual(s). "I. 'Paint Stick or Graffiti Stick' means any device containing a solid form of paint, chalk, wax, epoxy, or other similar substance that is not water soluble and is capable of being applied to a surface by pressure, and upon application, leaving a mark at least one-eighth (1/8th) inch in width. Section 3. Graffiti Prohibited. A. It is unlawful for any person to apply graffiti to any public or privately owned structure located on public or privately owned real property within the City. B. It shall be unlawful for any owner, lessee, occupant or other person having present possession of a lot or parcel of land within the City to (1) permit graffiti to remain upon such lot or parcel of land or (2) to maintain any structure affixed to such lot or parcel or land with graffiti on such structure or any portion thereof, for a period in excess of seven (7) calendar days following service by the City of a notice to abate graffiti. Each day the graffiti is maintained beyond the initial seven (7) day period hereby constitutes a separate offense and is subject to the penalties set forth in Section 9. Section 4. Possession of Graffiti Implement. No person under the age of eighteen (18) years and not in the presence of a parent or legal guardian shall have in his or her possession a graffiti implement, as defined by this Ordinance, while in any public park, playground, swimming pool, public recreational facility or any public right-of-way in the City unless necessary in order to participate in any City sponsored function. This section 5 shall not apply to authorized employees of the city of Diamona Bar nor shall it apply to the authorized agents or contractors under contract with the City. Section 5. Removal Policy. The City Manager or his designee shall develop a graffiti removal program to assist property owners in the expeditious removal of graffiti from their property. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Ordinance, the City shall be authorized to recover its costs incurred in the removal of graffiti from private property if: (a) The removal of graffiti or other inscribed material from privately owned real property exceeds four (4) requests or a maximum of 600 square feet per privately owned real property during one (1) calendar year. (b) Where the removal of graffiti has been mandated pursuant to Section 6 of this Ordinance, the owner of the affected property shall be required to reimburse the City for such services. (c) Nothing in this Ordinance shall prohibit the City Manager or his designee from waiving the provisions of this section if it can be determined that the affected property owner has demonstrated a conscientious effort to prevent graffiti from occurring on their property as exhibited by, but not limited to, the installation of security devices such as surveillance cameras, security lighting, sprinklers linked to motion sensors; protective or covering landscaping; graffiti resistant building materials; or the application of graffiti -resilient paint. Section 6. Authorization to Remove. Graffiti may be removed by any of the following methods: (1) Wherever the City Manager determines that graffiti or other inscribed material constitutes "obnoxious graffiti" as N defined in this Ordinance and is so located on public or privately owned property within the City so as to be capable of being viewed by a person utilizing any public right-of-way in the City, the City Manager is authorized to provide for the removal of the graffiti or other inscribed material upon the following conditions: (a) In removing the graffiti or other inscribed material, the painting or repair of a more extensive area shall not be authorized. (b) Where a structure is owned by a public entity other than this City, the removal of the graffiti or other inscribed material may be authorized only after securing the consent of the public entity having jurisdiction over the structure and such entity executes a release and waiver, approved as to form by the City Attorney, and agrees to an assumption of costs incurred by the City for the removal of the graffiti or other inscribed material. (c) Where a structure is privately owned, the removal of the graffiti or other inscribed material may be authorized only after securing the consent of the owner and the owner having executed a release and waiver approved as to form by the City Attorney. (2) Graffiti which is located on privately owned structures on privately owned real property within the City and which can be viewed by a person utilizing any public right-of-way within the City may be removed by the City at the owner's expense as a public nuisance pursuant to Section 7. This Section shall apply under the following circumstances: (a) The private property owner has persuaded, allowed or encouraged the graffiti problem; 7 (b) The private property owner's consent cannot be obtained; (c) The City Manager determines that the removal of graffiti or other inscribed material from a privately owned property has exceeded four (4) requests or a maximum of 600 square feet per privately owned real property during one (1) calendar year. Section 7. Notice to Abate Graffiti. Whenever the City Manager determines that graffiti is being maintained upon the premises within the City in violation of Section 3 of this Ordinance, the City Manager shall send, by registered or certified mail, or post, at a conspicuous place on the premises where the graffiti is located, written notice to the owner, and to any lessee, occupant or other person having present possession of a lot or parcel of land within the City that the graffiti must be removed within seven (7) days from the date of service of the notice. The notice shall be entitled "Notice to Abate Graffiti." in letters not less than one inch in height, and shall cite this Ordinance as authority for such abatement. The notice shall contain a general description of the property on which the graffiti is located, (a) The notice shall be on City letterhead in substantially the following form: "NOTICE TO ABATE GRAFFITI NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that under the provisions of Section 3 of Ordinance you are required at your expense to remove or paint over the graffiti located on the property commonly known as Diamond Bar, California, which is visible to public view, within seven (7) days after the date of service of this notice. The graffiti is visible to public view and therefore constitutes a public nuisance. If you fail to comply with this order the City or its contractor will enter upon your property and abate the public nuisance. The 0 cost of the abatement by the City or its contractor will be assessed upon your property and such costs will constitute a lien upon the land until paid. All persons having any objection to, or interest in said matter are hereby notified to submit an appeal to the Office of the City Manager within seven (7) days from the date of this notice. At the conclusion of this seven (7) day period the City may proceed with the abatement of the graffiti on your property at your expense without further notice." (b) If an appeal has been made to the office of the City Manager within seven (7) days from the date of the Notice to Abate Graffiti, the City Manager, or his designee, shall hold an administrative hearing on the appeal. The decision of the City Manager or his designee shall be final and conclusive. (c) If an appeal has not been submitted as set forth in Section 7(b) above, or if the appeal has been denied following an administrative hearing, and if the private property owner fails to remove or fails to cause the graffiti to be removed by the designated date, or such continued date thereafter as approved by the City Manager, then the City Manager shall cause the graffiti to be abated as a public nuisance by the City or its contractor, and the City or its contractor is expressly authorized to enter upon the premises for such purpose. Section 8. Recovery of Costs. Should the City Manager be required to abate the graffiti as a public nuisance, as set forth in Section 7(c), the City may recover, pursuant to California Government Code Section 38773, the costs of abatement through the assessment of a lien against the property on which the nuisance is maintained. (a) Prior to the recordation of a lien against property for the recovery of abatement and related administrative costs, the 9 City, in accordance With Seativn 30773.1. o- -1 Li -- California Government Code, shall provide written notification, by registered or certified mail, to the property owner that a lien will be assessed against their property and such costs will constitute a lien upon the land until paid. The notice of lien shall for purposes of this Ordinance be in form substantially as follows: "NOTICE OF LIEN" Pursuant to California Government Code Section 38773 and the authority of Ordinance of the City of Diamond Bar, the City Manager of the City of Diamond Bar did on or about the day of . 199_ cause the removal of graffiti at the premises hereinafter described in order to abate a public nuisance on said real property; and the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar did on the day of , 199_ assess the cost of such abatement upon the real property hereinafter described; and the same has not been paid nor any part thereof; and that said City of Diamond Bar does hereby claim a lien for such costs of abatement in the amount of said assessment to wit: the sum of dollars; and the same shall be a lien upon said real property until the same has been paid in full and discharged of record. The real property hereinabove mentioned, and upon which a lien is claimed, is that certain parcel of land lying and being in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and particularly described as follows: DATED this day of , 199_ City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar (b) Between the first and the fifteenth day of July of each year, the City Manager shall cause to be published in the official newspaper of the City a notice that any person affected or aggrieved by any act or determination of the City or the City's City Manager in connection with the provisions of this Ordinance FXI] may appeal to the Clty rnuncil An Appnal ce) 01 lio in writincr ATIA shall be filed with the Office of the City Clerk prior to the fifteenth day of July. At the next regular scheduled meeting of the City Council after the fifteenth day of July, or from time to time thereafter as may be determined by the Council, the City Council shall hear and render a decision upon each appeal, and the determination of the Council shall be final and conclusive. In the event any determination of the City Manager is modified by determination of the City Council or any assessment changed or corrected, the City Manager shall cause the correction to be made upon the record showing the assessment. (c) At the expiration of the time for appeal, or upon the determination by the City Council of all appeals so filed, and in compliance with the requirements of any determination so made, the City Manager shall deliver to the County Auditor of the County of Los Angeles an abstract of each lot or parcel of land within the City affected by this Section and the amount of each such charge to be placed upon the assessment roll against the respective parcel. Thereafter, the charges shall be of the same character and effect, subject to the same penalties, and shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as City taxes. The provision of this Section shall not apply to any lot or parcel of land if the charge against it has been paid prior to the delivery of the abstract to the County Auditor. Section 9. Failure to Remove Graffiti Upon Notice. In addition to any costs incurred by the City for the abatement of graffiti from private property, failure to voluntarily abate graffiti after notification shall result in the following penalties: 11 (a) The failure of any persun, Llan, parziacroiilp, .,� corporation, failing to remove graffiti withinthe prescribed seven (7) day period as set forth in Section 3(b) hereby constitutes an infraction and is punishable by a fine of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars upon first conviction thereof. (b) Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation convicted of violating Section 3(b) of this Ordinance for a second time shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be punished by a fine of Two Hundred and Fifty ($250.00) Dollars. (c) Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation convicted of violating Section 3(b) of this Ordinance for a third time or any subsequent number of times shall be deemed guilty of an infraction and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars. (d) Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation previously convicted three (3) times under this Section 9, violating the provisions of Section 3(b) hereof, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in Section 14(a), hereof. Section 10. Alternative Actions. The violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance or any State law pertaining to vandalism of property with a graffiti implement shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City through a civil process by means of a restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or in any other manner available to the City under provisions of applicable ordinances or State law. Section 11. Sale of Graffiti Implements. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to sell or give any graffiti implement, as defined by this 12 Ordinance, to any individual under the age of eighteen (18) years, who is not accompanied by a parent or legal guardian, without first obtaining bona fide evidence of majority and identity. (b) Any person, firm or corporation offering for sale to the public any graffiti implement, as defined by this Ordinance, shall keep, store and maintain such material in a place that is locked and secure, or otherwise inaccessible except by special request. (c) Any person, firm or corporation engaged in the retail sale of any graffiti implement, as defined by this ordinance, must display at a conspicuous location a legible sign measuring not less than twelve (12) inches by twelve (12) inches with letters at least 1/2 inch in height which states: "It is unlawful for any person to sell or give to any individual under the age of eighteen years, who is not accompanied by a parent or legal guardian, any implement or other device capable of being used to deface property. Any person who maliciously defaces real property is guilty of vandalism which is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both." (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Ordinance, it shall be unlawful, pursuant to Section 594.1 of the California Penal Code, for any person, firm, or corporation, except a parent or legal guardian, to sell or give or in any way furnish to another person, who is under the age of 18 years, any aerosol container containing six (6) ounces or more of paint, without first obtaining bona fide evidence of majority and identity. (e) Any person, firm or corporation that violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor as set forth in Section 14 below. Section 12. Reward for Information. The city council may, by resolution, offer and pay a reward for information leading to 13 the apprehension and conviction of any person who places grad iti or other inscribed material as defined herein upon public or privately owned structures within the City. In addition to any fines levied by the City for violation of this Ordinance, any person who has damaged property by inscribing graffiti on public or private property shall be liable for the amount of any reward paid pursuant to this Ordinance and Section 53069.5 of the California Government Code. Section 13. Parental Responsibility. Pursuant to Section 1714.1(b) of the California Civil Code, where graffiti is applied by an unemancipated minor, the parents or legal guardian of said minor shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of civil damages resulting from the misconduct of the minor in an amount not to exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) for each such offense. Section 14. Penalty for Violation of Ordinance. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Ordinance. (a) Except as provided in Section 9, any person, firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this Ordinance, 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 such person, firm, partnership, or corporations shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this Ordinance is committed, continued, or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and. 14 shall be deemed punishable tlaeraforo aE Y,r- AeA i th i A n"11 nnnnc _ (b) Notwithstanding the penalties set forth in Section 14(a) above, any person who maliciously defaces, damages or destroys property with a graffiti implement is guilty of vandalism, pursuant to Section 594 of the California Penal Code, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison or in a county jail for a period not to exceed one (1) year, or by a fine of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), but no more than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) depending upon the severity and the amount of defacement, damage or destruction to property, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Section 15. Community Service. (a) Upon conviction of any person for violation of Section 3 of this Ordinance, or any State law pertaining to vandalism of property with a graffiti implement, the City shall petition the sentencing court to impose community service time, pursuant to Section 640.6 of the California Penal Code. The sentencing court may require the performance of community service within the City in addition to any monetary penalties imposed. In the event the sentencing court approves community service, the City shall request any adult or emancipated minor convicted of vandalism, as defined by Section 594(a)(1) of the California Penal Code, to: (1) complete a minimum of 24 hours, but no more than 48 hours of community services cleaning up, removing, and repairing property damaged by graffiti for the first conviction; and (2) complete 48 hours, but no more than 96 hours of community services cleaning up, removing, and repairing property damaged by graffiti for each subsequent conviction. (b) Any person who is under the age of 18 when he or she 15 violates any provision of this Ordinance or any state law pertaining to vandalism of property with a graffiti implement, and is found to be a person described in Section 602 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code by reason of the commission of vandalism, may be required to perform community service time pursuant to Section 728 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. For any minor adjudicated guilty of vandalism, the City will petition the juvenile court and the court may, in addition to any other penalties imposed by the City, require the unemancipated minor to provide the necessary labor to clean up, repair, or replace defaced, damaged or destroyed property, or otherwise make restitution to the property owner. (c) If a minor is personally unable to pay any fine levied for violating any provision of this Ordinance or is otherwise unable to make restitution for damages, the minor's parent or legal guardian shall be liable for payment of the fine or restitution. If the parent or legal guardian cannot make restitution, the sentencing court may waive payment of the fine or community service time by the parent or legal guardian upon finding of good cause. If the sentencing court waives payment of the fine by the parent or legal guardian, the City shall petition the sentencing court, and the court, at the court's option, may order the parent or legal guardian to provide the necessary labor, equal to the number of hours assigned to the minor adjudicated guilty of violating any provision of this Ordinance, to clean up, repair, or replace property damaged by the unemancipated minor. Section 16. Suspension or Delay of Driving Privileges. For each conviction of a person aged 13 to 21 for violation of Section 3 of this Ordinance, or any State law pertaining to vandalism of 16 property with a graffiti implement, tree city iAx"11 tko sentencing court to suspend existing driving privileges or delay the issuance of driving privileges in accordance to California Vehicle Code Section 13202.6. Section 17. Severability. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be 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, section, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Section 18. Remedies Cumulative. The remedies provided in this Ordinance are in addition to other remedies and penalties available under provisions of applicable ordinance of the City and the laws of the State of California. Section 19. All provisions of the Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted by the City of Diamond Bar, which are in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance hereby are repealed. Section 20. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in three (3) public places within the city of Diamond Bar within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the manner prescribed by Resolution No. 89-6. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of , 1993. Mayor 17 I, LYNDA DURGESB, L"z CILZ Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 16th day of March, 1993, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the , day of , 1993, by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: Lynda Burgess, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar CITY OF DIAMOND BAR I N T E R O F F I C E N E M O R A N D O N DATE: April 1, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council �� FROM: Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Sub -Corte Member/Code Enforcemen ff Councilman MacBride, Sub-Cmte Member/Code Enforcemen James DeStefano, Community Development Director Al Flores, Code Enforcement Officer Bob Zirbes, President, D.B.I.A. Cathy Solis, Director, D.B.I.A. SUBJECT: Status Report on Code Enforcement Subcommittee Activities Earlier this year City Council Members were appointed to a Code Enforcement Subcommittee in order to begin crafting an ordinance responding to complaints received by the City regarding the lack of property maintenance on some residential and commercial properties. Local governments have the authority to establish minimum property maintenance requirements in order to preserve and protect the health, safety and appearance of neighborhoods in order to eliminate blight and deterioration. The City currently does not have adequate Ordinances to respond to the majority of property maintenance complaints. Property Maintenance standards from eight cities have been reviewed and provided to the Committee Members for their input. A rough draft ordinance was reviewed by the Committee at its most recent meeting of March 31, 1993. Several suggested changes were made and a revised working draft is being crafted and will be submitted to the Committee for their review. The Committee's next meeting is scheduled for April 15, 1993, at 7:00 a.m., to be held at City Hall. It is anticipated that the Committee will complete its rough draft by May 1, 1993. JDs\mco cc: Terrence Belanger, City Manager Andrew Arczynski, City Attorney F:1 W PS 1 \W ORKkMEMO\PROPMAIN.ORD CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: April 6, 1993 REPORT DATE: March 30, 1993 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50519, Zone Change No. 91-1, and Development Review No. 91-2 SUMMART—The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 2.3 acre site located at 23575 Golden Springs Drive at Torito Lane into 34 individual ownership lots/units and three (3) common lots, to change the zone classification from C-1 (Restricted Business) to R -3-(15)U (Limited Multiple Residence) and to obtain design review approval of the architecture, exterior treatments, and site plan of the proposed development. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the applications via the attached Resolutions of Approval for the Subdivision and Development Review applications and Ordinance No. 93 -XX for the Zone Change application. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS X Staff Report X Resolution(s) X Ordinances(s) _ Agreement(s) Other EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: NONE SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? Report discussed with the following affected departments: srrence L. Belanger ty Manager X Yes _ No MAJORITY X Yes _ No Yes X No X Yes _ No Public Works (Engineering) Dept. AA"§&6,7C es DeStefano Community Development Director CITY COUNCIL REPORT MEETING DATE: April 6, 1993 AGENDA NO. TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50519, Zone Change No. 91-1, and Development Review No. 91-2. ISSUE STATEMENT: The applicant is seeking approval to subdivide a 2.3 acre site located at 23575 Golden Springs Drive at Torito Lane into 34 individual ownership lots/units and three (3) common lots, to change the zone classification from C-1 (Restricted Business) to Zone R -3-(15)U (Limited Multiple Residence) and to obtain design review of the architecture, exterior treatments, and site plan of the proposed development. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the applications listed in the title of this report via the attached Resolutions of Approval for the Subdivision and Development Review applications and Ordinance No. 93 -XX for the Zone Change application. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND: On March 16, 1993, the City Council opened the public hearing for the proposed project and referenced applications. As a part of the public hearing process the City Council discussed at length a variety of issues related to the overall design of the project; the site plan, configuration of the building footprints, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, open space and interior floor plan concerns. Additionally, discussion took place regarding the previous proposals by the applicant, as reviewed by the Planning Commission, related to a proposed 80 unit Senior Citizen Project and 36 unit Townhome design condominium project. The City Council concluded its discussion by continuing the project to April 6, 1993, for further study. A Council Subcommittee was created consisting of Mayor Pro -tem Phyllis Papen, and Councilman Member John Forbing to review the applicants revised drawings responding to Council comments. Subcommittee Review: As a result of the public hearing held on March 16, 1993, the applicant has revised the proposed project in order to address the concerns raised. The applicant's revised proposal is substantially similar to a 36 unit project considered by the Planning Commission in late 1992. The Council Subcommittee and Staff met with the applicant on Tuesday, March 23, 1993, to review the revised 34 unit project and revisit the applicant's 80 unit Senior Citizen proposal contemplated in 1991. Zone Change: The application involves a zone change, vesting tentative tract map for the proposed 34 unit condominium project and development review of the site plan architecture, and overall design characteristics. The zone change application requests a reclassification of the property from its current C-1 zone (Restricted Business) to R -3-15(U) zone (Limited Multiple Residence). The Draft General Plan Land Use designation for the site is RM (Medium Density Residential). This designation provides for a maximum density of 16 units per acre. The proposed Zone permits a maximum of 15 units per acre. Therefore, if approved, the property will be rezoned in conformity with the Draft General Plan Land Use designation. Vesting Tentative Tract Maw As a result of City Council and Subcommittee comment, the applicant has revised the previously submitted Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The project is now proposed as a 7 building, 34 unit condominium development, incorporating three common lots. The proposed project is designed at 14.78 units per acre. Access and circulation patterns have been revised to omit the loop driveway circulation system. The previous project proposed two points of access from Torito Lane. The revised project provides a single point of access. The revised project has created a series of short drive aisles extending from the Torito access point. This revived vehicular circulation pattern has created the opportunity to increase the landscaped open space areas and &, all but one existing specimen tree. The previous proposal had designated all trees for removal. Additionally, this proposal reduces the amount of non -permeable area within the project. The revised project incorporates a common recreation area, including a spa, as well as guest parking spaces. The spa has been relocated to the north side of the development. Sixteen guest parking spaces have been provided in the revised plan. Development Review: The applicant has responded to comments regarding improvements needed to the floor plans. The revised floor plan now includes a bathroom on the first floor, as well as, the second floor. As with the previous design, each two floor town home is provided with approximately 1300 sq. ft. of habitable space and a 440 sq. ft. two - car garage. Each unit is provided with a 310 square foot private enclosed patio area. Several minor adjustments have been made to the floor plans that improve liveability of each unit. The applicant has revised the architectural treatment as well, by omitting the staggered roofline and incorporating a continuous ridge extending the entire length of each building. The architectural design of the development is a contemporary theme, consisting of concrete S -tile roof, beige stucco, forest green iron work and ceramic accent tiles. The continuous roof line of each building is broken up with dormers which project out over the second story windows of the front elevation. The architectural treatment has "wrapped" each building such that site elevations and rear elevations have incorporated all the architectural features. 2 CONCLUSION: The applicant has reworked the project responding to circulation system issues, orientation of the buildings, increasing landscaping, retaining existing specimen trees, and has redistributed visitor parking spaces. The proposed project deletes the necessity for trash enclosures by placing individual containers within each dwelling unit. The revised floorplans provide improved livability by incorporating additional storage, a groundfloor bathroom, as well as, larger bedrooms for the occupants. The project has been reviewed with respect to planning and zoning requirements. The project plan is less intrusive to surrounding land uses as it provides for additional setbacks and meets or exceeds all requirements of the proposed zone. The subdivision has been reviewed by the Engineering Department, and it has been found to be in compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance. PUBLIC NOTICE: This is a continued public hearing from March 16, 1993. Advertisements for the March 16, 1993, hearing were published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on February 17, 1993. Approximately 97 property owners within a 500 feet radius of the property were notified of the prior public hearing by mail. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERNHNATION: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolutions of Approval and Ordinance No. 93 -XX. PREPARED BY: James Destefano, Community Development Director and Robert Searcy, Associate Planner Attachments: City Council Report dated March 16, 1993 Revised Tract Map, Site Plan, Floor Plan & Architectural Elevations Planning Commission Resolutions of Approval No.'s 93-3, 93-4 and 93-5 Draft City Council Resolutions of Approval No. _ Draft City Council Ordinance No. _ Application and Negative Declaration F \WP51\WORKC R0B\CR0CC3.FRM 3 CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: March 16, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50519, Zone Change No. 91-1, and Development Review No. 91-2. ISSUE STATEMENT: The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 2.3 acre site into 34 individual ownership lots/units and three (3) common lots, to change the zone classification from C-1 (Restricted Business) to Zone R -3-(15)U (Limited Multiple Residence) and to obtain design review of the architecture, exterior treatments, and site plan of the proposed development. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the applications listed in the title of this report via the attached Resolutions of Approval for the Subdivision and Development Review applications and Ordinance No. 93 -XX for the Zone Change application. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND: The applicant presented a proposed 80 unit senior citizen condominium project in a series of public hearings dating back to November 25, 1991 and concluding before the Planning Commission on June 22, 1992. In the intervening period, the General Plan was approved by the City Council. The General Plan land use category placed on this site is Medium Density Residential (RM) 16 units/acre. Because of issues raised during those hearings, the applicant revised the project in order to bring it into conformance with the General Plan. As a result, the project was revised to 36 units (16 units per acre) and the design was altered. Subsequent to the Commission's review of the revised project and issues related to the architecture, internal circulation, and parking, the project has once again been revised to the current 34 unit market rate project. The project requires discretionary approvals as prescribed in the Los Angeles County Code as adopted by the City of Diamond Bar. The discretionary approvals allow the City to determine the appropriateness and compatibility of the requested land use as it relates to adjacent uses and the goals of the City. As submitted, the applicant is requesting approval of applications for a zone change and development review, and in addition to approval of a vesting tentative tract map. The application requests are consistent with the General Plan. In particular, the zone change would bring the site into consistency with the land use designation (RM) as identified in the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and the Planning Commission recommendations as adopted by the City Council. The maximum density allowed is 16 units per acre and the proposed project is designed with a 14.59 units per acre. The City Attorney has reviewed the application and deemed the project to be eligible for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This project is exempt from the prohibitions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992) since the project is not located within a hillside area or an ecologically sensitive area (SEA) and is consistent with the contemplated General Plan. DISCUSSION: The site is currently graded and devoid of any significant vegetation or structures. Mosi recently, the site was the location of a vacated 10,000 sq. ft. building. The building, which housed the Diamond Bar Postal Office, was demolished by the applicant to remove the potential health and safety hazards the vacant structures presented. The site runs generally to the east from Golden Springs Drive to Torito Lane. The extreme southern portion of the corner lot is a separate parcel which is developed with a commercial retail center. Multi -family residential condominiums are developed to the north of the subject site and a single family residential subdivision is located to the northwest. The Vons Center abuts the proposed subdivision and takes access, via Torito Lane, to Golden Springs Drive. Directly south and west across Torito Lane, professional office buildings and a vacant lot comprise the existing setting. A church is located to the east across Golden Springs Drive. Land Use: Over the two year evolution of this project, the most prominent issues identified for consideration include but are not limited to the following: 1) Is a residential development appropriate in light of the limited commercial space the City possesses? 2) Does the multi -family development represent an appropriate land use as a buffer between commercial and professional office uses and adjacent residential development at this location? 3) Is the character of the development consistent with existing multi -family development and if not, is it a direction the City wishes to see multi -family development to proceed. From the esoteric planning principles, land uses of comparable intensity and density are best located adjacent to each other. The surrounding land uses of this particular site are varied in use, density and intensity. Retail commercial (C-2 Neighborhood Commercial) uses are located south and west of the subject site. Professional office uses are located to the southwest as is a vacant parcel of land. Abutting the subject site to the east is high density (30 units per acre) multi -family residential development. Directly north of the site there is a high density single family residential subdivision. 2 The configuration and location of this site does not lend itself well to retail commercial uses and, if developed for commercial uses, would most likely be developed as a professional office. That type of project could potentially be a two floor development with a maximum lot coverage of 90 percent. The traffic generated by a commercial project may exceed the traffic generation of a residential development at peak hours depending on the composition of land uses. Multi -family Proiects in Diamond Multi -family residential development is usually perceived to be an appropriate transition from low intensity retail and office development to single and low density residential development. The proposed project would provide a buffer between residential and commercial uses. Review of other comparable multi -family developments within the City revealed that the development with the highest density abuts this site. The complex was initially constructed as an apartment complex and subsequently received a condominium conversion approval from the County. The density for the development is approximately 30 units per acre. The Montefino condominiums are developed at a density of approximately 6.7 units per acre. The units are multi -story townhouses.and no units are constructed over any other unit. The Cambridge Hills condominiums which are located on North Diamond Bar Blvd. and overlook the Orange Freeway, display a density of almost 9 units per acre. The Diamond Brothers condominium project located on Grand Ave. is developed with 54 units on 4.5 gross acres which yields a density of 12 units per acre. After consideration of the proposed project within this framework and in compliance with the General Plan, the Planning Commission approved the concept of multi -family development on this site and moved forward in the review of the particulars of the project. Zone Chance The zone change application requests that the current C- I zone (Restricted Business Zone) classification be revised to a R -3-(15)U zone (Unlimited Multiple Residence Zone) classification which will bring the site into compliance with the General Plan land use designation. The General Plan land use designation of RM (Medium Density Residential) provides for a maximum density of 16 units per acre. As designed, this project conforms with the approved maximum density of 14.7 units per acre and (15)U reflects the proposed density. Vesting Tentative Tract Map/Land Use: A tentative tract map is required by the Subdivision Map Act (Chapter 2 Section 66427) for condominium projects. This requirement is necessitated because of the ownership of individual units and the ownership of common areas by the Home Owners Association (HOA). The boundaries and legal descriptions for units and common areas are explicitly described within the tract map. For this project, based on the design, it is necessary to delineate lots and units by surface and air space limits. The project configuration has undergone numerous revisions in an attempt to comply with the Planning Commission's concerns related to visual impacts/aesthetics, circulation, and density. Additionally the project has evolved to conform to the City's development standards, staff concerns, and Los Angeles County Fire Department requirements. The applicant has attempted to design the multi -structure project on an odd "L" 3 shaped lot that exhibits frontages on two streets (Golden Springs and Torito Lane) with ingress and egress from only one street, Torito Lane. The project is designed as an (8) building 34 unit condominium project. The site is located on a 2.3 acre site northeast of the intersection of Golden Springs Drive and Torito Lane. The parcel is surrounded by residential development to the east and north and by commercial and office uses to the north, south, and west. Development Review The design of this project differs greatly from projects previously proposed for this site. The buildings are designed as two floor townhouses with bedrooms on the upper floor and the kitchen, two car garage and additional living area comprising the ground floor. Each unit will be self contained and no public laundry facilities are proposed as a part of this project. The habitable area of each unit totals approximately 1,300 sq. ft. and a 440 sq. ft. garage area. Additionally, each unit will feature a 310 sq. ft. private enclosed patio. The architecture of the currently proposed project has been revised dramatically. Previously, a Spanish style of architecture and a Country/Ranch theme had been proposed but the current design lends itself to more of a contemporary multi -family design theme. The exterior materials include a beige stucco trimmed with desert tan, accent colors and wood colored fascia. An Espana composite shingle roof will be incorporated into the project and as will forest green iron work and ceramic tiles. The ceramic tiles will be placed over the cornices of the top floor windows. The front elevation of the buildings features a roof which is broken into different elevations and heights. The roof line is additionally broken up by dormers which project out over the windows on the front elevation. Secondary accent colors and cornices are designed around the windows and successfully add character and depth to the design. The side elevations are designed with louvered vents and windows trimmed with wood corbels and bands to add architectural features to reduce the potential massiveness of the elevation. The entries to the units feature a vaulted doorway comprised by a standard sized door topped with multi -pane windows. The remaining portion of the frontage unit is designed with a 4 ft. high garden wall which creates the private patio for each unit. Along this front elevation, the iron work is incorporated to accent the design. The overall height of these buildings will not exceed 26 feet above grade. The existing commercial development to the southwest of the project will not be substantially impacted by the proposed structures as the adjacent pad is located approximately 12 to 15 feet above the proposed project. The existing building is a two story structure and obtains a height of approximately 30 feet above grade. Additionally, the commercial offices directly to the west of the site are oriented in a manner that reduces the potential for negative visual impacts, as the views enjoyed are not oriented to the subject site. The condominium project located to the west of the subject site is constructed on a site which closely follows the topography of the project site. The building which abuts the site is separated by a 7 feet block wall. The building is two floors in height and is oriented away from the proposed project. The views that would result from the proposed project include the rear elevation and landscaping. Staff would recommend a superficial upgrade to the existing block wall to include stucco and heavy landscaping. The two existing residences located north of the project are located approximately 10 feet below the elevation of the proposed project. Previously, a resident had stated that privacy was an issue because of the proximity of the buildings to the residences and the excessive heights. With the relocation of the building footprint to the south, the reduction of approximately 15 feet from the overall height (of the 80 unit design), the addition of architectural features, and the incorporation of the appropriate landscaping along the perimeter, the applicant has attempted to address this concern. There were no responses from the public at the Planning Commission hearing related to the height or location of the project after the current location was proposed. Parking/Cimulation The parking for this project is provided based on a ratio of two parking space per unit for residents and one (1) parking space per every four units for visitors. A total of 68 covered parking spaces are provided in the lower level garages designed for each unit and an additional 18 guest parking spaces are distributed throughout the project. The visitor parking has been distributed more liberally throughout the project. The internal circulation within the project has been improved by the redesign of the, project and the deletion of the parking structure. The driveway aisles are in compliance with the Los Angeles County Fire Department's requirement for 26 feet of unobstructed access. The project is designed with loop system circulation with two (2) points of ingress/egress to Torito Lane. No vehicular access to Golden Springs Drive is available. No secured access to the site has been designed as a part of the proposed project because of the use of individually secured garages. Visitor parking will not however, enjoy the same luxury of security. Review of the site plan does indicate that the location of mail boxes will have to be revised. Currently, the site plan indicates that the mail boxes are to be situated at each point of ingress and egress. Staff identified the lack of appropriate stacking area and resultant congestion possibly created on Torito Lane as a result of the design. Staff recommends the mail boxes be relocated to an interior location. Trash enclosures have been increased in number and spaced more equitably throughout the site. The enclosures do not appear to offer undue hazards for either pedestrians or for the refuse haulers. No resident will be more than 90 ft. from one of the enclosures and two of the three enclosures offer a well lighted environment. The remaining enclosure will require the same lighting as the others. Open Space/Landscaping Landscaping and open space provided for the complex is primarily located on the perimeter of the development. The Golden Springs Drive frontage is designed with a setback of approximately 22 ft. from the back of the curb. This area is landscaped with turf and bushes and will be separated from the sidewalk by a 5 ft. privacy wall. Additionally, there is a stairway from the sidewalk to the project's parkway. The northeastern portion of the site will be the location of the active open space/recreation area designated for children's unspecified use. A spa is proposed in the courtyard surrounded by buildings III, IV, VI, and VII which ties into the system of walkways throughout the project. The landscape plan indicates a diverse mix of ground covers and trees. The Golden Springs Dr. elevation exhibits a large number of plants but the sizes are deficient. The predominate size of the trees are 15 gallon. These trees are observed from a major thoroughfare within the City and should present an immediate appearance of maturity. The size and quantity of the landscaping should be revised to reflect this concern. Conclusion The Planning Commission has reviewed the information and supports the concept of the project as submitted. There are specific issues that arose during the previous public hearings on this project that have been addressed 5 by this redesigned project. The applicant has reworked the project with sensitivity to the following: architecture, materials, and colors; providing landscape and irrigation plans; the number and location of trash enclosures; on-site lighting; and distribution of the visitor parking. Staff has reviewed the project, with these issues at the forefront, has found the project to adequately address most of these areas. The sole exception that is apparent on upon review is a deficiency in the size and quantity of the landscaping proposed. The project is in compliance with the General Plan land use category, RM, and is below the maximum density of 16 units per acre allowed. The project is much less intrusive to surrounding land uses than the previous submissions and provides an adequate transitional use between the commercial and high density development and the residential uses located to the north. Public Notice This project was advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on February 17, 1993. Property owners (97) within a 500 feet radius of the property were also notified of the public hearing by mail. Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Recommendation: Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the applications before them via the attached Resolutions of Approval and Ordinance 93 -XX. PREPARED BY: Robert Searcy. Associate Pl nn r F:\WPS1\W0RK\R0B\CR0WCCTRM Z ATTACHMENTS: Negative Declaration and Environmental Support Information Planning Commission Minutes Development Review Resolution of Approval with conditions Vesting Tentative Tract Map Resolution of Approval with conditions Zone Change Ordinance No. 93 -XX Draft Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50519 Site Plan, Elevations, and Preliminary Landscape Plans Land Use Map RESOLUTION NO. 93-3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 91-2, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 34 UNIT CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX ON A 2.3 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 23575 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAILING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Diamond Development Company, 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton, California, has heretofore filed an application for approval of Development Review as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review application shall be referred to as "the appli- cation". 2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation 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. 14, 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, in- cluding the subject application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. Pursuant to the order issued by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, action was taken on the subject application as to the consistency with the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar. 4. On November 25, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said public hearing on February 8, 1993. 5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution 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. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the initial study prepared and reviewed by the City of Diamond Bar and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality_Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder and further said Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Notwithstanding any previous Subsection of this Resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment thereof shall be made by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other entitlement. 4. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above -referenced public hearing opened on November 25, 1991, continued to and concluded on February 8, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and in conformance with Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City Diamond Bar, hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 23575 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar with a gross area of 2.33 acres and is zoned C-1 (Restricted Commercial). (b) Properties to the east and south are devel- oped with single family residences, to the north the site is developed with a multi- family complex and the sites to the west are partially developed by commercial development and single family residential home. (c) The applicant's request is for architectural and site plan review of the project to construct a 34 unit condominium complex. 2 (d) The subject property has graded and currently is a vacant undeveloped parcel. (e) The site is sufficient in size and can pro- vide adequate ingress and egress to allow multiple family development in character with surrounding current land uses. (f) The subject site lies within the Diamond Bar General Plan Medium Density Residential (RM) land use designation. The current zoning of the site is not consistent with the land use designation. (g) Public notice and resident notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in conformance with state law. (h) The design and layout of the proposed devel- opment will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the neighboring ex- isting and future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrians hazards; (i) The architectural design of the proposed condominium complex is compatible with the character of the surrounding development and will maintain the harmonious, orderly, and attractive development contemplated by this Chapter and the General Plan of the City; (j) The design of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occu- pants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color that will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance. (k) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be materially injurious to the properties or im- provements in the vicinity. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Planning Commission hereby approves the application subject to the following restrictions as to use: 3 Planning Department (1) This permit shall not be effective for any purpose until a duly authorized representative of the owner of the property involved has filed at the office of Planning Division of the Community Development Department the Affidavit of Acceptance and accepts all the conditions of this development review. (2) That the applicant must comply with all federal, state, Zone R -3-(15)U, Public Works and Community Development Departments' requirements, and that all grading, drainage plans and wall plans shall conform to all City standards or as amended by this action and shown on the approved plans; (3) That three copies of the elevations, site plan, irrigation plan, and landscape plan, similar to that presented at the public hearing and marked Exhibit "A" and conforming to such of the following conditions as can shown on a plan, shall be submitted for approval of the Community Development Director. All construction materials must comply with the materials board approved by the Planning Commission and marked as Exhibit "A-1". The property shall thereafter be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved plans. (4) Drought tolerant landscaping shall be incorporated where possible on the landscape plan. All landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. (5) No construction shall occur within the setbacks as delineated on the approved site plan. (6) street trees with year round foliage shall be planted along western elevation of Golden Springs Drive per the approved landscape plans (refer to above listed condition No. 3). (7) All exterior lights above wall height be shielded and be directed away from adjacent development; (8) Trash enclosures and the location of the mail boxes shall be located shall be located to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director and illustrated on the approved site plan. (9) The project shall comply with all State and local ordinances for noise level standards. 4 (10) All air conditioning units shall be ground mounted and screened from street level view by each unit's privacy wall. (11) The applicant shall satisfy the Park Obligation by contributing land acreage or the in -lieu fee to the City prior to recordation of the final map per code section 21.24.340. (12) Notwithstanding any previous Subsection of this Resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment thereof shall be made by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other entitlement. (13) Conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) shall be provided to the Community Development Director and the City attorney for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. A Homeowners Association (HOA) shall be created and responsibilities thereof shall be delineated within said CC&R's. (14) A clause shall be incorporated into the CC&R's which requires disputes involving interpretation or application of the agreement (between private parties), to be referred to a neutral third party mediation service (name of service may be included) prior to any party initiating litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction. The cost of such mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. A Homeowners Association (HOA) shall created and responsibilities thereof shall be delineated within said CC&R's, such as maintenance of common areas. (15) All walls open to the public from outside the project shall be textured in earth tones and shall additionally be covered with ivy or other similar vegetation. (16) The property shall be maintained in a condition which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlements granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction, shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. 5 (17) The applicant shall submit a development program and schedule to the City prior to recordation of the final map and all amendments to said schedule shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval. (18) The outside storage of recreational vehicles is prohibited. (19) The separation between building No. 3 and No. 4 shall be designed to the maximum extent possible. (20) The following conditions shall apply to the common lots and the recreational lots: a. open space areas and common lots shall be shown on the site plan and tract map and shall be: 1. Conveyed as a mandatory fractional undivided interest to each purchaser, or 2. Conveyed to a Homeowners Association charged with the operation and maintenance of such common areas for the benefit of all owners, or b. open space areas shall'be maintained in a manner satisfactory to the Community Development Director; C. Use all recreational areas shall be restricted to owner -tenants and their guests; (21) No signs are approved as a part of this approval. All signs must be submitted to the City under separate application and must comply with all standards in effect at the time of application. (22) This Resolution shall be null, void, and of no effect if the Council of the City of Diamond Bar fails to approve Zone Change No. 91-1 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50519, as described in the Resolutions of the City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission No. 93-4 and No. 93-5. (23) This grant is valid for one year and must be exercised (i.e. construction started) within that period or this grant will expire. A one year extension may be requested in writing and submitted to the City 30 days prior to the expiration date. 6 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (1) Applicant shall contribute $12,500 toward additional signal phasing requirements at Diamond Bar Blvd. and Golden Springs Drive based on additional traffic generated from the proposed development. (2) Contribute towards the street overlay of Torito Lane in the amount of $40,000 or complete the work as approved by the City Engineer. If any required public improvements have not been completed by the developer and accepted by the City prior to the approval of the final map, the developer shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City and shall post the appropriate security. (3) No internal on -street parking is permitted within the development based on the street width being allowed and the internal streets shall be designated as private streets. (4) The street section for the internal streets shall be shown on the tentative and final map. (5) The applicant shall guarantee the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Torito Lane and Golden springs by posting a bond in the amount of $120,000 for a period of three years from date of approval. The bond is to be released and or reduced by any other contributions received by the City should a traffic signal be warranted during the period. (6) Handicap ramps shall be installed at the corner of the Torito Lane and Golden Springs Drive to the City's specification. (7) The site plan shall depict all on-site street and safety lighting to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. (8) The applicant shall obtain approval by County Sanitation on the location of the structures affecting County Sanitation easements and submit written evidence to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. (9) The applicant shall comply with all other standard conditions of approval unless referenced and amended herein as in attachment "A-1". 7 FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENT (1) Provide ~water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by the County Forester and Fire Warden for all land shown on the map to be recorded. (2) Provide Fire Department and City approved street signs and building address numbers prior to occupancy. (3) Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any portion of structure to be built. (4) Access shall comply with Section 10.207 of the Fire Code which requires all weather access. All weather access may require paving. (5) The private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Fire Lane" and shall be maintained in accordance with the Los Angeles County Fire Code. (6) All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. (7) Private driveway/fire lane shall be 26 feet clear to sky width. All buildings shall be less than 3 stories and less than 35 feet high. (8) The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of 2 hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. (9) The required on-site fire flow for private on-site hydrants is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi. Each private on-site hydrant must be capable of flowing 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi with any two hydrants flowing simultaneously. (10) Fire hydrant requirements as follows: 3 existing fire hydrants. Existing private on-site Fire hydrants. (11) All hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" to current AWWA x 2-1/2" brass or standard C503 or bronze, conforming approved equal. All hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour fire wall. (12) All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access 8 must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. (13) Additional on-site hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. (14) Additional on-site hydrants may be required during the building permit process. 6. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Reso- lution, to Ron Crowley of Diamond Development Company at the address as set forth on the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1993 BY THE PLANNING--CDM-MISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: � ruce Flamenbaum, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, by the Planning Commission on the 8th day of February, 1993 with the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, Grothe, Li, and Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:_ flunk ATTEST: `­ a es DeStefano, S cretary DR91-2.RES 9 RESOLUTION NO. 93-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 50519 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 2.3 ACRE SITE INTO 3 COMMON LOTS AND 34 CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED AT 23575 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Diamond Development Company, 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton, California, has heretofore filed an application for approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50519 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50519 application shall be referred to as "the application". 2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation 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. 14, 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, in- cluding the subject application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. Pursuant to the order issued by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, action was taken on the subject application ac t -a tb_e- consistency with t$E Gef er-ai Plcr,T,�+'tiis�'�+d^.�. t,?, E tur g and provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar. 4. On November 25, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said public hearing on February 8, 1993. 5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution 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. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the initial study prepared and reviewed by the City of Diamond Bar and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder and further said Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this. Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Notwithstanding any previous Subsection of this Resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment thereof shall be made by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other entitlement. 4. Based on the substantial evidence- presented to the Planning Commission during the above -referenced public hearing opened on November 25, 1991, continued to and concluded on February 8, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and in conformance with Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City Diamond Bar, hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 23575 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar with a gross area of 2.3 acres and is currently zoned C-1 (Restricted Commercial) but in conformance with the General Plan land designation of RM (Medium Density Residential 16 du/ac), the applicant is requesting a zone change to R -3-(15)U. (b) Properties to the east and south are devel- oped with single family residences, to the north the site is developed with a multi- family complex and the sites to the west are partially developed by commercial development and single family residential home. (c) The applicant's request is for approval of a vesting tentative tract map, zone change, site plan architectural review via K development review to develop and construct a 34 unit condominium complex. (d) The subject property has been graded and currently is a vacant undeveloped parcel. (e) The site is sufficient in size and can pro- vide adequate ingress and egress to allow multiple family development in character with surrounding current land uses. (f) Public notice and resident notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in conformance with state law. (g) The design and layout of the proposed devel- opment will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the neighboring ex- isting and future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrians hazards; (h) The subject site lies within the Diamond Bar General Plan Medium Density Residential (RM) land use designation. The current zoning of the site is not consistent with the land use designation. (i) The design of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occu- pants and visiting public as well as its neighbors because the design and layout of the project provides a safe and aesthetically pleasing environment. (j) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be materially injurious to the properties or im- provements in the vicinity because the development will improve the vacant site and remove deleterious and illegal dumping and improve the maintenance of the site. (k) The subdivision proposed in the application is consistent with the General Plan and plan for land use. (1) There is little or no probability that the subdivision of said real property, as proposed in the application will be a substantial detriment to, and interfere with, the implementation of the General Plan for the area surrounding the project of the site; and (m) The application, as proposed will and conditioned herein, complies with all other applicable requirements of state and local ordinances. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the application subject to the following restrictions as to use: Planning Department Requirements (1) This permit shall not be effective for any purpose until a duly authorized representative of the owner of the property involved has filed at the office of Planning Division of the Community Development Department the Affidavit of Acceptance and accepts all the conditions of this permit; (2) That all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the underlying zoning of the subject property must be complied with, unless set forth in the permit or shown on the approved plan; (3) That three copies of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50519 similar to that presented at the public hearing and marked Exhibit "A" and conforming to such of the following conditions as can shown on a plan, submitted to the Community Development Director. (4) The applicant shall satisfy the Park Obligation by contributing land acreage or the in -lieu fee per the code City prior to recordation of the final map pe section 21.24.340. (5) Notwithstanding any previous Subsection of this Resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of a fee pursuant to section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment thereof shall be made by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other entitlement. (6) Conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) shall be provided to the Community Development Director and the City attorney for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. A Homeowners Association (HOA) shall created and responsibilities thereof shall be delineated within said CC&R's. (7) A clause shall be incorporated into the CC&R's which requires disputes involving interpretation or application of the agreement (between private parties), to be referred to a neutral third party mediation 4 service (name of service may be included) prior to any party initiating litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction. The cost of such mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. A Homeowners Association (HOA) shall created and responsibilities thereof shall be delineated within said CC&R's, such as maintenance of • common areas. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (,1) Applicant shall contribute $12,500 toward additional signal phasing requirements at Diamond Bar Blvd. and Golden Springs Drive based on additional traffic generated from the proposed development. (2) Contribute towards the street overlay of Torito Lane in the amount of $40,000 or complete the work as approved by the City Engineer. If any required public improvements have not been completed by the developer and accepted by the City prior to the approval of the final map, the developer shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City and shall post the appropriate security. (3) No internal on -street parking is permitted within the development based on the street width being allowed and the internal streets shall be designated as private streets. (4) The street section for the internal streets shall be shown on the tentative and final map. (5) The applicant shall guarantee the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Torito Lane and Golden Springs by posting a bond in the amount of $120,000 for a period of three years from date of approval. The bond is to be released and or reduced by any other contributions received by the City should a traffic signal be warranted during the period. (6) Handicap ramps shall be installed at the corner of the Torito Lane and Golden Springs Drive to the City's specification. (7) The site plan shall depict all on-site street and safety lighting to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. (8) The applicant shall obtain approval by County Sanitation on the location of the structures affecting County Sanitation easements and submit written evidence to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. (9) The applicant shall comply with all other standard conditions of approval unless referenced and amended herein as in attachment "A-111. FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENT (1) Provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by the County Forester and Fire Warden for all land shown on the map to be recorded. (2) Provide Fire Department and City approved street signs and building address numbers prior to occupancy. (3) Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any portion of structure to be built. (4) Access shall comply with Section 10.207 of the Fire Code which requires all weather access. All weather access may require paving. (5) The private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Fire Lane" and shall be maintained in accordance with the Los Angeles County Fire Code. (6) All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. (7) Private driveway/fire lane shall be 26 feet clear to sky width. All buildings shall be less than 3 stories and less than 35 feet high. (8) The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of 2 hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. (9) The required on-site fire flow for private on-site hydrants is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi. Each private on-site hydrant must be capable of flowing 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi with any two hydrants flowing simultaneously. (10) Fire hydrant requirements as follows: 3 existing fire hydrants. Existing private on-site Fire hydrants. (11) All hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal. All hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour fire wall. R (12) All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. (13) Additional on-site hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular- access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. (14) Additional on-site hydrants may be required during the building permit process. 6. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, to Ron Crowley of Diamond Development Company at the address as set forth on the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1993 BY THE PLANNINGCO SS ON 0 THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: Bruce Flamenbaum, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, by the Planning Commission on the 8th day of Ferruary, 1993 with the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, Grothe, Li, and Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONE ATTEST: a es DeStefano, S retary K RESOLUTION NO. 93-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 91-1 FOR REZONING OF REAL PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED C-1 (RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL) TO ZONE R -3-(15)U FOR 2.3 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 23575 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Diamond Development Company, 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton, California, has heretofore filed an application for approval of a Zone Change No. 91-1 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Zone Change application shall be referred to as "the application". 2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation 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. 14, 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, in- cluding the subject application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. Pursuant to the order issued by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, action was taken on the subject application as to the consistency with the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar. 4. On November 25, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said public hearing on February 8, 1993. 5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution 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. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the initial study prepared and reviewed by the City of Diamond Bar and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder and further said Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Notwithstanding any previous Subsection of this Resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment thereof shall be made by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other entitlement. 4. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above -referenced public hearing opened on November 25, 1991, continued to and concluded on February 8, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and in conformance with Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City Diamond Bar, hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 23575 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar. The lot has a gross area of 2.33 acres and is currently zoned C-1 (Restricted Commercial) is not consistent with the General Plan land use designation of RM (Medium Density Residential 16 du/ac). The applicant however, is requesting a zone change to R -3- (15)U which is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. (b) Properties to the east and south are devel- oped with single family residences, to the north the site is developed with a multi- family complex and the sites to the west are partially developed by commercial development and single family residential home. K (c) The applicant is requesting approval of a zone change, vesting tentative tract map, and site plan and architectural review via development review as a part of this and other related applications, to develop and construct a 34 unit condominium complex. (d) The subject property has been graded and currently is a vacant undeveloped parcel. (e) The site is sufficient in size and can pro- vide adequate ingress and egress to allow multiple family development in character with surrounding current land uses. (f) Public notice and resident notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in conformance with state law. (g) The site is sufficient in size and can pro- vide adequate ingress and egress to allow multiple family development in character with surrounding current land uses. (h) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be materially injurious to the properties or im- provements in the vicinity because it is designed in compliance with the City's development standards. (i) There is little or no probability that the change of zone of said real property, as proposed in the application will be a substantial detriment to, and is in compliance with the General Plan land use designation for the site and is an appropriate transitional zone for the site because of the consistency with the General Plan land use designation; and (j) The application, as proposed and conditioned herein, complies with all other applicable requirements of state and local ordinances. (1) The General Plan land use designation creates a favorable condition for the change in zone classification from C-1 to R -3-(15)U because of state law requirements that the zoning and land use designations be consistent with each other. 3 5. 6. (m) The applicant is seeking to remedy the non- conforming status of the site as it relates to the General Plan land use designation. (n) The placement of the proposed zoning at such location is in the interest of public health, safety, and general welfare, and in conformity with good zoning practice because of the consistency create by bring the zoning into conformance with the land use designation applied within the General Plan. (o) The proposed zone change is consistent with the adopted General Plan for the area. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the application: The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, to Ron Crowley of Diamond Development Company at the address as set forth on the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1993 BY THE PLANNING-90fMIS, ON F THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: ,� -J�$ruce Flamenbaum, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, by the Planning Commission on the 8th day of February, 1993 with the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: COES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: Flamenbaum, Grothe, Li and Meyer Plunk s DeStefano, S4cretary 4 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR pEPARTUENT OF PLANNING 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (714)860-2314 Fax (714)860-3117 DEVFItOpWB4T REVIEW APPLICATION Record Owner(s) D 1 mart v P&X-LaPMWr eo. Name A CA, L mhmp r� _ (Last nave first) Address 7400 FIbALIft_ City_ Zip _ Phone (?1+) - 1041 Applicant Case# Recvd Fee S f 12 -09 - Receipt Receipt By -P: G - IE; Applicant's Agent -V-0tJ Lb -1 C�OLE4 +.+ �y/' scam (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 Si (All recorded ovners) to s- 13i 15 Certification: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Printed Name: �O►1(�� 7 -)- V4 L& i (Applicant or Agent) Signed C Date Iii q i�12oP�7t( (Applicant or Agent) F"TAC-6 eq4-�Tpz-6-1-5 Amb "TWO coRPAE�tiSFb0t)J6 Locat ion L1' VU'55E5 23575 GMrbf-1 =04^1t�m DywL= AtJO 32-0 Aura LA-Ae (Street address of tract and lot nuaber) Zoning (2,-1 HNM 120 - 3 -JG Previous Cases— kly& Present Use of Site Vf'ft'II�T Use aDolied for Area devoted to structures '3+ 5 /O Landscaping/Open space Proposed density 2.3 (Units/Acres) Style of Architecture Number of Floors Proposed 15 Slope of Roof &!5.5 X70 NEGATIVE DECLARATION \ I : I II\ ( I h1\ I \ 111115M, IL' �\ ' I \ l • I" (�) Ali l •� h� I : \ I : I �) I" \ 11\ I I31 Z WUI \•\ \ (� W!I I W WN \ 11 WI) I I I Applicant: Diamond Development Company 1700 Raintree Road Fullerton, CA 92635 Proposal: A request to subdivide a 2.3 acre site into 34 individual ownership lots/units and three (3) common lots, to change the zone classification from C-1 (Restricted Business) to Zone R-3 (Limited Multiple Residence) and to enter into a Development Agreement with the City. Location: 23575 Golden Springs The site is located in the north central portion of the City. The site is surrounded by development which includes professional office, general retail commercial, multi -family condominiums, and single family residential. Golden Springs Dr., designated as a secondary roadway in the General Plan, is the primary arterial serving the site from Torito Lane, a cul-de-sac. The project site is located less than 1,000 ft. from the intersection of Golden Springs Dr. and Diamond Bar Blvd., which is currently operating at a "C" LOS. Environmental Findings: The proposed project, as determined by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, will not have a significant effect on the environment. This conclusion is based on the attached environmental checklist. Negative Declaration All "yes" and "possibly" answers and mitigation measures. 1. Earth. (a,b,c,e) Explanation• The subject property has had the previously existing structures demolished and removed from the site. Subsequent to the removal of the debris, soils reports identified that an uncertified fill had been placed on the site and will require remediation by compaction in compliance with an approved grading plan prior to construction. During the grading phase of construction, there may be erosion related to windblown fugitive particulates or water erosion. Mitigation Measures: All soil remediation will be done in compliance with the soils report, approved grading plans and the requirements of the Public Works Department. During the grading phase the site will be required to be watered down to reduce the occurrence of blowing soil and landscaping will be required to be planted and maintained on the site at the earliest opportunity that construction will allow. Additionally, an erosion control plan will be required if grading will not be completed prior to the rainy season. 2. Air. (c) Explanation• The project may contribute to the overall alteration in the temperature of the region but not substantially. Mitigation Measures: The project will be required to incorporate expansive landscaping throughout the project and to use muted non -ref lective colors where possible. 3. Water. (b) Explanation: There will be an increase in non -permeable surfaces as a result of the construction of the project thus decreasing the absorption rates. Mitigation Measures: The project will require the placement of a drainage system and connection into the existing municipal facilities. 2 4. Plant Life. (a,d) Exvlanatio The project will require the removal the existing non-native vegetation currently existing on-site. No unique or endangered plant species have been identified on-site. The preliminary landscape plan proposes non-native vegetation in quantities in excess of current the distribution. The newly introduced species will not be a barrier to the replenishment of the existing species as the existing vegetation is not present in adequate numbers to replenish the site. Mitigation Measures: A final landscape plan will be approved by the /community Development Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. All landscaping will be compatible with the character of the existing landscaping of surrounding development. 6. Noise. (a) Explanation• During the construction phase, construction equipment may increase the ambient noise levels. Mitigation Measures: The project will be required to comply with existing City requirements which restrict hours of construction during weekdays and weekends. 7. Light and Glare. (a) Explanation• The project will produce light and glare on a site which is currently vacant. The project will introduce additional light sources into the area of the project that are required for safety and security reasons. Mitigation Measures: Landscaping, orientation, and timers will be used to control light spillage from the project site and to limit the duration of use of the light sources. 3 S. Land Use. (a) Explanation• The development of the proposed project will result in a substantial land use alteration of site's current vacant condition although the project is in compliance with the General Plan. Mitigation Measures: Require that the project be developed in compliance with the land use classification as designated within the General Plan. 9. Natural Resources. (a) Explanation• There will be an increase in the use of water and there may be increase in the consumption of gas as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: The proposed project will be required to comply with the Walnut Valley Water District and City requirements concerning the use of water conserving toilet equipment, the use of recycled water for landscaping and the use of drought tolerant plants, and compliance with Building Code energy conserving requirements. 11. Population. (a) Explanation• This project may increase the density within the City by attracting the population from outside the community. The project will increase the density of the population in the area of the project by providing housing opportunities where none have existed before. Mitigation• Ensure that development density and intensity is in compliance with the General Plan and is compatible with adjacent existing and proposed future development. 13. Transportation/Circulation. (a,b,c,d,f) Explanation• The project may increase vehicular movements to a significant degree and impact the existing LOS of the intersection of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Golden Springs Drive. The project will create the 4 demand for the additional parking spaces as a result of development. The introduction of additional vehicular movements and pedestrians into the area of the project will increase the potential for traffic hazards. Mitigation Measures: The project will be developed with the traffic mitigation measures deemed appropriate by the Director of Public Works. The design of the project will be such that all parking necessary for the project will be located on-site thus relieving the demand for on -street parking, which will be prohibited. 14. Public services. (1,2,3,4,5,6) explanation• This project will create demands for public services directly related to the number of new residents which will relocate to this site. Mitigation Measures: The applicant will be required to contribute all impact fees which will address the impacts associated with demands on public services. 19. Recreation. (a) Explanation• The residential project may draw residents from outside the City or redistribute the existing population from inside the City thereby potentially placing impacts on existing recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures: The project will be developed with as much on-site recreation as the site will allow and the project will be required to contribute to the City Park Fund. 12-92/VILLA34.DEC 5 • 21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE • SUITE 100 I 0-M, t DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-4177 714-860-2489 •FAX 714-861-3117 1. Background: 1. Name of.AppGcant: 2. Address and P one -Or-- . me, ACaress imlaer of Projwnerrt: V 4..,Date-of Environmental Information Submittal: N 5. Date of Envi nmental Checklist Submittal: ��2 6. Lead Agencf (Agen ei Checkist)- D ► Moll n�,�ifLrYlm Lnl 1 rf rrpT- 7. N -me of Propos if aplicable (irct N . SuSbdivision): •� 5 I 8. HPlated h4aricatipns (under the authprty of this environmental determination): Yes No Varfanca: Conditional Use Permit: ==J� Zone Change: Generai Pian Amendment: (Attach Completed Fnvlrcnmental lnformatlon Fon-n) II. Environmental Impacts: (Explanations and additional Information to supplement all "Yes" and possibly" answers are required to be submitted on attached sheets) • 1. Earth. Will the proposal result In: Yes No Possibly a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? V 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 b2nks 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.: ExposeFa of people or property to geologic hazards such s 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? = t b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air move ment,:.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 dwater movements? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface run-off? c. Atteratlons of the course or flow of flood waters? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to dissolved oxygen and turbid -W. • Y f. AReration 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? 1. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Cry of Diamond Bar 1711141 Study Fon" Pago 3 Yes No Possibly 4. Plant Llfe. 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 or 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 agricuftural crop? 5. Animal Ufe. Will the proposal result In: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animalsinduding reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)? b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to the nonnal migration or movement of resident species? d. Reduction in size or deterioration in quality of existing fish or wildl-rfe habitat? B. Noise. Will the proposal result In: a_ Significant increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels 7. Light and Glare. Wltl the proposal result In: / a. Significant new light and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of fight and glare? •y/ 8. Land Use. Wlli 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: a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal Involve: a. A risk of ari 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? b. Probable interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Gr/ of Diamond Bar &dW! Sandy Farm Pape 4 Yes No Possibly 11. Populatlon. W111 the.proposal: a. After the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area. 12 Housing. Will the proposal affect: a- Existing housing, or crease a -demand for additional housing? _JL— 13. Transportatlon/Clrculatlon. Wtll the proposal result In: a_Generatibn of Substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existirtlg par'rang facilities a demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? d. Alterations ,to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods. e. Alterations to, Aterbome, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Servlcies. W111 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 4Fire protection? 2. Police Rratection? 3. Schools? F 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 increas in demand upon existing energy sources or require the development of new sources of energy? • I 16. Utilities. tiYIll the proposal result In: a. A need for new systems, or Substantial alterations to public utilities? J JC�- � OtyofDiamond Bar!nitWStudy Form ` Page S 17. Human Health. WIII the proposal result in: Yes No possibly a. Creation of any health haz2rd or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 78. Aesthetics. Wlll 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. Recreatlon. WIII the proposal result In: a. An impact upon'the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Wlll 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 re!igious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. -Cly of Diamond BarinlHal Study Form Page 6 Yes No Possibly 21. Mandatory Fingings of Significance? a. Does the propos4d project have the tential to degrade the quaftiy of the environment, substantially redutre 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 Califomia history or prehistory? b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? \` t c'. Does A proposed project pose impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. ti d. Does the prujebt pose environmental effects which wll cause substantia) adverse / effects on hurrarkbeings, either directly or indirectly? 1 / i-----tttLLL--- ,a . Ill Discussioll of Environmental Evaluation: (Attach Narrative) IV. Determinatlon: On the basis of this Initial evaluation: I find that the pproposed pro ect COULD NOT have a s. nificant 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 A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WatedILL BE Pnto the REPAREsedDrojed. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on environmentJaS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. q2, Date:�IM6A t Signature: 10 Title:_A �a'V�riQ�1 For the City of Diamond Bar, California Environmental Information Form for Residential Pro'ects (To be completed by applicant) General Information: Date Filed: 2- 1:,- 116, Pertinent Permits/Applications: Project Information: 1. Name, Address and Phone Number of Project Sponsor: � 1 NTA o N Dt7 Cy Cl-:� i= i-�;��.1',- (-CCr�C1 i- 1100 P. , n► , rZ c C r2 0 �,� 2• Name, Address and Phone Number of Key Contact Person(s): vZ; Fy�`rv�ibri+i `1Z�3 S �i1`} 1 i -13 --too 3• Project Address: or1—t-W-6 4. Project Assessor's Block and Parcel Number(s): E3 Z R I C l G C) c: �3 5• Other Identification (other recorded/map location information): 6-A. Does the project require any of the following actions by the City: YES Variance: Conditional Use Permit: Zone Change: General Plan Amendment: 0 6-B. List and describe any other related standards. permits and other public approvals relevant to this project. including those required b cit state and federal agencies: Y Y. regional, T :F pct E'- ZIN ����i W►�� Ct1 V�CLI ..NS << '"jam 0e4 L i 7. Land Use Designations: Adopted General Plan Designation: AAA Raoptea Zoning: G — Community Plan Designation: 8. Proposed Specific Use of Site: Project Description 9-A. Site Dimensions and Gross Area: `!.l M k—FLS Z r 3rlO k-� 1-'1 \ N C�O�14�'r2l 7 L� llr: hf�9 9-13. Legal Description of the Project: (attach copy to this fora if necessary) Z ,��.10 3 --:- F -L L C C.. Or S CL i 3 �w.aS1Fl.� Z Sc`"1i I�Pct►(t. �, V. `TTS ..i, tt , 10. Project Detail -5eia- %yy„ Attach a separate page of descriptive data for each housing type included in this project: a. Number of Housing Units by type. b. Floor Area by type (minimum, maximum. and average square footage). C. Number of floors (stories) for each type. d. Housing market targeted (demographic profile). e. Estimated market sales price or estimated market rents. f. Describe all amenities proposed (for example. landscaping. recreation equipment, common use facilities. trials. etc.). g. Minimum lot size. (Net lot area. not including Right -of -Way). h. Maximum lot size. (Net lot area. not including Right -of -Way). i. Average lot size. (Net lot area, not including Right -of -Way). j• Number of lots which do not meet City Standards. 11. Describe public or private utility easements. utility lines, structures or other facilities which exist on the surface or below the surface of the project site. ' H it r; F c-t—lct L-< 12. Associated Projects: (Projects or potential projects which are directly related to this project. ie: potential developments which require completion of this project): ,jlo�,LF 13. Describe any anticipated Phasing for this project: (Number of Units & Time Frame) t-t�JniC 14. Attach one copy of each of the following: a. Preliminary Soils Report b. Preliminary Geologic Investigation. C. Drainage Study. d. Topographic Map highlighting any existing slopes of 25% or more. e. Tract Map, Parcel Map. or Plot Plan clearly showing each area of cut and each area of fill: all residential unit pads (if known), and any areas with slopes 25% or more. f. Photographs showing the site from different (ie: north. south, est. west) vantage points and photographs showing vistas (ie: north. south. east, west) from the site. Are the following items applicable to the proposed project or its effects? (Discuss below all items which apply to this project: attach additional sheets as necessary) 15. Grading: Maximum depth of excavation: (a f -c. cT- Maximum depth of f 11: "t Fti1 Quantity of soil moved: Li C o U cubic yards. Will there be anon site balance of cut and fill?: Y CLS 16. Viewshed: Describe any change in the appearance of the site resulting from the project as proposed. 1 1Nr4'lc'I t?eZcV Q�, `,. Sciivc 70 r''TrGt C . r F 7k o A,- �.1 / l R s �T2-' 17 7�7 i}kc �1 ��Ll l 17 ` `�` , N"f�'� r'•Z 1,A 1't til !Cid �1 etreN furl L 'T[kC CZ, M M ►; l T `C CX 1 i ty L. 11 i L� P, i) .)-,—ll 1 J v l t_ l7 , nl Ca S L c i;7t= •� (� bztkGl 1 i �tl r-ty J wlL` i�ir RLf��ri L Eft O V krl I� TiYL A C i t V c l �`� 1 J � e L_e>L 17. Describe how the proposed project will fit into its surroundings (ie: will the proposed project blend into and existing neighborhood? How will it relate to the size, scale, style, and character of the existing surrounding development?) 1:iC 1�{���: ` S lT 15 Jcvc dt �< i ll+: �:i- i��c �r'tlK �11J'f�� Ctl+rl4rZ`S tA T�kc C .4 F3NT� i FR L llN) C :.i(Y',t.1 � L1<J,.aLS 1 j� jif��•�j--�l\L1l T Ff-111=G ANQ 'j}�C � ( W lL� `�cZ/ v ` AS fyftl �•+1�L T��TIS r T1 alt fit--WEt-ri r n u n ...;7 r .A 18. Describe any alteration of the existing drainage patterns, or potential for changes in surface or ground water quality or quantity. (ie: will the flow of any permanent or intermittent surface/ subsurface water change as a result of this project? How?: will there be any injection wells, septic systems..or other facilities which nay affect surface or subsurface water quality?) —_t -to IL;;; 19. Describe any long-term noise and/or vibration which may occur as a result of this project: (after construction will this project directly or indirectly cause the generation of noise and or vibration greater than any that exists now?) t10 11L 20. Describe any residential construction proposed on filled land He: identify the lot number of each structure proposed to be built of filled land). -n: c- �tLl ac �VtsrL�,�r_.a.yAr�T--r� ArtJ t2,�p�5 GZtf3y�D Cc4 wo"C'A LJ 5 i�-vS U,ZC'G 21. Do any significant trees exist on the eproject site now? Describe the effect this project will have on these. (ie: Oak and Walnut trees are considered significant. Describe whether the proposed project will disturb or cause removal of any of these trees). rCO 22. Is the project site located in a national. state, regional or locally designated area of historical. environmental or other significance. If so describe. (ie: is the site an area designated as a hillside management area, significant ecological area. significant mineral resource area, etc.) rt• o Environmental Setting: 23. Describe the environmental setting (synopsis) of the project site. This narrative shall include a description of the soil stability. slopes, drainage. scenic quality, plants, and animals which may exist on the site now. and any existing structures and the existing land use of the project site. 'll,-' ►� •, P ` � s?U �!�-� .) - •— : S A�r�. " t ..ir t � �•. � �� s: c �. � � E iCt 5 � � ry Cz C.� t 1.I�t �xZ l � •\t int n , ct-, r}i'-c e3ci Cz fir,-1ci., 5,-1-r>3 rEn� rtCr r) TLF rite,_ Cr;,i0: h►ir�t� S. CZ t C r ni v &75 ,—! C-. K : o ( S : ryc- 1�. C Si r C C do ) r J-7 v ! T lls1 3t '1 r /a [i r : r' t)t r Pre o P "a Mfr Ct4o Aril ;— Nl a 6 S 5,- r-,1 274- ATtD AL,t_. 0C- 1 r-te/L-V-C"U 24. Describe the surrounding properties (synopsis). This narrative shall include a description of the soil stability, slopes, drainage, scenic quality, Plants. and animals which may exist. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (single-family, multi -family, density. coamercial. professional. etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set- back. etc.) in the adjacent surrounding area. h,_K,,�urioNrlG p9-.40eV__ Wl1�} Titr_ F%YCF1Qil.7ri �� t�.�E u-4- vrkC Ii M„4ti PL _ G-cr1 i t!le. AT4il M Y To 'Tl�^c S u � i3•� i� Fr=-: L i'�7 . �. � ..�. c t •0 hE- c C� � Y 5 rZLil� �-ftitit�L. 4+o�1�t TD iL� NWf Arlo F�v A Gr1()-r+ rrJA C t_lP r`\C Ttj r Y 'Kill. �(� �Itr�rryllCl 1�p Lel-i5 , Certification: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for initial environmental evaluation of the proposed project. All information is to the best of my knovledge. belief and ability to determine factual, true, correct and complete. Date:.'—/ Z S ( CAI Signature:!z�f.�zi - # ^ t­-v,r't &-W,r',}y�; For i�: rtr� rorvl� ` ]),_ ? t,_1 E,4 7- L , Completion of this fora is required to begin review of a project. Information within this fora and the required attached materials will assist the City in determining whether a Negative Declaration may be granted, whether a ,Mitigated Negative Declaration may be granted, or whether Environmental Impact Report shall be required. ` ; ► T. o� •. .` 6 � �d�`. �� • ,� - • • � 9y � y v fid' �} � di• .. 909' `o w ,p C� O :/O.. • 04, ° pyo:.41 a; Allop i, 0 s+O•n ' mm . :, a .� • '�• •� ^� t � ,p : . .�I t ; e J 6 �� ; a� ♦ • tay.r bi ti �� �y �+• t s � .• F� � � � ; pp •. • 9 ' v pts ' �•� y0'; by A � 4.• .�'... � � , A • �� . ' v���'�. jr w°16 f •* b • p • / 0% •s Is VA • T."oAl_g' Y 4 �... ••. {�%• • Om•g•cu eL - t cOW "no" wr • oweet a•a�."rte scr ZK�ORMwT=ON _ — / pyA• - M• i 7bRRp L/1N[ 11V Mi1M�- .... -- - - . auwM• we• en LAND USE MAP Sept. . n. abTBOWALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICTSaba— wk— BOARD ARD OF DIRECTORS: 271 South Brea Canyon Road • P.O. Box 508 William G. Wentworth Walnut California 91789-3002 • f714 �sce ) 595-1268 (818) 964-6551, ac or •,son FAX (714) 594-9532 01S�Q John E. Fisher / ce P•es cert 9 ect or Divs,or 'V Richard C. Engdahl ce-�,esdert December 10, 1992 eo: or, Dives cr Keith K. Gunn ass Starr -,eat urer ect,cn Drv�s,cr V Edward N. Layton Director c'ecncr City of Diamond Bar cnayscriu 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190 STAFF: Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Edmund M. Biederman Gererai Manager Secretary Attention: Anne Gardiner Norman R. Miyake Treasurer Re: Tentative Tract 50519, Work Order 92-2116 LEGAL COUNSEL: H. Jess senecal The owner of the above captioned project has informed the Walnut Valley Water District of the need to relocate an 8-inch water line for this project, The District has no problem with the relocation of this main and will develop plans for its' installation at the developer's expense. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT j /t4/ 0--leZV ' hrl BRYAN LEWIS Director of Planning and Projects BL:aan CRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 50519 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 2.3 ACRE SITE INTO 3 COMMON LOTS AND 34 CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED AT 23575 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Diamond Development Company, 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton, California, has heretofore filed an application for approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50519 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50519 application shall be referred to as "the application". 2. on April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation 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. 14, 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, in- cluding the subject application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Pursuant to the order issued by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, action was taken on the subject application as to the consistency with the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar. 4. On March 16, 1993, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the appli- cation and continued and concluded said public hearing on April 6, 1993. 5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution 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. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. VTM50519 1 CRAFT 2. The Council hereby finds that the initial study prepared and reviewed by the City of Diamond Bar and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder and further said Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The 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 proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Notwithstanding any previous Subsection of this Resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment thereof shall be made by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other entitlement. 4. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above -referenced public hearing opened on March 16, 1993 and concluded on April 6, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and in conformance with Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City Diamond Bar, hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 23575 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar with a gross area of 2.3 acres and is currently zoned C-1 (Restricted Commercial) but in conformance with the General Plan land designation of RM (Medium Density Residential 16 du/ac), the applicant is requesting a zone change to R -3-(15)U. (b) Properties to the east and south are developed with single family residences, to the north the site is developed with a multi -family complex and the sites to the west are partially developed by commercial development and single family residential home. (c) The applicant's request vesting tentative tract plan architectural review to develop and construct complex. VTM50519 2 is for approval of a map, zone change, site via development review a 34 unit condominium DRAFT (d) The subject property has been graded and currently is a vacant undeveloped parcel. (e) The site is sufficient in size and can provide adequate ingress and egress to allow multiple family development in character with surrounding current land uses. (f) Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on February 17, 1993. Notification of the property owners within a 500 foot radius was mailed on February 24, 1993. (g) The design and layout of the proposed development will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the neighboring existing and future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrians hazards; (h) The subject site lies within the Diamond Bar draft General Plan Medium Density Residential (RM) land use designation. (i) The design of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors because the design and layout of the project provides a safe and aesthetically pleasing environment. (j) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity because the development will improve the vacant site and remove deleterious and illegal dumping and improve the maintenance of the site. (k) The subdivision proposed in the application is consistent with the draft General Plan and plan for land use. (1) There is little or no probability that the subdivision of said real property, as proposed in the application will be a substantial detriment to, and interfere with, the implementation of the draft General Plan for the area surrounding the project of the site; and (m) The application, as proposed will and conditioned herein, complies with all other applicable requirements of state and local ordinances. VTM50519 3 (n) This application was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar on February 8, 1993 at the conclusion of the public hearing. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this City Council hereby recommends approval of the application subject to the following restrictions as to use: Planning Department Requirements (1) This permit shall not be effective for any purpose until a duly authorized representative of the owner of the property involved has filed at the office of Planning Division of the Community Development Department the Affidavit of Acceptance and accepts all the conditions of this permit; (2) That all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the underlying zoning of the subject property must be complied with, unless set forth in the permit or shown on the approved plan; (3) That three copies of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50519 similar to that presented at the public hearing and marked Exhibit "A" and conforming to such of the following conditions as can shown on a plan, shall be submitted to the Community Development Director. (4) The applicant shall satisfy the Park Obligation by contributing land acreage or the in -lieu fee to the City prior to recordation of the final map per code section 21.24.340. (5) Conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) shall be provided to the Community Development Director and the City attorney for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. A Homeowners Association (HOA) shall created and responsibilities thereof shall be delineated within said CC&R's. (6) A clause shall be incorporated into the CC&R's which requires disputes involving interpretation or application of the agreement (between private parties), to be referred to a neutral third party mediation service (name of service may be included) prior to any party initiating litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction. The cost of such mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. A Homeowners Association (HOA) shall created and responsibilities thereof shall be delineated within said CC&R's, such as maintenance of common areas. VTM50519 4 DRAFT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (7) The applicant shall contribute towards the street overlay of Torito Lane in the amount of $40,000 or complete the work as approved by the City Engineer. All improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director prior to issuance of the Certificate of occupancy. (8) No internal on -street parking is permitted within the development based on the street width being allowed and the internal streets shall be designated as private streets. (9) The applicant is required to post a bond for the traffic signal at the intersection of Torito Lane and Golden Springs in the amount of $120,000 for a period of three years from date of approval. The bond is to be released and or reduced by any other contributions received by the City should a traffic signal be warranted during the period. (10) Handicap ramps shall be installed at the corner of the Torito Lane and Golden Springs Drive in compliance with the City's specifications. (11) The site plan shall depict all on-site street and safety lighting to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. (12) The applicant shall obtain approval by County Sanitation on the location of the structures affecting County Sanitation easements and submit written evidence to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. (13) The applicant shall comply with all other standard conditions of approval unless referenced and amended herein as in attachment "A-111. (14) Applicant shall contribute $12,500 toward additional signal phasing requirements at Diamond Bar Blvd. and Golden Springs Drive based on additional traffic generated from the proposed development. FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENT (15) Provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by the County Forester and Fire Warden for all land shown on the map to be recorded. (16) Provide Fire Department and City approved street signs and building address numbers prior to occupancy. (17) Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any portion of structure to be built. VTM50519 5 �RAFr (18) Access shall comply with Section 10.207 of the Fire Code which requires all weather access. All weather access may require paving. (19) The private driveways shall be, indicated on the final map as "Fire Lane" and shall be maintained in accordance with the Los Angeles County Fire Code. (20) All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. (21) Private driveway/fire lane shall be 26 feet clear to sky width. All buildings shall be less than 3 stories and less than 35 feet high. (22) The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of 2 hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. (23) The required on-site fire flow for private on-site hydrants is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi. Each private on-site hydrant must be capable of flowing 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi with any two hydrants flowing simultaneously. (24) Fire hydrant requirements as follows: 3 existing fire hydrants. Existing private on-site Fire hydrants. (25) All hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal. All hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour fire wall. (26) All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. (27) Additional on-site hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. (28) Additional on-site hydrants may be required during the building permit process. VTM50519 6 CRAFT 6. The City Clerk shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, to Ron Crowley of Diamond Development Company at the address as set forth on the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 1993 BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: 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 6th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] NOES: [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] ABSENT: [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] ABSTAIN: [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] ATTEST: Lynda Burgess, City Clerk TT50519.REs VTM50519 7 DR Ae, r.. RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 91-2, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 34 UNIT CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX ON A 2.3 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 23575 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Diamond Development Company, 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton, California, has heretofore filed an application for approval of Development Review as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review application shall be referred to as "the appli- cation". 2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation 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. 14, 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, in- cluding the subject application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Pursuant to the order issued by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, action was taken on the subject application as to the consistency with the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar. 4. On March 16, 1993 the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the appli- cation and continued and concluded said public hearing on April 6, 1993. 5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution 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. This City Council specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. CCDR91-2.RES 1 2. The City Council specifically finds that the initial study prepared and reviewed by the City of Diamond Bar and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder and further said Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The Council 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 proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Council rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Notwithstanding any previous Subsection of this Resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment thereof shall be made by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other entitlement. 4. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above -referenced public hearing opened on March 16, 1993 and concluded on April 16, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and in conformance with Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City Diamond Bar, hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 23575 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar with a gross area of 2.33 acres and is zoned C-1 (Restricted Commercial). (b) Properties to the east and south are developed with single family residences, to the north the site is developed with a multi -family complex and the sites to the west are partially developed by commercial development and single family residential home. (c) The applicant's request is for architectural and site plan review of the project to construct a 34 unit condominium complex. (d) The subject property has graded and currently is a vacant undeveloped parcel. (e) The site is sufficient adequate ingress and family development in current land uses. CCDR91-2.RES 2 in size and can provide egress to allow multiple character with surrounding CRAFT (f) The subject site lies within the Diamond Bar draft General Plan Medium Density Residential (RM) land use designation. The current zoning of the site is not consistent with the land use designation. (g) Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on February 17, 1993. Notification of the property owners within a 500 foot radius was mailed on February 24, 1993. (h) The design and layout of the proposed development will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the neighboring existing and future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrians hazards; (i) The architectural design of the proposed condominium complex is compatible with the character of the surrounding development and will maintain the harmonious, orderly, and attractive development contemplated by this Chapter and the contemplated General Plan of the City; (j) The design of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color that will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance. (k) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. (1) This application was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar on February 8, 1993 at the conclusion of the public hearing. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this City Council approves the application subject to the following restrictions as to use: Planning Department (1) This permit shall not be effective for any purpose until a duly authorized representative of the owner of the property involved has filed at the office of Planning Division of the Community Development Department the Affidavit of Acceptance and accepts all the conditions of this development review. CCDR91-2.RES 3 (2) That the applicant must comply with all federal, state, Zone R -3-(15)U, Public Works and Community Development Department's requirements, and that all grading, drainage plans and wall plans shall conform to all City standards or as amended by this action and shown on the approved plans; (3) The 34 unit condominium project is approved and shall be reflected on three copies of the elevations, site plan, irrigation plan, and landscape plan, similar to that presented at the public hearing and marked Exhibit "A" and conforming to such of the following conditions as can shown on a plan, shall be submitted for approval of the Community Development Director. All construction materials must comply with the materials board approved by the City Council marked as Exhibit "A-111. The property shall thereafter be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved plans. (4) Drought tolerant landscaping shall be incorporated where possible on the landscape plan. All landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. (5) No construction shall occur within the setbacks as delineated on the approved site plan. (6) Street trees with year round foliage shall be planted along western elevation of Golden Springs Drive per the approved landscape plans (refer to above listed condition No. 3). (7) All exterior lights above wall height be shielded and be directed away from adjacent development; (8) Trash enclosures and the location of the mail boxes shall be located shall be located to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director and illustrated on the approved site plan. (9) The project shall comply with all local and state ordinances for noise level standards. (10) All air conditioning units shall be ground mounted and screened from street level view by each unit's privacy wall. (11) The applicant shall satisfy the Park Obligation by contributing land acreage or the in -lieu fee to the City prior to recordation of the final map per code section 21.24.340. (12) Conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) shall be provided to the Community Development Director and the City attorney for review and approval prior to CCDR91-2.RES 4 recordation of the final map. A Homeowners Association (HOA) shall be created and responsibilities thereof shall be delineated within said CC&R's. (13) A clause shall be incorporated into the CC&R's which requires disputes involving interpretation or application of the agreement (between private parties), to be referred to a neutral third party mediation service (name of service may be included) prior to any party initiating litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction. The cost of such mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. A Homeowners Association (HOA) shall created and responsibilities thereof shall be delineated within said CC&R's, such as maintenance of common areas. (14) All walls open to the public from outside the project shall be textured in earth tones and shall additionally be covered with ivy or other similar vegetation. (15) The property shall be maintained in a condition which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlements granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction, shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. (16) The applicant shall submit a development program and schedule to the City prior to recordation of the final map and all amendments to said schedule shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval. (17) The outside storage of recreational vehicles is prohibited. (18) The following conditions shall apply to the common lots and the recreational lots: a. Open space areas and common lots shall be shown on the site plan and tract.map and shall be: 1. Conveyed as a mandatory fractional undivided interest to each purchaser, or 2. Conveyed to a Homeowners Association charged with the operation and maintenance of such common areas for the benefit of all owners, CCDR91-2.RES 5 or b. Open space areas shall be maintained in a manner satisfactory to the Community Development Director; C. Use all recreational areas shall be restricted to owner -tenants and their guests; (19) No signs are approved as a part of this approval. All signs must be submitted to the City under separate application and must comply with all standards in effect at the time of application. (20) This grant is valid for one year and must be exercised (i.e. construction started) within that period or this grant will expire. A one year extension may be requested in writing and submitted to the City 30 days prior to the expiration date. CCDR91-2.RES 6 J PrRLIC WDR" DRP-&RTXFXT (21) The applicant shall contribute $12,500 toward additional signal phasing requirements at Diamond Bar Blvd. and Golden Springs Drive based on additional traffic generated from the proposed development. (22) The applicant shall contribute towards the street overlay of Torito Lane in the amount of $40,000 or complete the work as approved by the City Engineer. All improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director prior to issuance of the Certificate of occupancy. (23) No internal on -street parking is permitted within the development based on the street width being allowed and the internal streets shall be designated as private. streets. (24) The applicant is required to post a bond for the traffic signal at the intersection of Torito Lane and Golden Springs in the amount of $120,000 for a period of three years from date of approval. The bond is to be released and or reduced by any other contributions received by the City should a traffic signal be warranted during the period. (25) Handicap ramps shall be installed at the corner of the Torito Lane and Golden Springs Drive in compliance with the City's specifications. (26) The site plan shall depict all on-site street and safety lighting to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. (27) The applicant shall obtain approval by County Sanitation on the location of the structures affecting County Sanitation easements and submit written evidence to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. (28) The applicant shall comply with all other standard conditions of approval unless referenced and amended herein as in attachment "A-111. FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENT (29) Provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by the County Forester and Fire Warden for all land shown on the map to be recorded. (30) Provide Fire Department and City approved street signs and building address numbers prior to occupancy. CCDR91-2.RES 7 (31) Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any portion of structure to be built. (32) Access shall comply with Section 10.207 of the Fire Code which requires all weather access. All weather access may require paving. (33) The private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Fire Lane" and shall be maintained in accordance with the Los Angeles County Fire Code. (34) All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. (35) Private driveway/fire lane shall be 26 feet clear to sky width. All buildings shall be less than 3 stories and less than 35 feet high. (36) The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of 2 hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. (37) The required on-site fire flow for private on-site hydrants is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi. Each private on-site hydrant must be capable of flowing 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi with any two hydrants flowing simultaneously. (38) Fire hydrant requirements as follows: 3 existing fire hydrants. Existing private on-site Fire hydrants. (39) All hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal. All hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour fire wall. (40) All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. (41) Additional on-site hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. (42) Additional on-site hydrants may be required during the building permit process. 6. The City Council hereby provides notice to the applicants that the time within which judicial review of this Resolution CCDR91-2.RES 8 must be sought is governed by the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedures Section 1094.6. 7. The City Council shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Reso- lution, to Ron Crowley of Diamond Development Company at the address as set forth on the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 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 6th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] NOES': [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] ABSENT: [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] ABSTAIN: [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] ATTEST: Lynda Burgess, City Clerk CCDR91-2.RES 9 ORDINANCE NO. (1993) T AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BY RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, HEREIN DESCRIBED, FROM THE C-1 (RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL) ZONE TO THE R -3-(15)U (LIMITED MULTIPLE RESIDENCE, 15 UNITS MAXIMUM PER GROSS ACRE) ZONE. (ZONE CHANGE NO. 91-1). A. Recitals. (i) Diamond Development Company, 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton, California, has heretofore filed an application to amend the official zoning map of the City of Diamond Bar, reclassifying certain real property, described as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County as Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 2888 as per map filed in Book 42 Page 11 of Parcel Maps and generally located at the 23575 Golden Springs Drive (Said "real property" hereinafter in this Ordinance). (ii) Attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein, is a proposed official zoning map amending the official zoning map of the City of Diamond Bar by reclassifying said real property from Restricted Commercial (C-1) zone to Limited Multiple Residence (R -3- (15)U) zone, as proposed by the applicant. (iii) On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized Municipal Corporation of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Section 57376, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14 thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 22 of the Los Angeles County Code (as subsequently amended by Ordinance Nos. 15 and 15A of the City of Diamond Bar) 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. (iv) The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Pursuant to the order issued by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, action was taken on the subject application as to the consistency with the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar. (v) On March 16, 1993, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the subject application and concluded said hearing on April 6, 1993. VTM50519 1 (vi) All legal prerequisites to the 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. Section 2. The City Council specifically finds that the initial study prepared and reviewed by the City of Diamond Bar and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder and further said Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar. Section 3. The City Council hereby finds that a negative declaration has been prepared with respect to the project identified in this Resolution and, further, that said negative declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder. Further, this Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said negative declaration. Section 4. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above -referenced public hearing opened on March 16, 1993 and concluded on April 6, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and in conformance with Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City Diamond Bar, hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) That the modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning plan as it pertains to the area or district under consideration; and (b) That a need for the proposed zone classification exists within such area or district; and (c) That the particular property under consideration is a proper location for said zone classification with such area; and (d) That the placement of the proposed zone at such locations will be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare, and in conformity with good zoning practice; and (e) That the proposed zone change is consistent with the proposed General Plan. VTM50519 2 DRAFT Section 5. The City Council finds that the facts supporting the above specified findings are set forth in the negative declaration, the staff report and exhibits appended thereto, and the information provided to this City Council during the public hearing conducted with respect to the project and the negative declaration. Section 6. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Diamond Bar hereby is amended to reclassify that certain real property, hereinabove described, from the C-1 (Restricted Commercial) zone to R -3-(15)U (Limited Multiple Residence, 15 Units Maximum Per Gross Acre), all as set forth in the Official Zoning map attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 6th day of April, 1993. 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 6th day of April and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 6th day of April---, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar VTM50519 3 M M�SUBJECT 2.3 ACRE SITE 11 N 7 8 M /1fsl KC em TR NO v 246 MB 6564! -79-8C EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ZONE CHANGE NO. 91-1 From C-1 to R -3-15U APRIL 6, 1993 March 18, 1993 An Open Letter to The Diamond Bar City Council, Traffic Commissioner, City Staff, and Residents RE: Resolution No. 93-05: No Right Turn — Rolling Knoll onto Grand Avenue To Whom It May Concern: Recently while changing channels on my television I started watching the Diamond Bar City Council meeting where the above referenced, ill-advised resolution was passed. Members of the City Council should be careful not to pander to a small group of citizens. The City Council and staff should consider the interests of all the residents of Diamond Bar, not just a self-selected, vociferous, and privileged few. While all residents should take an interest in local government, it shouldn't be necessary for every resident to show up at the council meeting to keep city traffic regulations and other restrictions fair to all residents. Furthermore, groups of residents — even if they number 400 — should not expect the City Council to be at their beck and call, nor should the city provide them with favors that are unfair to other city residents. We all live here. A minority should not be allowed by City Council to trample the rights of the majority. Commuting and traffic are stressful for everyone. My wife and I gave up high paying jobs in corporate America in favor of working at home and spending more time with our two boys, Joseph, age 6, and David, age 3. City Council has done our boys no favor. Restricting turns on a public street just adds to the anger and frustration of stressed - out commuters who are both residents and non-residents. Initially some residents of the "Keep Out — This Means You" streets (Rolling Knoll) may get satisfaction. It is disgusting that they should have such contempt for everyone else, whether "outside" commuters or Diamond Bar residents, just for using "their" public street as if it were ... a public street. The televised council meeting was the first I had heard about this matter, but it was obvious to me at once that this resolution would adversely affect many local residents — not just out-of-town commuters. I can only conclude it was also obvious to the residents who demanded it, and to the council members who allowed it to be passed. They should be ashamed. This resolution is being defended by the city staff and certain council members because it is "temporary" and because "the residents requested it." Both of those rationales are specious, and I would like to respond as a resident who most emphatically did not request it. Temporary? The City Council and staff seem to be under the impression that because something is temporary they are free to do it regardless of how many city residents are adversely affected, how much additional traffic results, how many accidents may be caused, or how many city residents are needlessly subjected to unnecessary and unfair regulations. Why wait three months? After the first day's huge, unnecessary traffic jam, this stupid idea should have been scrapped. Let the "It's my street and you can't drive here" complainers move to Catalina Island or other places where automobile restrictions are harsh enough for their needs. Besides the "gang of 400 complainers" there are 45,000 (or more) other residents in this city, including me and my family. All residents of Diamond Bar have just as much right to drive on that street as do those who live there. It is unfortunate that traffic is heavy there during peak hours, or that out-of-town commuters cut through, but that doesn't entitle the 400 vociferous residents of that housing tract to take away my family's right to use a public park for Little League practice or make an occasional trip there to the post office or supermarket. Requested by Residents? Dozens of streets become busy during peak traffic hours. Does the City Council intend to place restrictions on every street simply to please the residents of these "busy" streets? Each time a surface street becomes crowded or busy, residents descend on the City Council and the Walnut Sheriff s office for more traffic regulations and heavy enforcement. It seems like more traffic signals, signs, and radar traps are popping up all the time. Why not just sell these streets (and their maintenance costs) to the 400 residents, and let them post "Private Road, Trespassers Will Be Shot" signs? Failing that, City Council needs to recognize that we all pay the policing and maintenance costs, and we all have a right to access these streets. The home we purchased on a cul -del -sac was $40,000 more than a similar home one street over, on busier Longview. If residents of Diamond Bar's thoroughfare streets, or on streets that feed thoroughfare streets, want to avoid traffic, they should pay for that "luxury," just as my wife and I did. Or move to communities less densely populated. These days avoiding traffic is a luxury. They call it the "evening rush" for a reason. If 400 residents of a certain housing tract take it upon themselves to bully the City Council into turning their street into a semi -private road, I guess that's understandable. The self-serving few can all pack up and move to some more rural area, as other Nick and Patricia Anis, 1125 Bramford Court, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (909) 860-6914 (voice), (909)396-0014 (fax/modem) discontents have done. That way they would get what they want and the City Council could go back to governing on behalf of all Diamond Bar residents, not just a self-serving few. Why the Turning Restriction is a Bad Idea This resolution restricts the traffic flow of "local" city residents en route to the school playground and city park used for Little League practices and games, to the supermarket, restaurants, and other shops, during the hours local residents need to access these places. Dozens, perhaps, hundreds of local city residents will have to make a left turn, travel one or two intersections and make a difficult and dangerous U -Turn. The Grand Avenue left turning pocket at Diamond Bar Boulevard was already overfilled during these hours, usually requiring two or more light changes. This stupid regulation will only make the traffic worse. It will increase the potential for accidents. It will turn an inconvenience to some local residents into a danger to others, as cars jockey for position. It will create dangerous traffic jams at intersections already overcrowded during high density periods. It completely disregards the rights of more than 90% of us, just because 400 or so people raised a selfish ruckus. It is a gross mistake to pass a resolution adding additional cars to these intersections or causing traffic jams on them. (Even if they are temporary ones!) Thousands of motorists on Grand Avenue were adversely affected during implementation of the restriction that turned this public thoroughfare into a private lane, benefiting only the residents of the lane. During the first two weeks, hundreds (possibly thousands) of cars were backed up nearly a mile, causing 30 -minute and longer gas -guzzling delays to get past those two intersections where numerous police were writing tickets to unsuspecting motorists nonstop. Talk about a travesty of justice! And while this was going on, several residents of Rolling Knoll and Country View walked over to gawk at the hapless motorists being ticketed by a squadron of six to ten police cars and motorcycles. (I guess the helicopters and national guard units weren't available!) I wasn't one of the trap victims, just a witness; but if an unhappy object of their gawking had thrown over the traces and gone after them, I'd hardly have been surprised. Does City Council really want to create situations guaranteed eventually to snap someone's temper? Impairing public safety would hardly seem to be one of City Council's primary missions. In any case, the crowd of spectators and huge force of law enforcement personnel helped further contribute to the traffic tie up by causing more rubber necking, like a rolling snowball. According to the Sheriff's Department traffic sergeant, with whom I spoke, the residents "have been telling our officers how pleased they are!" I imagine they have. No doubt it's very entertaining for these resentful souls. But how many local residents driving eastbound on Grand Avenue (not breaking any laws) do you suppose stopped to tell the police how they felt about being needlessly held up by the traffic this experiment created? This is NOT the way to solve the problem of out-of-town motorists who use side streets to bypass an already crowded freeway, Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Blvd. traffic tie-ups. In fact, there may NOT be a short term solution to this problem, other than enforcing existing traffic regulations. If people are speeding on Rolling Knoll and Country View, then existing laws should simply be enforced. If the residents who pushed for the new resolution are being honest, it shouldn't be too difficult to catch motorists going the "50 to 65 miles an hour" they claimed people were traveling. Out-of-town commuters could also be cited for violations such as tailgating, not wearing seat belts, operating unregistered or uninsured vehicles, and so on. The fact of the matter is that streets that feed major thoroughfares can, and probably will become busy during peak traffic hours in spite of the City Council's willingness to give in to residents who would rather not face reality. The City Council, Traffic Commissioner, and staff should realize and explain to the residents that traffic conditions in Diamond Bar may not get much better. It doesn't take a traffic engineer to figure out that thousands of more homes are being built in Chino Hills and Walnut. If the traffic on our streets lightens up, more cars will once again divert to these streets in an attempt to find less congested routes. The best remedy to increased congestion is better city planning, not new regulations. Phyllis Papen appears to have the right idea in pushing for freeway improvements, including more carpool lanes. Papen's plan will be a great help in the long term. In the short term, however, we must use care not to over -regulate the citizens of our community, or to create or over -enforce traffic regulations that add to our problems and put our people at increased risk. All that I ask is that the City Council Traffic Commissioner, and staff use care to avoid over -regulating the residents. Diamond Bar must not be turned into a miserable place were regulations and traffic enforcement have gone wild. Small groups of citizens must not be permitted to control what happens in the city. And our City Council should take more care not to cave in to loud minorities, without regard for the other residents who have placed their trust in local government to protect everyone's interest. Sincerely, Nick Anis Stop Resolution No 93-05: No Right 1Vrn — Rolling Knoll onto Grand Ave. Out of town traffic cutting through our surface streets is a big problem, but making our streets private or semi -private is not the answer. Public streets are... "public streets" — for the use of all residents. Turning restrictions intended to eliminate cut -through non-resident traffic must not be permitted when our residents and their children are affected! This stupid turning restriction is creating massive traffic jams and city residents are being inhibited from driving to schools, parks, and shops. If this restriction is allowed to become permanent, more restrictions will follow. Before long Diamond Bar residents will be driving around in circles from one "no turn permitted" sign to another. Residents going to the supermarket may have to drive to Walnut or Chino before they can turn around to get back to their homes! Long View, Summit Ridge, and many of our other streets are congested during rush hours; will additional turning restrictions also be placed on these streets? Stop it now, before it's too late! Don't let a relatively "small" group of residents interfere with you and your family going to the park or shopping, or off to work to earn a living. Furthermore, do NOT allow the city council to pass restrictions without notifying ALL the residents that will be effected. While their actions were legal, instead of representing the interest of all residents, they chose to give into a relatively small angry mob of residents who expect us all to suffer because their street has too much traffic during rush hours. Call, fax, and write the Diamond Bar City Council, Traffic Commissioner, and staff and "just say no!" to this no -right -turn restriction today! City of Diamond Bar 21660 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (909) 396-5676 'To: City of Diamond Bar 21660 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (909) 396-5676 Stop Resolution No 93-05: No Right Mirn — Rolling Knoll onto Grand Ave. Out of town traffic cutting through our surface streets is a big problem, but making our streets private or semi -private is not the answer. Public streets are... "public streets" — for the use of all residents. Turning restrictions intended to eliminate cut -through non-resident traffic must not be permitted when our residents and their children are affected! We, the residents of the City of Diamond Bar, request the city council remove the turn restrictions passed by Resolution No. 93-05, and not pass any further turning restrictions without prior notification to all residents affected. Furthermore, provisions must be made to revoke it immediately if traffic jams result. Name Name Address Address Phone day Phone day Phone pm Phone pm Name Name Address Address Phone day Phone day Phone pm Phone pm Name Name Address Address Phone day Phone day Phone pm Phone pm Name Name Address Address Phone day Phone day Phone pm Phone pm • T• P.aBox 4153, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 • • (909) 860-3463, FAX. (909) April 5, 1993 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Attn: Mayor Gary Miller and City Council 21660 Copley Dr. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 RE: Sandstone Canyon Dear Diamond Bar Mayor Miller & City Council: The Sandstone Canyon/South Pointe Development Project has raised the specter of secret meetings, special interests, poorly conceived planning, profiteering and insensitivity to the environment and preservation of open space. Many Diamond Bar residents are concerned about property values, and continuance of Country living. With the issuance of an Oak Tree Permits, subdivision maps, conditional use permits and the go-ahead on Environmental mitigations, plus General Plan and zoning changes, the City is taking forceful measures without clear authority of a General Plan. Why? Your own stated concern with the appearance of a conflict of interest must be weighed and measured by the public's right to know. Avoidance of further discussions on Sandstone Canyon or participation in voting is not enough. You have already voted and actively pursued elements of the development project when you voted for acquisition of the Walnut Valley Water District surplus property on Brea Canyon -- a significant parcel for the development complex. The community needs to know your full involvement. Because there are known title disputes, quick purchases of land and quit claim transactions, not to mention an on-going lawsuit involving the school district, the very real possibility exists that the city may be linked, because of its "deep pockets" in future litigation. What due diligence measures has the city taken -- particularly since it is perceived as a development partner. Please keep in mind that the council's past actions in another project has already resulted in a $128 million lawsuit and current legal expenses projected to exceed $100,000. This suit could have been avoided by clearer instructions to developers and a brief time extension for scientific studying of slope stability in the back country development project. Attention to detail would have avoided your own $6,000 fine for transferring a quarter of a million dollars in the last days of your Senatorial campaign, and not reporting it until after the election. The Fair Political Practices Commission had warned you earlier on a mass mailing provision of the law. P.O.Box 4153, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 • • (909) 860-3463, FAX: (909) 86-Y'8881 The Council's losses in court over the general plan need not be. recounted here, except as a reminder that in all issues of public interest there must be full disclosure, and the perception that government is acting on behalf of the people. We want to know that Sandstone Canyon is in our community's best interest -- that it is more than smoke and mirrors -- that there is a real plan with real players and real mitigations that can be carried out without the city treasury to back them up. Are we getting new parks, or just freeway strip developments which promise to bring crime, traffic and blight to our community. What are we giving up for loss of this natural resource in our community. Please respond to these concerns in writing and fully document. Your immediate attention to the attached list of specific questions will serve our community's best public interest. Most sincerely, Clair W. Harmony Citizens For A Better Diamond Bar P.O.Box 4153, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 • • (909) 860-3463, FAX. Questions Of Concern For Sandstone Canyon: 1. For what time periods did Mayor Miller own the land in Sandstone Canyon? 2. How was he able to acquire property which had restrictions on it and expect to resell it in a timely fashion? 3. Who did he buy the land from? 4. Who did he sell the land to? 5. How did his employee become manager to the RnP property? 6. Are there any continuing understandings or responsibilities of Mayor Miller concerning the RnP property? 7. What due diligence steps has City Hall taken to understand the financial integrity of the property owners involved? 8. Have they obtained Credit Bureaus, Dun and Bradstreet business reports on each of the principals? 9. Has there been a financial analysis of balance sheets and other records for each of the property owners. 10. Are good faith/performance bonds required or contemplated? 11. Who is the owner of RnP? Where is his base of operation? Is there a public profile available? 12. How much did Mayor Miller pay for the property and what did he receive three months later when he sold it? 13. Does he plan or has he made any other land acquisitions in the immediate area? 14. Identify all corporate entities in which Gary Miller has an interest. 15. Did Mayor Miller meet with city staff on this project and its lands before he left city government and while he was out of office? 16. Who acted as agent in the sale of the RnP property, both in its acquisition and resale to RnP? 17. Are the various property owners developers or just holding companies? What legal instruments require their good faith efforts? 18. What contingency plans will guarantee continued progress on this project if one or more parties default? 19. Since the Patel properties are not dependent on the other projects, does he have a right to withdraw from the planned project. 20. If Patel withdrew, what additional access roads would have to be opened up into existing neighborhoods? 21. If the RnP property were frozen because of a cloud on the title. or taken into a receivership for financial reasons, how would the connecting roadways be accomplished and would the other developers have expectations of the city and its deep pockets? 22. Has the city undertaken a thorough title search and obtained professional legal opinion as to any restrictions on the RnP property? Is there title insurance? P.D.Box 4153, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 • • (909) 860-3463,,FAX.- (909) 86T8881 23. Have we obtained employment history of each of the property owners and their management teams? 24. Does any other member of the City Council have a vested interest in any of the involved properties, or city employees present or past? 25. Was John Forbing a member of the Walnut School Board when Arciero was allowed to stockpile uncompacted fill -dirt, and which has lead to the present lawsuit between the district and developer? Please chronicle the school district's lawsuit, identifying members of the school board, and give attention to lack of a performance bond. 26. Does Councilman Miller and Jan Dabney have any other mutually beneficial business interests? Please document. 27. Does the early processing of the EIR and Oak Tree permits have anything to do with the General Plan Referendum? 28. How often have members of the city council met with staff and developers to discuss Sandstone canyon. Please list dates, public notice, agenda topics, members in attendance and distinguish between individual members of the council and the !Council's subcommittee on open lands development. Also, were there any directives or recommendations which resulted from these meetings. 29. How often have members of the Planning Commission met with staff and developers to discuss Sandstone canyon, including the time sequence involving the public hearing process. Please list dates, public notice, agenda topics, and any directives or recommendations which have come from these meetings. 30. Would the Proposed Amphitheater be commercially developed, thus requiring maximum scheduling and the addition of a Budweiser Freeway sign? 31. Is the City currently talking with or negotiation with Wal -mart or Target to put a store on the Sandstone Canyon commercial property, and has there been an economic assessment as to negative impacts freeway developments would have on the established business community? WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ASK ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND TO QUESTION THE RESPONSES.